#21
|
|||
|
|||
Dunce Cap [was Oil cap]
On Jun 17, 1:16*pm, Quadibloc wrote:
On Jun 15, 4:28*am, Pat Flannery wrote: I'm not that optimistic. But I think that people would put up with nuclear power plants more easily than ten million windmills. Well maybe, but that isnt actually the situation. Take a standard 3.6MW windmill and you would need approximately 277 of these to equal a 1000MV reactor, not 10 million of them. Take into account that some wind generators are pushing 10MW and that drops to only a 100. Along way from 10 million. To put in perspective, the US energy Information administration report for 2008 on Power generation capacity lists, 104 Nuclear generators producing 106,147MW (nameplate capacity) 494 Wind generators producing 24,980MW (nameplate capacity) Now the WInd generators are in general windfarms (more than one generator) and the reactors are singular. However, quadrupling the existing wind power infrastructure in the US would make Nuclear power redundant and all the associated waste and security issues along with them. Additionally, the US is dependant on foreign sources for the nuclear fuel. The major players are either traditional rivals eg: Russia or countries that are allies but whose younger generations are increasingly hostile to the US (boding badly for future supplies). The US being dependant on Uranium is equally as bad as being dependant on middle east oil in IMHO. Short of the US actually reigning in their ridiculous energy consumption, renewable sources seems the way to a better future. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Dunce Cap [was Oil cap]
tom Donnley wrote:
On Jun 17, 1:16 pm, Quadibloc wrote: On Jun 15, 4:28 am, Pat Flannery wrote: I'm not that optimistic. But I think that people would put up with nuclear power plants more easily than ten million windmills. Well maybe, but that isnt actually the situation. Take a standard 3.6MW windmill and you would need approximately 277 of these to equal a 1000MV reactor, not 10 million of them. Take into account that some wind generators are pushing 10MW and that drops to only a 100. Along way from 10 million. To put in perspective, the US energy Information administration report for 2008 on Power generation capacity lists, 104 Nuclear generators producing 106,147MW (nameplate capacity) 494 Wind generators producing 24,980MW (nameplate capacity) Now the WInd generators are in general windfarms (more than one generator) and the reactors are singular. However, quadrupling the existing wind power infrastructure in the US would make Nuclear power redundant and all the associated waste and security issues along with them. With the caveat that you do need some capacity for some days that are not windy. Having more than 20% of your energy coming from sources which are not reliable isn't practical. You can do tricks like having a surplus of generators at hydro dams which can produce at an unsustainable rate when the wind is down and let the water level replenish when it is more windy but to do this kind of thing for more than 20% of your energy needs is usually not very efficient. Additionally, the US is dependant on foreign sources for the nuclear fuel. The major players are either traditional rivals eg: Russia or countries that are allies but whose younger generations are increasingly hostile to the US (boding badly for future supplies). The US being dependant on Uranium is equally as bad as being dependant on middle east oil in IMHO. Short of the US actually reigning in their ridiculous energy consumption, renewable sources seems the way to a better future. I think that the cost of the fuel is a minor part of the equation for nuclear energy production. The US could extract uranium on its own soil if it wanted to do so, it doesn't because the deposits in Canada and elsewhere are a cheaper source. But I don't think it would be a major disruption to the US economy to use US uranium at twice the price. It's not as for petroleum, for which the price of the fuel is the major cost. For nuclear, the cost of the energy comes mainly from the cost of building and operating the plant, not the uranium ore. Alain Fournier |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Oil cap
On Jun 18, 8:06*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article c9b3160d-00e2-4a5f-aec4- , says... On Jun 17, 10:02*am, Jeff Findley wrote: In article 9cc64ba0-04aa-44d7-acf4-ad2eaaf88e4c@ Irrelevant. *Humans can't operateat the sort of pressures *and* temperatures found on the surface of Venus. *It's hot enough to melt lead. *Human DNA would literally cook. Your unusual lack of physics and Semitic approved obfuscation is noted. Your anti-Semitic rants are pointless. * Jeff -- The only decision you'll have to make is Who goes in after the snake in the morning? Not nearly as pointless as you think, because I'm only pointing out those bad Semites (including Catholics, Jews and Zionists) which you and others of your mainstream status-quo never seem to mind no matters how bad they act or control our K-12s and the vast bulk of mainstream media. Do you think it's only Atheists or perhaps Muslims that are bad-guys? ~ BG |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Dunce Cap [was Oil cap]
