"CLEAN" COAL? No Such Thing!
Quiffie
Nincompoop-In-Chief will leave America's ENVIRONMENT in a truly
perilous state.
From mis- and non-management of our forests, rivers, streams, and
lakes, our wetlands and marsh lands, our parks and mountains, our
scenery, our soil conservation, our wildlife and the very air we
breathe -- NEVER in our history has a "president" left the physical
properties of our nation in such a mess -- a morass -- of destruction
and neglect.
Why?
Because, among his other sub-legal activities and malign neglect,
Bushie has been so overwhelmingly PRO-BUSINESS that he has felt the
need to use whatever it takes "protect" his rich friends' sources of
wealth from those who would halt or inhibit the destruction of our
country's natural heritage.
One of your White House war criminal's pet projects for shielding big-
and-polluting-manufacturers and utilities from environmental laws and
their defenders is to tout what enemies of the land call "clean
coal." Never mind that there is no such thing as "clean coal," Chimpy
and friends want you to think that coal can magically be transformed
into a harmless and limitless source of energy. "Alternative" energy,
as they like to tell it.
Believe 'em, however, and you'd probably vote for this craven bastard
and his scummy buddies again. Wouldn't you?
---------------------------------------
" 'Clean' Coal? Don't Try to Shovel That"
By Jeff Biggers
Sunday, March 2, 2008; B02
Every time I hear our political leaders talk about "clean coal," I
think about Burl, an irascible old coal miner in West Virginia. After
35 years underground, he struggled to conjure enough breath to match
his storytelling verve, as if the iron hoops of a whiskey barrel had
been strapped around his lungs. In 1983, during my first visit to
Appalachia as a young man, Burl rolled up his pants and showed me the
leg that had been mangled in a mining accident. The scars snaked down
to his ankles.
"My grandpa barely survived an accident in the mines in southern
Illinois," I told him. "He had these blue marks and bits of coal
buried in his face."
"Coal tattoo," Burl wheezed. "Don't let anyone ever tell you that coal
is clean."
Clean coal: Never was there an oxymoron more insidious, or more
dangerous to our public health. Invoked as often by the Democratic
presidential candidates as by the Republicans and by liberals and
conservatives alike, this slogan has blindsided any meaningful
progress toward a sustainable energy policy.
Democrats excoriated President Bush last month when he released a
budget calling for more -- billions more -- in funds to reduce carbon
emissions from coal-burning power plants to create "clean coal." But
hardly a hoot could be heard about his proposed cuts to more practical
investments in solar energy, hydrogen fuel and home energy efficiency.
Meanwhile, leading Democrats were up in arms over the Energy
Department's recent decision to abandon the $1.8 billion FutureGen
project in eastern Illinois, planned as the first coal-fired plant to
capture and store harmful carbon dioxide emissions. Energy Department
officials, unlike politicians, had to confront the spiraling costs of
this fantasy.
Orwellian language has led to Orwellian politics. With the imaginary
vocabulary of "clean coal," too many Democrats and Republicans, as
well as a surprising number of environmentalists, have forgotten the
dirty realities of extracting coal from the earth. Pummeled by
warnings that global warming is triggering the apocalypse, Americans
have fallen for the ruse of futuristic science that is clean coal. And
in the meantime, swaths of the country are being destroyed before our
eyes.
Here's the hog-killing reality that a coal miner like Burl or my
grandfather knew firsthand: No matter how "cap 'n trade" schemes pan
out in the distant future for coal-fired plants, strip mining and
underground coal mining remain the dirtiest and most destructive ways
of making energy.
Coal ain't clean. Coal is deadly.
More than 104,000 miners in America have died in coal mines since
1900. Twice as many have died from black lung disease. Dangerous
pollutants, including mercury, filter into our air and water. The
injuries and deaths caused by overburdened coal trucks are
innumerable. Yet even on the heels of a recent report revealing that
in the last six years the Mine Safety and Health Administration
decided not to assess fines for more than 4,000 violations, Bush
administration officials have called for cutting mine-safety funds by
6.5 percent. Have they already forgotten the coal miners who were
entombed underground in Utah last summer?
Above ground, millions of acres across 36 states have been dynamited,
torn and churned into bits by strip mining in the last 150 years. More
than 60 percent of all coal mined in the United States today, in fact,
comes from strip mines.
In the "United States of Coal," Appalachia has become the poster child
for strip mining's worst depravations, which come in the form of
mountaintop removal. An estimated 750,000 to 1 million acres of
hardwood forests, a thousand miles of waterways and more than 470
mountains and their surrounding communities -- an area the size of
Delaware -- have been erased from the southeastern mountain range in
the last two decades. Thousands of tons of explosives -- the
equivalent of several Hiroshima atomic bombs -- are set off in
Appalachian communities every year.
How can anyone call this clean?
When the Bush administration announced a plan last year to do away
with a poorly enforced 1983 regulation that protected streams from
being buried by strip-mining waste -- one of the last ramparts
protecting some of the nation's oldest forests and communities -- tens
of thousands of people wrote to the Office of Surface Mining in
outrage. Citizens' groups also effectively halted the proposed
construction of 59 coal-fired plants in the past year. Yet at last
weekend's meeting of the National Governors Association, Democratic
and Republican governors once again joined forces, ignored the
disastrous reality of mining and championed the chimera of clean coal.
Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell even declared that coal states will be
"back in business big time."
How much more death and destruction will it take to strip coal of this
bright, shining "clean" lie?
As Burl might have said, if our country can rally to save Arctic polar
bears from global warming, perhaps Congress can pass the Endangered
Appalachians Act to save American miners, their children and their
communities from ruin by a reckless industry.
Or at least stop talking about "clean coal."
(Jeff Biggers is the author of "The United States of Appalachia: How
Southern Mountaineers Brought Independence, Culture and Enlightenment
to America.")
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022903390.html
itsall_bull
Go nuclear!!! How come nucear reactors have been
so successful in submarines and surface vessels?
zzbu...@netscape.net
For one reason is that nuclear reactors are the only way you stay
submerged in a 3 billion dollar vessel for a month,
So hence Navy Robots where invented for the tax evaders.
And they're only used on surface ships because politicians like
to send big ships on 1 year deployments to the Indian Ocean.
So hence that's why GPS, Drones, Internet, and Laser-Guided Bombs
where invented for those morons.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bob Eld
"itsall_bull" <itsal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:05b38abe-cdee-42e7...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Cut...
Go nuclear!!! How come nucear reactors have been
so successful in submarines and surface vessels?
Because they work so well and have proven safety record. They are military
and are a necessity for long range and long submerged operation. Because
they are military, and largely classified, the public is not very aware of
their presence and is not consulted when they are designed, built and
commissioned. That reduces they amount of anti-nuclear activity from the
naysayers. Apparently what people don't know doesn't bother them.
Interestingly near where I live there are nuclear aircraft carriers and
nuclear subs. There must be a dozen or more reactors nearby at any given
time depending on what's in port. In addition there are nuclear weapons
storred in the vicinity. Curiously, its the nearby nuclear power plant that
worries the anti-nuclear folks not the bombs. That's because they are not
aware of them and nobody talks about them or even acknowledges them, but the
power plant is there for everybody to see. Go figure!
V-for-Vendicar
"itsall_bull" <itsal...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Go nuclear!!!
