Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Nuclear Reactors In Every Major City..  
User currently offlineAGM100 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 5407 posts, RR: 16
Posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2938 times:

I was watching a documentary on the USS Reagan the other night. The show took the viewer on a passage into the reactor area of the ship ..although limited because of security one was able to get a general idea of the size.

I was struck by the general simplicity of the idea .... essentially a steam generating system that turns turbines .. correct ? Next question is why we do we not have these size reactors in every major or mid size city in America ? . According to the narrator the reactor system on the Reagan creates enough power to "light a medium size US city".

Obviously the units are safe ...they have a very good track record I would say.... so would you support the installation of one in your town ?

Positives :

1. Reduce our dependents on hydro electric system in place now ... it would free up water ways for agriculture and ease the overburdened system.

2. Reduce our dependents on coal ... we could sell it to the emerging countries to power their systems.

3. If we go to electric vehicles nuclear charging systems would be able to handle the demand.

4. Free up more of our petroleum and natural gas products to be sold on the markets.

5. Create high tech jobs , and move our energy infrastructure to the next generation of technology.

Negative's :

1. Waste disposal

3. Accidents and radiation containment .... could be solved with containment ideas but is still a huge problem.


You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
71 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2921 times:



Quoting AGM100 (Thread starter):
Positives :

1. Reduce our dependents on hydro electric system in place now ... it would free up water ways for agriculture and ease the overburdened system.

2. Reduce our dependents on coal ... we could sell it to the emerging countries to power their systems.

3. If we go to electric vehicles nuclear charging systems would be able to handle the demand.

4. Free up more of our petroleum and natural gas products to be sold on the markets.

5. Create high tech jobs , and move our energy infrastructure to the next generation of technology.

Negative's :

1. Waste disposal

3. Accidents and radiation containment .... could be solved with containment ideas but is still a huge problem.

It seems that the positives far outweigh the negatives. I am full agreement with you AGM100.  checkmark 



We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
User currently offlineFlanker From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1627 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2907 times:



Quoting EA772LR (Reply 1):
It seems that the positives far outweigh the negatives. I am full agreement with you AGM100.   

Same here. Nuclear seems to be the logical source of power for the near future given the demand which will be needed.

I am a huge proponent of it.

Also i am sure one day we will be generating energy from means much more powerful than the nuclear forces.



Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmacist
User currently offlineAjd1992 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2901 times:

The French have it down to a fine art, pretty much. They have a number of them.

Unfortunately, too many people complain about them (and to a point, rightly so). We don't want another 3 Mile Island or worse, another Chernobyl. That buggered everything up there for those people and their future generations for something like 20 THOUSAND years. I personally don't mind them, my nearest one is Sellafield in Cumbria and nobody really complains about them here. I'm all for them - as long as they're operated properly.


User currently offlineRacko From Germany, joined Nov 2001, 4856 posts, RR: 20
Reply 4, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2897 times:

Because a major accident is not just tragic, but catastrophic.

Nuclear power plants need very strong cooling, making it difficult to run them in the summer. France, which relies heavily on nuclear power and is a major energy exporter in the winter actually has to import huge amounts in the summer. Not a problem on a ship obviously.

Plus Uranium is finite. There wasn't all that much to begin with. And it doesn't really get cheaper to mine it.

And, despite what the involved companies try to tell you - it's really expensive to build a nuclear power plant, especially to today's safety standards.

But the major point remains how catastrophic a nuclear disaster is. If a coal/oil/gas/solar/water/etc power plant blows up you mourn the dead and then start rebuilding it. If a nuclear power plant blows up you can kiss that area and everybody who was in it Good Bye for a long time.


User currently offlineYellowstone From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3071 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2862 times:



Quoting Racko (Reply 4):
If a nuclear power plant blows up you can kiss that area and everybody who was in it Good Bye for a long time.

And how many times has that happened? Once. How many times has it happened in a way that wasn't easily preventable given basic safety standards? Never.

Just curious here - how many people do you think died/will die due to Chernobyl? No looking up on Wikipedia, I want your gut answer.

Quoting Racko (Reply 4):
Plus Uranium is finite. There wasn't all that much to begin with. And it doesn't really get cheaper to mine it.