On Jun 18, 12:01*pm, Alain Fournier wrote:
With the caveat that you do need some capacity for some days that are not windy. Sure, although that's where other sources such as geothermal, solar thermal etc come in. Even the solar panels on household roofs supplementing the electrical grid (as done in other countries) could achieve a good chunk of that. The point being I guess is that the US is the one country that doesnt have to be dependant on oil or nuclear, it just chooses to be. I think that the cost of the fuel is a minor part of the equation for nuclear energy production. The US could extract uranium on its own soil if it wanted to do so, it doesn't because the deposits in Canada and elsewhere are a cheaper source. True, although most of the viable US deposits are depleted or are on the way. For the others, well if you have to spend 10Gw to concentrate enough uranium to generate 1Gw its not really on. Thats why I believe that the US should get off the nuclear wagon, they will find it increasingly difficult to get foreign sources as time goes by. And I dont think you can rely on Canada forever, especially considering Canada sells as much of their finite sources as they can, whereas as countries such only allow some of the reserves to be exploited leaving vast amounts in the ground. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Dunce Cap [was Oil cap]
On Jun 20, 7:54*pm, tom Donnley wrote:
On Jun 18, 12:01*pm, Alain Fournier wrote: With the caveat that you do need some capacity for some days that are not windy. Sure, although that's where other sources such as geothermal, solar thermal etc come in. Even the solar panels on household roofs supplementing the electrical grid (as done in other countries) could achieve a good chunk of that. The point being I guess is that the US is the one country that doesnt have to be dependant on oil or nuclear, it just chooses to be. I think that the cost of the fuel is a minor part of the equation for nuclear energy production. The US could extract uranium on its own soil if it wanted to do so, it doesn't because the deposits in Canada and elsewhere are a cheaper source. True, although most of the viable US deposits are depleted or are on the way. For the others, well if you have to spend 10Gw to concentrate enough uranium to generate 1Gw its not really on. Thats why I believe that the US should get off the nuclear wagon, they will find it increasingly difficult to get foreign sources as time goes by. And I dont think you can rely on Canada forever, especially considering Canada sells as much of their finite sources as they can, whereas as countries such only allow some of the reserves to be exploited leaving vast amounts in the ground. Replace uranium reactors with failsafe thorium, and we're good to go. We should build up to a terawatt per century, plus as much solar, wind, geothermal and hydroelectric as possible. ~ BG |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Dunce Cap [was Oil cap]
On Jun 20, 8:54*pm, tom Donnley wrote:
The point being I guess is that the US is the one country that doesnt have to be dependant on oil or nuclear, it just chooses to be. Iceland might manage on geothermal. For the U.S. to subsist on solar and wind energy, though, would mean its deindustrialization... swiftly followed by Russia and China carving it up between them. Avoiding that is hardly a "choice". John Savard |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Dunce Cap [was Oil cap]
For the U.S. to subsist on solar and wind energy, though, would mean its deindustrialization... swiftly followed by Russia and China carving it up between them. Avoiding that is hardly a "choice". John Savard The US is already going thru deindrulization. havent you noticed the closed factories everywhere? |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Oil cap
On Jun 14, 4:16*pm, LSMFT wrote:
Somebody on the news said it's a shame we can go to the moon but can't cap on oil well. Now that I've though about that; *we CAN'T go to the moon any longer. The country has gone stupid and is no longer capable. -- LSMFT I haven't spoken to my wife in 18 months. I don't like to interrupt her. Obviously going safely to/from our moon is so much easier than plugging a hole in Earth. At least that's according to our DARPA and NASA/Apollo wizards that lost everything that was important or science worthy enough for ever doing it again. When is our President BHO going to formally seize control of all BP accesses, technology and any secondary holdings for damage-control collateral? Other big investment groups have been taken over upon having caused 1% as much national damage. Just because BP is