I agree, Iran and North Korea need about 400 reactors each.
itsall_bull
<Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
> "itsall_bull" <itsall_b...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > Go nuclear!!!
>
> I agree, Iran and North Korea need about 400 reactors each.
I was referring to a clean source of energy as compared to
coal to meet the US's need for energy.
Hank Kroll
> "itsall_bull" <itsall_b...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Nuclear isn't practical even for a government at war because it
takes more diesel fuel to dig tunnels into mountains to store the
nuclear waste for the next ten million years than the energy you get
out of it. The you have to hre bureaucrats for the next ten-million
years to watch the stuff so that terrorists don't get their hands on
it, mix it with explosives and detonate it over a major city. It works
in high speed navel ships because it is compact and doesn't weigh much
and it doesn't take up as much room as coal or diesel. You would have
to show me the numbers before you could convince me it is a viable
fuel for the future. It takes too much burning of diesel fuel to mine
and store it. There has to be somthing better out there like the
hydrogen perioxide the Germans were using in their submarines in WWII.
H2O2 can be made from water using surplus electricity from wind,
tidal, solar and geothermal power. There is enough geotherma energy
under Yellowstone Park to power the US for several thousand years. Why
aren't we using it. The undergroung heat extends south into Arizona.
BENIGN SOLUTIONS FOR GOLBAL WARMING
www.alaskapublishing.com
I have been on a quest to alter societal evolution into a more benign
directions with my books, COSMOLOGICAL ICE AGES AND GLOBAL WARMING and
PHILOSOPHER'S STONE.
My book, COSMOLOGICAL ICE AGES explains how the carbon resources were
made. Our sun is in a 105,000-year elliptical orbit around the Procyon
and Sirius star systems. After reading about the direction our sun is
traveling through space I plotted our course from Orion toward
Hercules and in the process discovered that we are in orbit around the
Sirius A and B which are only 8.5 light years away. We are part of a
cluster of 100 stars ruled by these two giants. Sirius B is a neutron
star of 1.5 earth diameters orbiting 20 earth distances from Sirius A.
Every fifty years it gets so close to Sirius A that it feeds off from
it several metric tons per hour causing it to put out thousands of
times more invisible ultraviolet light than our sun. I am now
convinced that the intense light from Sirius B is responsible for
advanced multi-celled life forms on earth.
Our sun was born with about 40 other stars in an Orion dust cloud not
too far from the Horse Head Nebula about 1500 light years toward the
center of the Galaxy (toward the Southeast). After our sun was born
and most of the planets formed from dust rings we drifted out in the
Orion Arm toward Hercules (northwest) for two+ billion years.
Galaxies make suns in dust clouds and send them out to make the body
of the galaxy. After our sun was born and the earth formed from dust
around the sun a billion years of volcanism gave earth a thick carbon
dioxide atmosphere of 750 pounds per square inch. {The December
Astronomy magazine mentions that early Earth had an atmosphere of
1,450 pounds per square inch and one third of that was carbon dioxide.
Now Co2 is only .0033 percent and the government is using this as an
excuse to control us?}
Earth was about one-third smaller diameter at that time. After that,
we (our sun) drifted out into the cold of space for a billion years
and earth had an ice age that lasted one billion years. All the oceans
were frozen. Our sun didn't burn as hot as it does today.
After a billion years of being covered with ice, earth and our sun
drifted between Procyon and Sirius A and B which are over a billion
years older than our sun. These giant stars orbit each other and each
have about 8 times more gravity than our sun. When little, Sirius B
orbiting Sirius A every 54 years came around, it grabbed hold of our
sun and pulled it into orbit around Sirius A because it has 1.5 to 10
times more gravity than our sun. This was fortunate for us because the
light and heat from these giant stars melted the ice on earth and
started plants to grow in the oceans thereby releasing free oxygen.
Our brother and sister stars kept going and are now 75 to 100 light
years ahead of us toward the north and are known as the Constellation
Ursa Major (Big Dipper).
Our fortunate capture by the Sirius system happened about 700 million
years ago and this was the beginning of all complex multi-cellular
life forms on earth. During the Carboniferous Era Sirus B laid down
limestone layers up to 12,500 feet thick. The continental United
States from the Rocky Mountains to the Carolinas was laid down at time
with limestone layers on average over 2,500 feet thick. [Look up
Carboniferous Era in Encyclopedia Britannica.] Carbon removed from the
atmosphere during that era was laid down in Pennsylvania and Virginia
as coal layers up to a hundred feet thick. Coal is made from grass and
trees and plants of all kinds. Anthracite or hard coal is compressed
from plant matter at a ration of 40 to 1. Soft coal is compressed down
at a ration of about 20 to 1. The point is, coal, oil, and limestone
are made from carbon dioxide using photosynthesis and ultraviolet
light from space and the majority of it came from Sirius B. Our sun
does not have enough power to keep us out of the ice ages otherwise we
wouldn't have them! If you want to know more please read my book. Go
to my web site www.alaskapublishing.com and download it for $4.
The point is Earth is loosing its atmosphere. We have a limited time
on earth. During Biblical times the Oxygen was 35%. Reference books
list it as 20% but it is down to about 18% yet we go on burning
things? At the time of the dinosaurs the atmospheric pressure was
around 30 pounds per square inch. Now it is down to 14.5 pounds per
square inch. Before our sun was captured by the Sirius system earth
had an atmosphere of 750 pounds per square inch. Over time and it was
laid down as limestone, coal and oil using photosynthesis in the
oceans and light from these stars. We have a limited time to get our
act together and get off the planet so that we can seed life in other
biosphere's. I am sure that a man as foresighted as Richard Branson
knows this otherwise he wouldn't be building space ports all over the
United States and spending 3-billion on alternate fuel research.
IS GLOBAL WARMING A REALITY?
According to a new Time/ ABC/Stanford University Poll 85% of
Americans believe that global warming is happening on some level.
We're still working on the answer to that question. Yes as we get
closer to our host stars we will eventually experience global warming.
And, since we just came out of an Ice Age we should expect at least a
one degree rise in temperature per century. In the mean time here are
a few numbers to throw around.
The average person just sitting there in a chair give off 340 BTU's
per hour. A thousand persons in a building can run the air
conditioning costs up to 340,000 BTU's per hour just to keep the
building at the same comfortable temperature. Given the poor
efficiency of the air-conditioning equipment (about 50%) the actual
amount of heat released into the environment by 1000 people inside a
building is 50% more than if they are outside in the open air bringing
the total up to 510,000 or about 1/2 million BTU's hour. When you are
working hard the average person can put out up to a thousand BTU's per
hour. There are conservatively 6.7 billion persons on the planet
putting out two trillion two hundred seventy eight BTU's per hour.
When you add in the air conditioning BTU's it is more.
Five percent of the world's energy is produced by nuclear. Scientists
claim more but they don't count the third world nations energy needs.
The moon imparts 2E20 jewels per second on each square meter on the
earth twenty-four-hours a day moving the tides around and the magma
underneath our feet. How many watts of energy is that? One thousandths
of that energy distributed equally over the surface of the earth is
equivalent to 490 watts per square meter per hour.