Next-generation reactor technologies and fuel reprocessing can lead to efficiencies high enough to make it cost-effective to extract uranium from seawater. That could fulfill our uranium needs for several million years.



Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2860 times:



Quoting Racko (Reply 4):
Because a major accident is not just tragic, but catastrophic.

Agree, and yet you say:

Quoting Racko (Reply 4):
it's really expensive to build a nuclear power plant, especially to today's safety standards.

implying that today's standards would be better than before, and how many 'catastrophic' accidents have we had involving Nuclear power plants?



We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
User currently offlineAirport From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2859 times:

I agree that the positives outweigh the negatives. There are some strong negatives, but there are also very strong positives. Perhaps we don't need them in every city, but they could be a major help.

Quoting Racko (Reply 4):
Because a major accident is not just tragic, but catastrophic.

The hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths from automobile accidents didn't seem to stop us from progressing forward with the automobile.


User currently offlineFlanker From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1627 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2855 times:

Another great thing is that fusion is progressing nicely too.

Just think what that will do to the environmentalists when have it one day!  rotfl 



Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmacist
User currently onlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5416 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2848 times:



Quoting Racko (Reply 4):
Nuclear power plants need very strong cooling, making it difficult to run them in the summer. France, which relies heavily on nuclear power and is a major energy exporter in the winter actually has to import huge amounts in the summer. Not a problem on a ship obviously.

This is not true, there are many types of reactors out there that do not need cooling, the Chinese are looking to utilize these types of designs for their reactors.

The example I know of is called a "pebble bed reactor", they are design such that even a complete loss of coolant (indefinitely) does not cause the reactor to overheat. Both GE and Westinghouse reactors that don't require "strong cooling".

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineManuCH From Switzerland, joined Jun 2005, 3011 posts, RR: 47
Reply 10, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2844 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

The greens in Switzerland are making a big fuss about additional nuclear power plants, not because of the risk of an accident, but because of waste disposal. They do all the scaremongering that we don't really know how disposed waste will behave in 100+ years, if containers will hold correctly, etc.

I'm in favor of expanding nuclear power to gain our independence from fossil fuel. Realistically it's the only way forward I see.



Never trust a statistic you didn't fake yourself
User currently offlineWaterpolodan From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1649 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2832 times:



Quoting Racko (Reply 4):

And, despite what the involved companies try to tell you - it's really expensive to build a nuclear power plant, especially to today's safety standards.

And there's the basic problem. It's a question of economics. Building a nuclear plant that is fully compliant with the latest regulations of the IAEA in this country costs literally billions of dollars, and the time it would take for the plant to return a profit to the initial investors is far longer than simply building another 5 or 6 coal, oil, or natural gas power plants. There are reactors under construction in IIRC Tennessee and Georgia for the last 20 years, and still haven't been completed due to massive cost overruns, budget shortfalls, and ever more regulatory hurdles. I'm all for Nuclear energy as well, so long as we can figure out a truly safe method of waste containment, but until the cost of pollution is internalized by the other types of power generation and the playing field is leveled with nuclear energy, I don't think it's a realistic proposition.


User currently offlineRFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7569 posts, RR: 32
Reply 12, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2832 times:



Quoting AGM100 (Thread starter):
Obviously the units are safe ...they have a very good track record I would say.... so would you support the installation of one in your town ?

Shipboard - at least US Navy - reactors are quite a bit smaller than needed for any but a small city. They are extremely labor intensive and cost significantly more than civilian reactors. Which ain't cheap by any yardstick.

Shipboard reactors have access to basically unlimited cooling water supplies.

This is a significant issue with land based reactors - the access to sufficient cooling water. Even conventional coal and oil fired electricity generating plants required the construction of lakes to provide sufficient cooling.

Cooling the steam after it is used to generate power can cause major unplanned ecological changes in a smallish body of water - as the water is heated permanently above the normal temps.

Now personally, I see nuclear power as the ONLY way to break our dependence on fossil fuels. Other generation methods all have their own enviornmental damaging aspects - even wind generation has negative enviornmental consequences.

However, the capacity needs show that only nuclear can provide a sufficiently large volume of electricity to replace some fossil fuel plants.