thus far buying their freedom, doesn’t mean that a month or year from now they still be picking up the tab without gouging us on the price of their hydrocarbons, that’ll unavoidably inflate most every other hydrocarbon resource. As is, instead of any new hydrocarbon resource to soften the overpriced oil market, it's nothing but an extremely large added drain on supplies that had no surplus capacity to begin with. No wonder other gas and oil providers are keeping to themselves and smiling from ear to ear, as well as getting those laughter induced stretch marks in spite of all their anti-smirk botox injections, because in the near future they is going to hit yet another mega jackpot of profits. A federal mandate and if need be enforced by military actions should keep all such deep water explorations off-line until at least one of them Big Energy cartel/cabals can effectively demonstrate full blowout containment within 48 hours or less. If anything of less depth blows out, then it too shall also cause a mandatory shutdown of all oil/gas operations at that depth or greater, because the Gulf simply can’t afford another similar event (not even a little one). Judge Blocks Deep-Water Drilling Moratorium http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/23/us/23drill.html "But the order was challenged by a coalition of businesses that provide services and equipment to offshore drilling platforms. The companies sued, asking the judge to declare the moratorium to be invalid and arguing that there was no evidence that existing operations were unsafe." It seems there's also no evidence that the upper best of any oil and gas exploration technology can contain their blowouts nor effectively clean up their oily sulfur spillage, but what the hell worse can possibly happen to the new and improved ocean dead-zone that we used to call the Gulf of Mexico? BP calls the rest of us "little people" (just like Hagar and rabbi Saul Levy), as do them Rothschilds and their Queen. Devout Zionist Semites call the rest of us **** or whatever's worse, and if they could they just as soon see us put on a stick like they did to that other dark-skinned trouble maker. The only Mafia like commonality here is their religion(s) that suck and blow at us "little people". Perhaps we should all take a personal time-out break in order to get our pathetic “little people” life back, such as by cruising about on our multimillion dollar yachts (offshore registered to be tax- avoidance certain and 100% insured to that those pesky "little people" get to pay again and again), of course always catered to by our fleets of custom jets and teams of brown-nosed minions. Sounds real good to me. News flash: Just super BP great, as now those Rothschild BP wizards are admitting their worse case potential blowout of a hundred thousand barrels per day (4.2 million gallons), not counting their millions of cubic meters of raw (mostly toxic) natural gas per day. Of course that’s with their dysfunctional but somewhat flow restrictive BOP entirely removed, which could happen if they go for a BOP replacement, though I’m not certain it's even technically possible. This BP oily sulfur stench that has become the world’s largest and spreading ocean dead-zone is starting to smell more like the corporate greedy flatulence of ENRON, Ponzi Madoff and bogus derivatives combined (all kosher SEC approved none the less) that's still getting that AAA or 5 star investment rating. WTF, drill baby drill, because we sure as hell don’t want any of those Rothschilds or any other redneck Zionists/Jews as unhappy campers. ~ BG |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Dunce Cap [was Oil cap]
Quadibloc wrote:
On Jun 20, 8:54 pm, tom Donnley wrote: The point being I guess is that the US is the one country that doesnt have to be dependant on oil or nuclear, it just chooses to be. Iceland might manage on geothermal. For the U.S. to subsist on solar and wind energy, though, would mean its deindustrialization... swiftly followed by Russia and China carving it up between them. Avoiding that is hardly a "choice". Non sense. A few years ago, a group evaluated the total potential of wind electricity production in the province of Quebec. That is excluding areas where installing wind mills would be politically undesirable (cities and national parks) and places where installing wind mills would not be profitable at current energy prices. The potential turned out to be of comparable size to the total electricity use in North America. I would be very surprised if the US would not have much more wind energy potential than the province of Quebec. And if you cover every roof in the US with solar cells, you get lots of electricity. Also, Tom Donnley was talking about ceasing dependence to oil and nuclear. That leaves other options than just solar and wind. Hydro, bio-gas digesters, tidal energy... Alain Fournier |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|