The average input of energy the sun imparts to earth is only 350 watts
per square meter because the sun only warms one side of the earth at a
time while the other side is exposed to the cold of space. Going from
a cold winter to a hot summer the sun's energy difference is only 20
watts per square meter per hour. The suns peak input to earth on a hot
day on the equator is 850 watts per square meter. It is much less when
it is cloudy making the average around 700 watts of thermal input at
the equator. You got to cut this in half because the other side of the
Earth is dark. There is 200,000 terrawatts of energy reaching the
surface of the Earth each hour. It is much less at higher latitudes
and practically zero above the Arctic Circle and Antarctic Circles.
The snow and ice reflects much of the suns energy back into space at
latitudes above 23.5 degrees. By tilting the Earth 23.5 degrees in
increases the suns input to Earth by approximately 20%.
The new solar cells are capable of 40% efficiency so you can get a
peak of 280 watts per square meter at noon on a hot day.
The world's current oil consumption is 85 to 90 billion barrels per
day. Each barrel of oil produces 5.8 million BTU's. What is more
important than the BTU's release by this oil is the soot produced. The
micro soot is accumulative and causes what scientists call "global
dimming.
When China comes into the industrial age the global world oil
consumption will be over a 100-billion barrels of oil a day by 2010.
This figure does not count the oil consumed in production and
transportation. The industry won't release these figures because they
don't want the government to shut them down. Exxon made a 39-billion-
dollar profit last quarter--that is, after spending as much as possible
to keep the government from getting it. They would rather give it to
the government than pay off their lawsuits.
According to General Motors Corporation the catalytic converter and
subsequent federal requirements have lowered greenhouse gasses by more
than 97% since the mid 1970's.
The majority of the world's electrical power is produced by big jet
engines. Most of them have bad thermal efficiencies and the best ones
have about a 50% thermal efficiency rating. On top of that they
consume vast amounts of fresh water. Utility power plants are the
world's largest consumer of fresh water on the planet and mankind's
biggest contributor of heat to the planet. All the power plants in the
world produce 15-terrawatts of electric power per hour. This power
output will double within a decade with China coming on line. On top
of that you have the consumption of fossil fuel increasing to 10-
billion tons per year.
They are still burning several thousand acres of rain forest per day
to make charcoal for the steel industry and to furnish charcoal for
the locals to cook their food.
CNN news release: Sacramento, California (AP) August 31, 2006
"California will impose broad new caps on it greenhouse gas emissions
under a landmark plan that marks a clear break with the federal
government and which backers hope will become a national model."
"Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who helped assemble the
plan, called Wednesday's agreement "an example of other states and
nations to follow as the fight against climate change continues..."
BEES DYING FROM INCREASED EMF
The population of honey bees in the United States has fallen by fifty
percent and scientists are wondering why. The antenna and micro hairs
along the antenna of honey bees is the right size to pick up
electromagnetic radiation from FM radio stations, cell phones, high-
powered cell phone towers and other sources. As a result they are
burrowing underground to escape the EMF radiation.
Twenty years ago when I turned the FM dial on my radio there were only
three stations. Now when I turn the dial there are at least fifty
radio stations on the FM band each putting out from five thousand
watts to a hundred-thousand watts and more! And that is just in my
small area of Alaska. Add to this increased EMF from low frequency
broadcast bands, power lines, wi-fi, and 900-mhz mobile house phones
and you have a tremendous increase of atmospheric electromagnetic
overload.
On the other side of the globe you have the Russian Woodpecker
pounding away on the ionosphere with low frequency radio waves to heat
up portions of Russia to extend the growing season and operating time
in the oil fields.
On this side of the globe you have the HAARP (High Altitude Aural
Research Project) project in Glenallan, Alaska pumping massive
amounts of low frequency EMF into portions of the ionosphere to alter
weather patterns.
In July 1995 Jean Manning telephoned the Institute of Advanced
Studies at Aspen, Colorado, to ask about possible effects of the HAARP-
type experiments which would make artificial electromagnetic storms
above the Earth - experiments which would lift parts of the ionosphere
and would literally expand those areas while accelerating more high-
energy particles in the already energetic atmosphere.
HAARP would add more energy to a global system that is already
stretched, replied the scientist. By "stretched", he meant hyper
stimulated by particle flows from the sun. In recent decades our sun
has been spewing larger-than-usual bursts of high-energy particles
into our planet's systems. Some of the hyperactivity stated before men
got into the act with nuclear explosions. With and effect similar to
solar flares, manmade radiation from atomic technologies adds to the
crossfire of super-speedy particles in which we live.
American astrophysicist, Adam Trombly at a Tesla conference in
Germany was saying that, before men detonated underground nuclear
tests or did anything else that was massively invasive to the state of
balance of Earth's systems, we were already saturated with an "energy
burden" from the sun? "The system is already at ner-terminal capacity
in our opinion," said Trombly.
The fact that Earth was getting hotter was reported in the New York
Times in 1991. The article said that "Arctic ice had decreased by 2%
in only a nine year period."
Then HAARP comes along.... "a project that could further destabilize an
earth that's already an unstable environment", as Trombly put it. The
thought of a planet whose systems are overloaded, and which may soon
reach the point where it couldn't take any more high-energy particles
was sobering. Manning thought about the enthusiastic attitude of the
scientists and military contractors whom the NO-HARP group called:
"the big boys with the big toys". Those big time experiments admit
that they don't know what will happen when they push ionospheric
heating experiments into the next level. They seem so excited the
macho adventure of passing the "next threshold of effects" in the
ionosphere, and do not hesitate to pump gigawatts of power up there
and intentionally accelerate particles in the ionosphere to
"relativistic" speeds - to near light speed. Why would they be so
irresponsible?
"In documents the HAARP planners put together in 1990 they say that
they were intentionally trying to get a "runaway" effect in the
ionosphere. This effect was new and would represent an energy
threshold not yet reached with these kinds of military tools. The
document said "...that at the highest HF (high frequency) energy
dissipative capability, beyond maximum RF (radio frequency) energy
dissipative capability, beyond which the plasma processes will
'runaway' until the next limiting factor is reached. What will happen
when this runaway event occurs? In other words, they don't know if
they will set the atmosphere on fire destroying the entire planet.
Trombly pointed out a similarity between the decision to pulse
several giga-watts into the ionosphere (HAARP) without knowing what
will happen, and the first atomic weapon testing. Years after the
test, Scientists were surprised by these results--the amplifying of the
signal much like the amplifying that occurs inside a vacuum tube. I
other words they were using the entire atmosphere of the earth like a
giant vacuum tube to amplify the input signal thousands of times.
SOLUTIONS FOR GLOBAL WARMING
In order to compute the human effect on global warming per hour on
each square meter of earth you have to take the 90-billion barrels of
oil consumed per day and add the oil used in refining and transporting
it to market and divide that by the number of hours in a day (24) to
find the total number of barrels consumed per hour. You then multiply
this by the number of BTUs in a barrel. Add the total of waste heat
from atomic power plants, coal, natural gas, rice paddies, rotting
garbage heaps, cattle, elephants, sheep, cats and dogs plus the 6.7
billion humans themselves each radiating 340 BTU's hour while sitting
in a chair then convert this to watts is a big job. After a while you
give up and throw in an arbitrary figure of about ten watts per square
meter and call it good.