Yes, nuclear is a potential disaster, but as countries like France and Japan have shown, they can be built and operated safely. Even by for-profit companies.

We have one nuclear plant with two reactors about 85 miles from my home. It is almost directly upwind based on average yearly weather/ wind conditions. So if there is an accident, the odds are 50-70% that we would get radiation, along with most of the rest of the Fort Worth / Dallas metroplex.

I think we need to embark on a program to build substantially more nuclear reactors in the US.


User currently offlineAGM100 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 5407 posts, RR: 16
Reply 13, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2832 times:



Quoting Racko (Reply 4):
If a nuclear power plant blows up you can kiss that area and everybody who was in it Good Bye for a long time.



I am not a scientist ... but how is this the case when we see Nagasaki and Hiroshima essentially uncontaminated and thriving? Was it due to the type of bomb used , the type of uranium ?

If the reactor and system is the size able to be operated in a aircraft carrier or submarine ... it seems a containment system could be built fairly easily like underground or hardened. I understand it would need to withstand a tremendous blast like Chernobyl possibly , but I don't envision reactors the size of Chernobyl .

Quoting Racko (Reply 4):
Plus Uranium is finite. There wasn't all that much to begin with. And it doesn't really get cheaper to mine it.



That is a real problem , I agree . Although I believe that the uranium in one of those reactors last for a very long time , is that correct ? Point being that with planning it could be sustained somewhat .

I don't see these being the sole energy source for our future ... but it seems like it could be a strong link in the energy chain.



You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2825 times:



Quoting Racko (Reply 4):
But the major point remains how catastrophic a nuclear disaster is. If a coal/oil/gas/solar/water/etc power plant blows up you mourn the dead and then start rebuilding it. If a nuclear power plant blows up you can kiss that area and everybody who was in it Good Bye for a long time.

Not convinced this is a strong enough argument against nuclear power. There were 56 direct deaths from Chenobyl and maybe 4,000 extra cancer deaths from the 600,000 most heavily exposed. Certainly terrible, but not catastrophic. Certainly not something to destroy the industry. For example, there were 4,717 on-board aviation fatalities from 1999 to 2008, and we all support that industry.


User currently offlineWaterpolodan From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1649 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2800 times:



Quoting 777236ER (Reply 14):

Not convinced this is a strong enough argument against nuclear power. There were 56 direct deaths from Chenobyl and maybe 4,000 extra cancer deaths from the 600,000 most heavily exposed. Certainly terrible, but not catastrophic.

Granted, the number of deaths was minimal given the scope of the radiation released, but how many square miles are included in the exclusion zone in Belarus? IIRC, it's nearly 1/3rd of the country that is uninhabitable because of the "heat" that will remain for thousands of years. Now that truly is catastrophic. Imagine that happening anywhere near a large urban center in the US.

Ironically, it's been a boon for the wildlife of the exclusion zone, and on some darwinian level it has accelerated the evolution of those animals because the ones that thrive are the ones that are the most resistant to the toxic nature of the radioactive water, soil, and foliage.


User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6576 posts, RR: 24
Reply 16, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2793 times:



Quoting AGM100 (Reply 13):
I understand it would need to withstand a tremendous blast like Chernobyl possibly , but I don't envision reactors the size of Chernobyl .

I think you would need reactors the size of Chernobyl if you want to power a city of any real size. The reactors on a carrier might power a city of 10,000 people, but that's not really much.

I also don't think nuclear power would really create a lot of new jobs since you are talking about replacing many of the people who work in the fossil fuels industry (goodbye coal miners!).

I do support nuclear power and think we should be building more plants. My only issue is coming up with an effective way to deal with the waste.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39684 posts, RR: 75
Reply 17, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2794 times:

I am pro-nuclear power all the way.
It is the cleanest and most efficient source of power. France doesn't seem to have much of a problem with it either.

How about all of the coal mining deaths?

Quoting Racko (Reply 4):
it's really expensive to build a nuclear power plant, especially to today's safety standards.

Well thank Ralph Nader and his minions for that.  