The point is: we are releasing an 800-million year accumulation of
carbon resources in 100 years--carbon laid down using the invisible
light from Sirius B --light that is a million times more powerful than
our sun. Not only are we dumping heat into the environment in the form
of low energy photons it is the carbon soot that causes more global
warming than anything else--not to mention the irreparable damage it
is doing to our health.
I think hydrogen peroxide is one of several viable answers. Not the
diluted stuff in your medicine cabinet but a liquid that is much more
concentrated and easy to transport. It can be manufactured by excess
tidal and wind power. When you burn soft coal with hydrogen peroxide
there is practically no waste because there is almost enough oxygen in
it to completely combust the carbon and little or no atmospheric
oxygen is consumed. [The burn efficiency is about 70%.] You could
literally burn oily sand and get clean energy!
The same stuff can be burned in a diesel engine in your car. The
Germans were powering their submarines with it in World War II. If the
US Navy hadn't towed them out and sunk them so that the technology
wouldn't get into the hands of the private sector we would be
utilizing this source of energy today.
If NASA threw away their booster rockets fired with recycled rubber
tires and used hydrogen peroxide and diesel oil they would get 50%
more thrust with no pollution. This would allow them to put 50% larger
payloads into orbit. But, like most government projects they are
constantly shooting themselves in the foot due to mental constipation
brought about mostly by the educational system and the thick-headed
Germans like myself who are running the program
The newest solar cells are capable 40% production. There is a total of
200,000 terra-watts reaching the surface of the earth every hour of
the day but the low angel of incidence near the poles and reflection
off from ice reduces this amount considerably. The total number of
watts per square meter striking the earth near the equator is about a
thousand but due to cloud cover and the fact that half of the earth is
in the dark the average that can be utilized is about 350 watts per
square meter.
Windmills actually produce more power per square meter than solar
cells-- up to 40 K. W. per square meter thus leaving a much smaller
footprint on the earth. The little country of Germany has 21 giga-
watts of wind power pulling all the time. There are some areas where
the wind never stops blowing and there are some areas where the sun
never stops shining. We humans, if we are smart enough, should be able
to tap into at least a kilowatt of energy per square meter on earth.
There is a tremendous source of tidal energy in Alaska's Turnagain Arm
and Knik Arm and there is a company in Canada that will put in a six-
lane, bridge across these bodies of water for free if we let them have
the energy. The turbines are like large revolving doors in a
department store big enough to let whales through. Whales as well as
salmon can go through without being harmed.
If the electrical energy from the tides on upper Cook Inlet was
utilized to make LH2 and H2O2 hydrogen peroxide it would furnish
enough energy to power most of the United States. All this technology
is well understood.
If we can get more of the wind, solar and tidal energy on line we can
use any one of these to make hydrogen peroxide from water to smelt
glass, steel and other things for export. The hydrogen peroxide can
even be used for rocket fuel.
GEOTHERMAL
None of the above mentioned potential energy sources count geothermal.
There is approximately 40 terrawatts leaking out of the surface of the
earth every hour of every day from natural geothermal vents. Iceland
gets almost all its power from geothermal. Instead of sitting there
waiting for Yellowstone to blow up wiping out a third of the United
States our government leaders should encourage energy companies to
drill around the area and use the steam to generate electricity.
There is enough potential geothermal energy in Yellowstone Park in the
giant underground caldera that extends south into Nevada and Arizona
to power the United States for the next ten-thousand thousand years.
Instead of waiting for it to blow up wiping off a third of the
population of the United States off the map we should be cooling it
off by pumping water down there and recycling the steam through giant
turbines.
What you don't see in the human impact of global warming is the micro
soot given off by all this activity including jet contrails that cause
global warming. There are countries in the world today that consume
one-tenth the amount of oil that we do and they have higher education,
a higher quality of life and they live ten years longer. They pay for
it but you don't see them invading foreign nations and killing people
over oil.
The earth is loosing its atmosphere from a high of 1450 pounds per
square inch to it present level of 14.5 pounds per square inch. During
biblical times earth's oxygen was 36% and now they say it is 20% but
these are old figures. It really is down to 18% and less inside
buildings where people are living and breathing the air. Obviously we
have a limited time on this planet until we burn up all the oxygen
have to go underground or out into space to find another planet to
colonize with lots of water and a breathable atmosphere. Such a planet
with an excess of incoming light in the UV spectrum to release free
oxygen with plant growth and a high pressure Co2 atmosphere might be a
little difficult to find--if not impossible.
The obvious lesson here is that we had better take care of our
atmosphere by not burning it and quit wasting our time and resources
fighting wars for planet domination to steal those resources. We need
to get on with the development of more benign energy sources such as
geothermal, hydrogen peroxide, fuel cells, wind, wave, and tidal
power. There is a host of other advanced concept energy sources such
as zero point, helium-3, earth energy, fusion and high voltage
capacitor storage of atmospheric phoneme. Do you remember Benjamin
Franklin flying a kite in an electrical storm to collect electrical
energy? He may have been on to something.
www.alaskapublishing.com
V-for-Vendicar
.
On Mar 2, 8:45 pm, "V-for-Vendicar"
"itsall_bull" <itsal...@yahoo.com> wrote
> I was referring to a clean source of energy as compared to
> coal to meet the US's need for energy.
I was referring to a clean source of energy as compared to
coal to meet the Worlds need for energy.
itsall_bull
<Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
> .
> On Mar 2, 8:45 pm, "V-for-Vendicar"
>
> > I agree, Iran and North Korea need about 400 reactors each.
>
>
> > I was referring to a clean source of energy as compared to
> > coal to meet the US's need for energy.
>
> I was referring to a clean source of energy as compared to
> coal to meet the Worlds need for energy.
Leaders lead and for the US to be a world leader we must
set examples not just unleash hot air. Most of the world
is far ahead of the US in utilizing nuclear energy.
V-for-Vendicar
"itsall_bull" <itsal...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Leaders lead and for the US to be a world leader we must
> set examples not just unleash hot air. Most of the world
> is far ahead of the US in utilizing nuclear energy.
And Iran and North Korea are catching up real quick.
I commend them.
magdalena
hybrid types, traveling by public transportation, insisting that
government fund rail, light rail and interurban rail, instead of
highways, reducing urban and exurban sprawl where there is no
transportation except private autos, and we could walk instead of ride.
nuclear energy is not all that safe as there are hazards connected
with it. the stripping of land for coal destroys ecosystems,
contaminates ground water. The burning of coal causes pollutants to be
released into the air. I do not think there is any great movement
toward protecting the environment in areas affected by these industries,
as they are heavily promoted by the polluters industries, prohighway
lobbies, trucker lobbies, and Chambers of Commerce, nuclear industry
lobby, and the like.
Dan Bloomquist
>>
> we could reduce the need for oil by only buying electric cars...
Well, SURE we could! We could'a changed our ways 30 years ago. But the
last time I was on the highway I had several dodge ram pickups up my ass.
You are one of the folks that just doesn't get it...
V-for-Vendicar
"Dan Bloomquist" <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote
> Well, SURE we could! We could'a changed our ways 30 years ago. But the
> last time I was on the highway I had several dodge ram pickups up my ass.
You have only yourself to blame for that. Why are your countrymen so
stupid to speed and travel too closely on highways? Are you as a people,
too stupid to live?
"Dan Bloomquist" <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote
> You are one of the folks that just doesn't get it...
Don't worry. Soon highway speeds will be 40 mph and your car will be half
the size it is now and 1/4 the weight.
V-for-Vendicar
"magdalena" <mg...@hlynd.us> wrote
> we could reduce the need for oil by only buying electric cars,
What's going to generate the energy to charge the batteries?
You are right in that there are a wide variety of options available for
the reductionof CO2 emissions.
It's not rocket science. And Cowardice is the only thing preventing their
adoption.
Jack
> so successful in submarines and surface vessels?
>
radioactive landfills.
Nebuchadnezzar II
news:OKWdnVMyDqoQNNvV...@posted.echolabs...
Uranium mines aren't hazardous to those that live near them because the
uranium present is the ore is at extremely low levels. It can be hazardous
to miners because of radon gas if proper procautions aren't followed.
People who live near uranium mines may have problems with radon gas in their
homes, but this is simply because they live in an area with high uranium
levels and this would be the case whether the mine was there or not.
Modern designs for nuclear reactors produce very little waste. The
environmental impact of coal and even natural gas power plants are higher
than nuclear.
The problems with nuclear reactors have little to do with either of those
issues. The problem with nuclear reactors is they are EXTREMELY expensive
to build and there's a high degree of liability associated with them.
That's why they aren't being built in the US and the ones that are already
here can't be sold. Investors simply won't invest in them. Nuclear power
works in Europe because they have few coal and natural gas resources so the
high price of electricity justifies the high cost of the plant.
daestrom
"Nebuchadnezzar II" <nebucha...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:i3y1k.11034$%Z1.6469@trnddc05...
> "Jack" <furgfu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:OKWdnVMyDqoQNNvV...@posted.echolabs...
>>> Go nuclear!!! How come nucear reactors have been
>>> so successful in submarines and surface vessels?
>>>
>> Because the people on the sub don't live by the uranium mines or the
>> radioactive landfills.
>
> Uranium mines aren't hazardous to those that live near them because the
> uranium present is the ore is at extremely low levels. It can be
> hazardous to miners because of radon gas if proper procautions aren't
> followed. People who live near uranium mines may have problems with radon
> gas in their homes, but this is simply because they live in an area with
> high uranium levels and this would be the case whether the mine was there
> or not.
>
> Modern designs for nuclear reactors produce very little waste. The
> environmental impact of coal and even natural gas power plants are higher
> than nuclear.
>
> The problems with nuclear reactors have little to do with either of those
> issues. The problem with nuclear reactors is they are EXTREMELY expensive
> to build and there's a high degree of liability associated with them.
> That's why they aren't being built in the US and the ones that are already
> here can't be sold.
???
Many nuclear plants in the US *have* been sold. Some companies (Exelon and
Entergy for example) have built up 'fleets' of nuclear plants by buying them
from others and had good success in this business.
daestrom
Nebuchadnezzar II
news:4846ddba$0$7063$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
Some are profitable depending on how modern they are and/or the market they
are in and a few new plants may even be built in the near future, but most
of this is due to government subsidies and tax breaks.
At least 23 nuclear reactors have been decommissioned or are being
decommissioned which is more than the two "fleets" you mentioned combined.
At some point, nuclear reactors may become quite attractive if EPA
regulations are tightened, however you also have the fact that quite a bit
of new natural gas sources are being tapped due to the natural gas price
increases making production of more expensive extraction methods profitable.
Even if new nuclear plants are built in the near future, they will be
outnumbered by new natural gas power plants on the order of several hundreds
to one, and the reason for that is simply economics.
Docky Wocky
" The problem with nuclear reactors is they are EXTREMELY expensive
to build and there's a high degree of liability associated with them.
That's why they aren't being built in the US and the ones that are already
here can't be sold. Investors simply won't invest in them..."
__________________________
Economy of scale scares the neo-Luddites off in droves, and spooking
everyone else with their roto-technology* remains their primary intellectual
endeavor.
Plus, these are the same folks who happily drove American manufacturing
off-shore, so there ain't gonna be any saving buying nuke stuff from the
Chinese when it finally comes to that.
The anti-nuke dingbats have created the current energy situation - and, like
the great eco-god, Algore and his gluttonous energy consumption, they still
excell at inventing reasons for denying everyone else any benefits of
technologic change.
With Luddites in charge, we'll eventually be mining coal on Mars and
shipping it back here on space barges.
Remember These were/are the same types who have had a constant presence
throughout history fighting against any technologic improvements, beginning
with round rocks, the bow and arrow, iron ships, and the steam and gasoline
engines.
*No matter what it is, find a way to discourage it's use.
Nebuchadnezzar II
news:ZDC1k.5782$BY1.5774@trnddc06...
I was just wondering, Dicky. Do you ever have any actual facts and figures
to back up what the voices inside your head tell you, or do you just record
them for posterity sake so you can go back and read them when an alternate
identity takes over?
Just wondering.
Even with the government HEAVILY subsidizing nuclear plant production,
nobody is building them.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/23/AR2005072300752.html
Have a nice day, Dicky.
daestrom
???
Must be some 'new math'. Exelon owns and operates 17 reactors, Entergy owns
11 and operates 12 (Nebraska state law prohibits Nebraska public power from
selling Cooper, but they have an operating contract with Entergy to operate
the plant for them). That would make 29 plants being operated in those two
fleets. Last time I looked, 29 was larger than 23. The next largest
'fleet' is Duke power at seven and several other owners with six.
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/list-power-reactor-units.html
Those that have been shutdown were either managed poorly, were over 40 years
old (e.g. Shippingport, Big Rock, Yankee Rowe) or were 'one-of-a-kind'
prototypes whose design proved to be too costly to keep running. The owners
did not feel it economical to continue operation.
But even some of the early designs (Nine Mile Point 1 and Oyster Creek went
on-line in 1969) are still operating profitably. The *age* of the plant is
not the issue, it is how well management operates and maintains them that
makes the difference.
To further prove the point, many of the plants that have been sold in the
past 10 years were operating very poorly when sold (capacity factors < 70%).
Under new management they have turned around and become quite profitable
(capacity factors often > 90% even in a refueling year). Same plant, same
technology, but vastly improved performance. Once a plant's performance has
been 'turned around' by proper management and operation, the new owners have
invested heavily in extending the operating license to allow them to
continue operating them. They wouldn't make that sort of investment if they
were losing money or only marginally profitable.
Note the trend from the 'early years' to present in the column labeled
'capacity factor'. A sharp rise from the mid 70% range in the mid '90's
(73.8% in '94, 77.4% in '95) to the current levels pushing the 90% mark.
http://www.nei.org/filefolder/US_Nuclear_Generating_Statistics_1.xls
In the early to mid 90's, a lot of plant owners were looking to get out of
the business because they didn't see how they could improve profitability.
They didn't know how to raise capacity factor, and the electricity market
had been stale for several years. A few visionaries (John Heron of Entergy
for one) noticed that some *individual* plants were operating quite well and
figured, "If we can figure out what they do right, and duplicate it, we can
make money. Especially if the market for electricity rises."
So they bought nucs from disenchanted owners that were glad to be rid of
them. Then they straightened out some things and turned the plant
performance around. After they proved it could be done, they were able to
convince investors and Boards of Directors that they knew what they were
doing and they got capital to do it again (and again, and again).