Listen to Penn and Teller on Nuclear Energy.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Usg7-xbQOcM



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2786 times:



Quoting Waterpolodan (Reply 15):

Granted, the number of deaths was minimal given the scope of the radiation released, but how many square miles are included in the exclusion zone in Belarus? IIRC, it's nearly 1/3rd of the country that is uninhabitable because of the "heat" that will remain for thousands of years. Now that truly is catastrophic. Imagine that happening anywhere near a large urban center in the US.

'Truly catastrophic' has surely to be measured in lives lost. I agree that the land loss is large, but is it truly out of proportion to the benefits? Remember, nuclear power is essentially a carbon-free way of producing power. The mitigation of climate change must also be considered.

Also consider that burning coal reduces carcinogens. Per gigawatt-year of energy produced by coal there are 0.8 lethal cancers per plant per year. That's 320 deaths per year from cancer caused by radiation released from coal power plants.


User currently offlineWaterpolodan From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1649 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2784 times:



Quoting AGM100 (Reply 13):

I am not a scientist ... but how is this the case when we see Nagasaki and Hiroshima essentially uncontaminated and thriving? Was it due to the type of bomb used , the type of uranium ?

Short answer, yes. The type of waste from the original atomic weapons dissipated almost immediately, but the type of waste from a Chernobyl-type meltdown has a far, far longer half life, and there is a lot more of it than a simple "clean" bomb like fat man or little boy. For nitty gritty specifics, ask a nuclear engineer, I'm certainly not one of those  


User currently offlineAverageUser From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2784 times:

As I write this, the Finnish nation consumes 12,055 megawatts of networked energy (exluding gas), out of which 6,158 MW is produced domestically in the form of electricity, and further out of this 2,726 MW (44%) is nuclear power. The percentage is actually higher as much of the imported electricity (1,412 MW) is produced by nuclear around St. Petersburg.

User currently offlineWaterpolodan From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1649 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2776 times:



Quoting 777236ER (Reply 18):

'Truly catastrophic' has surely to be measured in lives lost. I agree that the land loss is large, but is it truly out of proportion to the benefits? Remember, nuclear power is essentially a carbon-free way of producing power. The mitigation of climate change must also be considered.

I say saying something is a catastrophe can also be measured in lost economic output. If you are forced to abandon huge swaths of land, that is definitely out of proportion to the benefits of a mostly carbon-free power source. What if those lands aren't just wilderness, but thriving farmland? Or a major watershed like Lake Powell out west? That would have economic and personal repercussions on an unimaginable scale, even if the actual death toll is low.


User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5564 posts, RR: 6
Reply 22, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2768 times:



Quoting AGM100 (Reply 13):
I am not a scientist ... but how is this the case when we see Nagasaki and Hiroshima essentially uncontaminated and thriving? Was it due to the type of bomb used , the type of uranium ?

Hiroshima's bomb was a Uranium bomb, Nagasaki's used Plutonium.

Both bombs were very inefficient, and released a relatively small amount of radiation. I have a feeling this was by design.

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 14):
Not convinced this is a strong enough argument against nuclear power. There were 56 direct deaths from Chenobyl and maybe 4,000 extra cancer deaths from the 600,000 most heavily exposed.

Chernobyl was very much a worst-case scenario. While the sealed reactor core itself will contain deadly amounts of radiation for a couple thousand years, the surrounding area has already started to recover, and could possibly be hospitable within 50 years.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineYellowstone From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3071 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2764 times:



Quoting Waterpolodan (Reply 15):
Granted, the number of deaths was minimal given the scope of the radiation released, but how many square miles are included in the exclusion zone in Belarus? IIRC, it's nearly 1/3rd of the country that is uninhabitable because of the "heat" that will remain for thousands of years. Now that truly is catastrophic. Imagine that happening anywhere near a large urban center in the US.

You're confusing the fallout zone with the exclusion zone. Yes, quite a bit (~25%) of Belarus got fallout dumped on it, but the exclusion zone around Chernobyl is only 30km in radius. It's even safe to go inside the exclusion zone for limited periods (workers at the Chernobyl plant work 4 days on, 3 days off). And yes, the radioactive heat will take many centuries to dissipate entirely, but it's down to safe levels in most areas.



Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
User currently offlineRacko From Germany, joined Nov 2001, 4856 posts, RR: 20
Reply 24, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2734 times:



Quoting AverageUser (Reply 20):
As I write this, the Finnish nation consumes 12,055 megawatts of networked energy (exluding gas), out of which 6,158 MW is produced domestically in the form of electricity, and further out of this 2,726 MW (44%) is nuclear power. The percentage is actually higher as much of the imported electricity (1,412 MW) is produced by nuclear around St. Petersburg.

Wasn't Olkiluoto III supposed to be finished last year? I read something about Siemens causing some delays. Is it working by now?


25 Post contains images Par13del : The technical experts can weigh in but I do not believe that we have ever had a nuclear reactor "blow up", Chernobly was a melt down which is signifi
26 Mt99 : You forget cost.
27 OzGlobal : Energy independence and security were primary drivers for France going nuclear after WWII. This is now paying huge dividends with 90% nearly of all el
28 Post contains links FriendlySkies : Thorium reactors seem to solve all the current issues with uranium - cost, size, and safety. Perhaps this should be taken more seriously, though I don
29 Post contains links AverageUser : In short, no. (I don't know if one can single out Siemens as it's a Aveva-Siemens consortium that is builning the reactor as a turnkey project.) Anyw
30 MD-90 : That sounds more like France doesn't have enough electricity generating capacity for a/c use during summer. I grew up less than 15 miles from Browns
31 Post contains links L410Turbolet : What they did at Chernobyl was playing some sort of "war games" and experimenting with non-standard operational conditions and given the nature of th
32 AKiss20 : Absolutely would have no problem with it. In fact I am sitting about 2,500 feet away from one as we speak (granted it is not a commercial sized one).
33 Mham001 : There are large neighborhood sized reactors being sold now, just not in the US, I saw their marketing last year somewhere. Can be installed undergroun
34 Superfly : Yes. The soon-to-be closed General Motors/Toyota plant (NUMMI) down in Fremont or at the fmr. Naval shipyard at Hunters Point here in San Francisco.
35 PlymSpotter : The reactors are suprisingly small. I've been into the reactor area of a sub and it was fascinating, although the control rooms were far from simple,
36 DfwRevolution : Not by design, per se, but rather our limited understanding of nuclear weapons design in 1945. Fat Man and Little Boy were only the second and third
37 Racko : Sounds like the perfect way to build a safety-critical building.
38 RFields5421 : I think it was more due to a lack of understanding of the way radiation released by a bomb works. But the key design factor of both bombs was that th
39 Aesma : You don't build a nuclear reactor in a city, that's foolish. You build it where there are as few people as possible. Unless it has a 100% yield, it ne
40 DocLightning : Yeah, I have one problem with nuclear reactors in San Francisco. See, sometimes the ground here moves. And sometimes it moves really hard. Better mov
41 Aesma : Yeah that's possible. Until some years ago nobody had A/C here, but in summer 2003 we had record high temps (with a lot of death due to lack of prepa
42 Aaron747 : That hasn't stopped the Japanese from building more than 30 powerplants. Accident free for over 40 years! *crossing fingers*
43 Connies4ever : Well, there's just too much here for a nuclear physicist (me) not to comment on: Containment is a last resort type of thing, better safety system and
44 RFields5421 : The October 1989 San Francisco earthquake was a 7.0. The January 1994 Northridge earthquake near Los Angeles was 6.7. The San Onofre and Diablo Canyo
45 AverageUser : Not to speak of the image of what major European high-tech building cooperation has to offer to the world. Let's hope the Chinese officials won't unn
46 AGM100 : Well it seemed like a good idea ...but many on here have pointed out the week points and I agree . I guess it just makes more sense to me than just ta
47 D L X : THIS environmentalist is pro-Nuclear. Let's not paint with too broad a brush.
48 Connies4ever : [quote=AGM100,reply=46]Do I understand your point being that it was essentially "human error" during the test in that they did not follow procedure?.
49 Post contains links Aesma : Well, did anybody put billions in solar or wind projects ? In France we have the first solar furnace since 1970 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_