As to 'government subsidies and tax breaks', please explain. The new energy
act is offering financial aid to the first new nucs to be built, but so far
that hasn't happened. The R&D government funding dried up decades ago.
There are no 'tax breaks' for operating a nuc that I know of. Nor do any of
those 'fleet operators' receive any subsidies from the government. Their
profitability comes solely from consistent, reliable operation and selling
their output (often on an open, deregulated, competitive market).
Some argue that the Price-Anderson act is a subsidy, but in reality it
isn't. It's an exception to the anti-trust laws and allows competing nuc
plants to share liability for an accident. The government doesn't pay
anything into that until every nuc plant owner/operator pays in something on
the order of $200M a piece for any damages. Even at that point, the
government doesn't 'pick up the tab', but has the option of assessing
further 'premiums' from all nuc-plant owners in the country.
> At some point, nuclear reactors may become quite attractive if EPA
> regulations are tightened, however you also have the fact that quite a bit
> of new natural gas sources are being tapped due to the natural gas price
> increases making production of more expensive extraction methods
> profitable.
>
> Even if new nuclear plants are built in the near future, they will be
> outnumbered by new natural gas power plants on the order of several
> hundreds to one, and the reason for that is simply economics.
The use of natural gas has several drawbacks. It still puts quite a bit of
CO2 in the air and that means its subject to the 'regulatory risk' you
mentioned. Natural gas prices are *not* going down despite your assertion
about 'new sources'. The current fuel costs for an NG plant are already
higher than almost any other type of plant (except the rare oil-burner).
During off-peak periods, the fuel costs for operating at full power exceed
what you can get for the electricity and you *lose* money by continuing to
operate.
But they do have a couple of advantages. They do offer a higher thermal
efficiency. And they have a low up-front capital investment and very short
construction time. So when peak demands rise and you need to add capacity
in a region for peaking to meet rapidly growing needs, an NG plant can be
built in less than two years time.
But compared to nucs and coal, their fuel costs are quite high. That is why
just about all NG turbine units are operating as 'spinning reserve' or
ancillary service units and not base-load.
Simple economics dictates that NG plants be used only for peaking and
shoulder load situations. Their low capital and O&M means those costs can
be supported with only part-load operation (unlike a high-capital nuc). But
when operating at full load, their cost per MW-hr far exceeds the other
options.
New construction of nucs right now is a bit of an unknown. After TMI, the
two-part licensing process meant a lot of delays after you've already
borrowed all the capital to build the thing. That forced capital costs way
up at a time when interest rates were already in double-digit territory.
The newer combined licensing *should* reduce/eliminate that risk, but since
no one has actually done it yet, it's still an unknown.
A federal repository for high-level waste (funded by money from all those
that would store waste there, both government sites and commercial sites)
has been delayed and is another unknown. Of course, these unknowns scare
capital investors.
But if CO2 legislation or other new restrictions on fossil plants will drive
up the costs of operating coal plants. So there may come a point soon when
the potential profits of a nuc will overcome these unknowns and new
construction may happen.
daestrom
Nebuchadnezzar II
I meant to say plants. Exelon has 11 nuclear plants. Entergy owns 11.
That makes 22. 23 nuclear plants have or are being decommissioned.
>
>
> Those that have been shutdown were either managed poorly, were over 40
> years old (e.g. Shippingport, Big Rock, Yankee Rowe) or were
> 'one-of-a-kind' prototypes whose design proved to be too costly to keep
> running. The owners did not feel it economical to continue operation.
>
> But even some of the early designs (Nine Mile Point 1 and Oyster Creek
> went on-line in 1969) are still operating profitably. The *age* of the
> plant is not the issue, it is how well management operates and maintains
> them that makes the difference.
I did say age, I said modern. Plants have been updated significantly, some
more than others.
>
> To further prove the point, many of the plants that have been sold in the
> past 10 years were operating very poorly when sold (capacity factors <
> 70%). Under new management they have turned around and become quite
> profitable (capacity factors often > 90% even in a refueling year). Same
> plant, same technology, but vastly improved performance. Once a plant's
> performance has been 'turned around' by proper management and operation,
> the new owners have invested heavily in extending the operating license to
> allow them to continue operating them. They wouldn't make that sort of
> investment if they were losing money or only marginally profitable.
>
> Note the trend from the 'early years' to present in the column labeled
> 'capacity factor'. A sharp rise from the mid 70% range in the mid '90's
> (73.8% in '94, 77.4% in '95) to the current levels pushing the 90% mark.
> http://www.nei.org/filefolder/US_Nuclear_Generating_Statistics_1.xls
I don't see the trend having much to do with the "management" of the
facilities. Plants built in the 50's and 60's had a lot of tubes,
mechanical relays, unreliable switch gear, and other various old technology.
This required them to be taken down for maintenance and overhaul much more
often. Vacuum tubes and other unreliable components are gone, switch gear
is vastly better, computer monitoring is now in place. As plants have been
modernized, they need less maintenance, less overhauls, and less people to
operate.
>
> In the early to mid 90's, a lot of plant owners were looking to get out of
> the business because they didn't see how they could improve profitability.
> They didn't know how to raise capacity factor, and the electricity market
> had been stale for several years. A few visionaries (John Heron of
> Entergy for one) noticed that some *individual* plants were operating
> quite well and figured, "If we can figure out what they do right, and
> duplicate it, we can make money. Especially if the market for electricity
> rises."
>
> So they bought nucs from disenchanted owners that were glad to be rid of
> them. Then they straightened out some things and turned the plant
> performance around. After they proved it could be done, they were able to
> convince investors and Boards of Directors that they knew what they were
> doing and they got capital to do it again (and again, and again).
>
>
> As to 'government subsidies and tax breaks', please explain. The new
> energy act is offering financial aid to the first new nucs to be built,
> but so far that hasn't happened. The R&D government funding dried up
> decades ago. There are no 'tax breaks' for operating a nuc that I know of.
> Nor do any of those 'fleet operators' receive any subsidies from the
> government. Their profitability comes solely from consistent, reliable
> operation and selling their output (often on an open, deregulated,
> competitive market).
My claim was the government is subsidizing new plant production, but just as
both of us have said, that isn't happening yet, if it ever will.
>
> Some argue that the Price-Anderson act is a subsidy, but in reality it
> isn't. It's an exception to the anti-trust laws and allows competing nuc
> plants to share liability for an accident. The government doesn't pay
> anything into that until every nuc plant owner/operator pays in something
> on the order of $200M a piece for any damages. Even at that point, the
> government doesn't 'pick up the tab', but has the option of assessing
> further 'premiums' from all nuc-plant owners in the country.
>
>> At some point, nuclear reactors may become quite attractive if EPA
>> regulations are tightened, however you also have the fact that quite a
>> bit of new natural gas sources are being tapped due to the natural gas
>> price increases making production of more expensive extraction methods
>> profitable.
>>
>> Even if new nuclear plants are built in the near future, they will be
>> outnumbered by new natural gas power plants on the order of several
>> hundreds to one, and the reason for that is simply economics.
>
> The use of natural gas has several drawbacks. It still puts quite a bit
> of CO2 in the air and that means its subject to the 'regulatory risk' you
> mentioned. Natural gas prices are *not* going down despite your assertion
> about 'new sources'. The current fuel costs for an NG plant are already
> higher than almost any other type of plant (except the rare oil-burner).
> During off-peak periods, the fuel costs for operating at full power exceed
> what you can get for the electricity and you *lose* money by continuing to
> operate.
I didn't say NG prices are going down. I said NG prices are going up.
However, as the price goes up, it becomes profitable to go after harder to
get sources. It stands to reason that NG price will stabilize at some point
as the thousands of frac wells being built start to produce. Right now the
problem is they can't build them fast enough.
I agree. Part of the problem I see is since it takes 6-7 years (or more) to
build a nuke, nobody knows what construction costs are going to be 5 years
from now as all the costs for materials are skyrocketing. From an
investment standpoint, there's just less risk going with a plant that can be
built quickly and relatively cheaply.
daestrom
> "daestrom" <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:48472afa$0$30225$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>
>> "Nebuchadnezzar II" <nebucha...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:4zB1k.11055$%Z1.2724@trnddc05...
>>> "daestrom" <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4846ddba$0$7063$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Some are profitable depending on how modern they are and/or the market
>>> they are in and a few new plants may even be built in the near future,
>>> but most of this is due to government subsidies and tax breaks.
>>>
>>> At least 23 nuclear reactors have been decommissioned or are being
>>> decommissioned which is more than the two "fleets" you mentioned
>>> combined.
>>>
>>
>> ???
>> Must be some 'new math'. Exelon owns and operates 17 reactors, Entergy
>> owns 11 and operates 12 (Nebraska state law prohibits Nebraska public
>> power from selling Cooper, but they have an operating contract with
>> Entergy to operate the plant for them). That would make 29 plants being
>> operated in those two fleets. Last time I looked, 29 was larger than 23.
>> The next largest 'fleet' is Duke power at seven and several other owners
>> with six.
>> http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/list-power-reactor-units.html
>
> I meant to say plants. Exelon has 11 nuclear plants. Entergy owns 11.
> That makes 22. 23 nuclear plants have or are being decommissioned.
>
??
From the above Exelon owns:
Braidwood 1
Braidwood 2
Byron 1
Byron 2
Clinton
Dresden 2
Dresden 3
La Salle 1
La Salle 2
Limerick 1
Limerick 2
Oyster Creek
Peach Bottom 1
Peach Bottom 2
Quad Cities 1
Quad Cities 2
Three Mile Island 1
How does this not add up to 17 'plants' ?? They are each separately
licensed reactors with their own electric generators and output breakers.
>>
>>
>> Those that have been shutdown were either managed poorly, were over 40
>> years old (e.g. Shippingport, Big Rock, Yankee Rowe) or were
>> 'one-of-a-kind' prototypes whose design proved to be too costly to keep
>> running. The owners did not feel it economical to continue operation.
>>
>> But even some of the early designs (Nine Mile Point 1 and Oyster Creek
>> went on-line in 1969) are still operating profitably. The *age* of the
>> plant is not the issue, it is how well management operates and maintains
>> them that makes the difference.
>
> I did say age, I said modern. Plants have been updated significantly,
> some more than others.
>
Yet some of the oldest, such as Nine Mile Point 1 haven't been 'updated' in
years other than routine maintenance. Some PWR's have had steam generator
replacements, but the new ones perform substanatially like the old ones did
when new. Turbine technology has improved, mono-block units with improved
steam-path designs squeeze a few more MW out of the unit. But these things
don't raise capacity factors by 15-20%.
FitzPatrick I happen to know are using the same nuclear instruments and
reactor protection relays that it was built with. It routinely operates
above 90%. It would seem they don't need 'modern' updates to operate
reliably. Several others in the top decile of performance are largely
original equipment. Such evidence suggests it's *not* the equipment design
but how its operated and maintained.
>>
>> To further prove the point, many of the plants that have been sold in the
>> past 10 years were operating very poorly when sold (capacity factors <
>> 70%). Under new management they have turned around and become quite
>> profitable (capacity factors often > 90% even in a refueling year). Same
>> plant, same technology, but vastly improved performance. Once a plant's
>> performance has been 'turned around' by proper management and operation,
>> the new owners have invested heavily in extending the operating license
>> to allow them to continue operating them. They wouldn't make that sort
>> of investment if they were losing money or only marginally profitable.
>>
>> Note the trend from the 'early years' to present in the column labeled
>> 'capacity factor'. A sharp rise from the mid 70% range in the mid '90's
>> (73.8% in '94, 77.4% in '95) to the current levels pushing the 90% mark.
>> http://www.nei.org/filefolder/US_Nuclear_Generating_Statistics_1.xls
>
> I don't see the trend having much to do with the "management" of the
> facilities. Plants built in the 50's and 60's had a lot of tubes,
> mechanical relays, unreliable switch gear, and other various old
> technology. This required them to be taken down for maintenance and
> overhaul much more often.
There were very few commercial plants built in the 50's. Big Rock point was
built around '63 and Yankee Rowe a year or two earlier. These were both
considered 'prototype' facilities. Oyster Creek and Nine Mile point were a
couple of the first 'turn-key' production plants. They went on line in '69
and are still on line today.
But guess what. Plants built in the 70's still have mechanical relays to
this day. They have the same switchgear that was there when built, and
other various 'old technology'. Breakers get refurbished every ten years or
so, motor-control-centers on a rotating maintenance cycle, but they are
basically the same. Vacuum tubes weren't even used in some of the very old
plants such as Nine Mile Point 1 or Oyster Creek (been there, seen them).
They did have 'op-amps' that were made from discrete transistor components
:-)
Some changes in instrumentation have helped reduce costs. Replace discrete
component instrument amplifiers that have to be calibrated monthly to adjust
for drift with more modern integrated circuits. Then show that the drift of
the new instruments is much slower and you can reduce the calibration
frequency. Saves a lot of man-hours and since you don't do hi-risk
instrument tests as often, less chance of a technician inadvertantly causing
a scram.
And studying human performance and come up with various barriers to help
prevent that technician from inadvertantly causing a scram.
BTW, just going through all the routine and corrective maintenance and
identifying what items are 'high risk' challenges to operation is a
relatively new initiative as well. If/when performing such high risk work,
take extra steps to avoid human error. Means less likely to have an
unplanned shutdown.
That's not 'modern equipment', that's proper management and operation.
> Vacuum tubes and other unreliable components are gone, switch gear is
> vastly better, computer monitoring is now in place. As plants have been
> modernized, they need less maintenance, less overhauls, and less people to
> operate.
Nope. Look up the NRC's 'maintenance rule'. It describes how plant
maintenance went from, "overhaul this every six months", to "trend the
performance and schedule maintenance before it breaks". When trending
actual equipment performance, it is easy to see which maintenance actually
provides benefit and what is a waste of time. Being able to trend
performance, it is also easier to schedule replacements during a scheduled
outage and avoid unplanned shutdowns.
And while plants have had 'process computers' for decades, most of the
engineers still monitor their designated equipment by walking around and
reading local instruments. The number of computer inputs for process
monitoring in the 70's was woefully inadequate and still is for older
plants. Yet their performance has improved.
Also much more maintenance is being done on-line. Why shutdown the entire
plant to test an emergency cooling pump? Test it while on-line.