50 Post contains links Baroque : At last!!! Covers most things. Thanks. There is no reason why a reactor cannot be built to withstand an earthquake and designing large buildings to r
51 L410Turbolet : If that includes subsidies and bonuses for the so called "green" energy customers are forced to pay through their energy bills, because the we are ch
52 AGM100 : You have a point , but I tend to believe that the US DOD and other agencies have put a good amount of effort into the technology. I base this on a si
53 Post contains images AirCatalonia : Well, the future is obviously fusion, but it doesn't like look like it will be up and running until at least 60 years from now. By then we will have r
54 RFields5421 : Yes, tens of billions of dollars have been put in to solar projects. From solar furnaces to solar panels. The same with wind power generators. The si
55 Post contains images AverageUser : At least these 1 MW units below I saw in person recently made no significant noise above the normal coastline background noise, and I don't think the
56 RFields5421 : The blades need to be adjusted and checked frequently - a couple times a year or more. The bearings need to be checked at least yearly. Blades need t
57 Aesma : I meant billions in one single project, just like a nuclear plant. For a power plant, you don't want solar panels, they're not efficient, costly, fra
58 AverageUser : If I stand right underneath one 1MW unit pictured as I did, there was no noice that I could discern above the background noise at what I'd think was
59 DocLightning : Infrastructure is for industrialized nations like those in Europe and Asia. The United States is apparently incapable of constructing new infrastruct
60 RJ111 : A problem with Nuclear is that's it's good for a baseline energy output but it's not agile enough to cope with the daily fluctuations in electricity d
61 mt99 : How does that jive with: That a utility company's nightmare scenario. Not, the loss revenue part- but the metering, control and personnel safety issu
62 RFields5421 : My brother is the end client on a power line that runs 3 1/2 miles from the next customer on power poles alongside a partially paved rural county roa
63 mt99 : That's because they have to - it doesn't mean they like it. Its a nice science project when you have a few % of your service territory doing this. I
64 Post contains links and images AverageUser : Why are they not using insulated conductors? See below: From: http://www.ensto.com/files/4WPrnJK0X...ent/Ilmajohtoratkaisut_6-45_kV.pdf The system's
65 Post contains links RFields5421 : The do use insulated connectors / connection technology. Your picture shows snow. The power lines in that region of south Arkansas can handle any snow
66 AverageUser : My brief reseacrh did not indicate these would be yearly, or even decadal, events in most of the U.S. where they have been mentioned to occur. Winter
67 RFields5421 : We do not see them yearly in the Dallas area. However, the US power companies have very good cooperative agreements. The local utility companies, Onc
68 L410Turbolet : Source of energy which is likely to generate surplus in certain situations seems to me as a far lesser of a problem than "clean" sources of energy (w
69 Superfly : Ignore those fools! They'll use the power once they see the benefits anyway.
70 mt99 : I agree with you 100% - You cant have ALL wind but It seems that 20% of "non-dispatchable" energy resources is a nice, technically feasible level of
71 AverageUser : I don't think they have anything fundamental against being regulated (within their limitations), but you will want to use every second of their rated
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
"Sin City" Is, In Every Way, Incredible! posted Sun Apr 3 2005 07:26:53 by Blackhawk144
Why No Nestle Concentrated Milk In Major City? posted Wed Feb 23 2005 16:14:53 by Kay
India: Pakistan's Nuclear Sites In Taliban Hands posted Sat May 16 2009 12:58:48 by Dreadnought
Bargains In New York City posted Mon Apr 13 2009 15:21:55 by KstateinALB
Go Spartans In Detroit Rock City! posted Sun Apr 5 2009 06:54:22 by Stretch 8
Second Nuclear Leak In France Within One Week.. posted Fri Jul 18 2008 05:07:34 by Beaucaire
Crazy Finish In The Major Leagues posted Thu Sep 27 2007 20:59:22 by Allstarflyer
IDF Commandos Captured Nuclear Materials In Syria posted Sun Sep 23 2007 03:13:30 by RJpieces
Poll: Dems Beat Republicans In Every Matchup posted Thu May 10 2007 22:39:51 by Cba
Bars/clubs In New York City... posted Fri Mar 9 2007 21:49:05 by Jaws707