You can't 'modernize' a plant and replace 20 or more pumps, hundreds of
motor operated valves and things like the main generator very easily. Yet
plants such as FitzPatrick and Vermont Yankee (Entergy) have seen
improvements in capacity factor without replacement of any significant
equipment. Just figure out why things are taking you down and focus on
those issues. Unplanned scrams are way down without replacing reactor
protection relays designed in the 50's along with other controls.
Updating safety systems cannot be done that easily. A very long and
expensive process of qualifying the equipment for the service (including
accident environment conditions) is needed. Considering the high capacity
factor of many of these older plants, it's hard to justify tearing out a
couple of panels full of relays that can withstand several hundred Rads of
radiation and putting in solid-state equipment that has to be heavily
shielded to ensure it will function in a similar environment. Especially
when the current unplanned scram rate is so low, using those old, 50's
design relay systems. Why spend the time and effort when the number of
unplanned scrams is less than 0.5 per year? If the number of scrams caused
by protection relays is 1 in ten years, how long does it take to pay back a
$250M modification like that?
Better to spend $5M to $10M on training programs for your technicians so
they know how to avoid turning the wrong pot or installing the jumper on the
wrong terminals. Or a risk program that tells you when doing 'this', be
sure not to do 'that' on the same day.
Twenty years ago, refueling outages ran betwen 90 and 120 days to get all
the work done. Now they are under 30 days, some under 20 days. Yet the
equipment is operating more reliably than 20 years ago. It was not unusual
for a plant that started up after an outage to shutdown again within a week
because *something* wasn't working right. Now many plants start up and run
for months if not a year or more after a maintenance outage. Some will
start up from one outage and run continuously for 18 to 24 months to the
next refueling outage. Yet their protection systems are still relays, the
switchyard equipment is the same design as original. Even many of the
instruments are the same.
Many fewer unplanned scrams and power reductions. Also fewer planned
reductions. It's the same pumps that were installed when built. The same
emergency generators. Many of the same instruments. Reactor protection
systems are still old mechancial HFA relays that GE made in the 40's and
50's (well, not the *same* relay, but the same design :-) )
Speaking of instruments, a lot of them are replaced *not* because they cause
a lot of lost generation, but because the manufacturer is gone and there is
no repair support. Some niche vendors have sprung up that provide 'like
component' replacements for obsolete instruments. The new one works just
like the old one, but it's 'new' instead of thirty+ years old.
Some switchgear components such as the main output transformer are monitored
as part of the maintenance rule. The lead time for replacements is long and
a plant can't afford to have one fail unexpectedly. So they're tested, oil
samples analyzed and replacements are ordered for a *scheduled* outage where
the work won't be critical-path. Better to swap it out during a week you
know the plant is going to be down for refueling anyway than to
'run-till-failure' and lose a week of generation.
Another area of improvement was known as 'improved technical
specifications'. Again, this reduced the maintenance by looking at
equipment performance. Why bother coming down in power to <70% once a week
to test control rods when history has shown they don't fail? Extend the
test interval out to once a quarter and you've immediately improved plant
capacity factor. No hardware changes, no 'new technology', no reduction in
plant safety. Just a smarter approach to testing.
1)Maintenance rule
2)performance-based maintenance
3)identifying critical components to generation
4)identifying high-risk activities
5)a whole new (last 10 years) program of human-performance training where
the causes of human error are studied and barriers developed to prevent
re-occurance.
All these things, I consider improvements to 'management and operation' of
the plant. They have resulted in significant improvements in capacity
factor and profitability of plants.
Curiously enough, I have a friend that is now consulting with major
automotive manufacturers that are applying a 'maintenance rule lite edition'
to their plants. They recognize that significant downtime on their assembly
lines can be prevented if they can trend and predict when failures are
likely to occur and replace/repair *before* the equipment fails. Even
though the equipment they take out is still working normally, they would
rather replace working equipment on their schedule than have unscheduled
down time.
These are the sort of initiatives that good management supports and pushes
throughout the organization. A questioning attitude about, "Why are we
doing this maintenance? What's the benefit? What's the risks? Why did
this equipment cause a problem and why didn't we see it beforehand?" A full
360 view of equipment, from vendors, to engineers, to maintenance worker, to
operator.
Sorry, I know I'm rambling on. But this is the *real* reason for
improvments in capacity factor. Not some 'magic' piece of hardware that you
install and the plant runs better. Very few unplanned scrams are caused by
the same piece of equipment twice. Replacing the entire plant is just not
practical. Yet many plants have seen improvments.
>
> I agree. Part of the problem I see is since it takes 6-7 years (or more)
> to build a nuke, nobody knows what construction costs are going to be 5
> years from now as all the costs for materials are skyrocketing. From an
> investment standpoint, there's just less risk going with a plant that can
> be built quickly and relatively cheaply.
Quite right. Today's investment community likes the idea of a low-capital
NG plant that might pay for itself in <10 years as opposed to something that
is very high cost and takes more like 30+ years to pay for itself. One
study I read said that if construction costs for a nuc can get down to $1500
/ kW, then new construction can look attractive again.
As I mentioned before, *delays* in construction are the real bogeyman.
Imagine you work out a schedule for construction of 5 years and you borrow
funds as you go. Now you get to the 95-98% completion stage and you've
borrowed most of the funds needed but you find out that the 'rules' have
changed and you have to back-fit a few systems to the tune of another $100M
or so. And you can't start operating until you do it.
Then you go apply for an operating license (all you've had up to this point
is a construction permit) and some political group wants to block you from
operating it. Meanwhile the interest just keeps accrueing. That's what
happened after TMI. Costs for plants like Nine Mile Unit 2 just kept
climbing and climbing.
It's not supposed to be like that anymore thanks to a new method of
licensing. But Wall street wants some proof that it won't happen again at
the last minute. This is where the loan guarantees of the new energy bill
are intended to make nucs more attractive to investors.
daestrom
>
>
Nebuchadnezzar II
It's really just a question of semantics. If an oil fired plant has 20
engine/generators and each has it's own license, does that mean there are 20
power plants even though they are all under the same roof? I guess
technically it does because the definition of "power plant" is defined that
way.
To be fair, many of the 23 decommissionings have included a single reactor
at a multiple reactor plant.
Still the point is nuclear reactors are a dicey business fraught with high
risk.
>
>>>
>>>
>>> Those that have been shutdown were either managed poorly, were over 40
>>> years old (e.g. Shippingport, Big Rock, Yankee Rowe) or were
>>> 'one-of-a-kind' prototypes whose design proved to be too costly to keep
>>> running. The owners did not feel it economical to continue operation.
>>>
>>> But even some of the early designs (Nine Mile Point 1 and Oyster Creek
>>> went on-line in 1969) are still operating profitably. The *age* of the
>>> plant is not the issue, it is how well management operates and maintains
>>> them that makes the difference.
>>
>> I did say age, I said modern. Plants have been updated significantly,
>> some more than others.
>>
>
> Yet some of the oldest, such as Nine Mile Point 1 haven't been 'updated'
> in years other than routine maintenance. Some PWR's have had steam
> generator replacements, but the new ones perform substanatially like the
> old ones did when new. Turbine technology has improved, mono-block units
> with improved steam-path designs squeeze a few more MW out of the unit.
> But these things don't raise capacity factors by 15-20%.
>
> FitzPatrick I happen to know are using the same nuclear instruments and
> reactor protection relays that it was built with. It routinely operates
> above 90%. It would seem they don't need 'modern' updates to operate
> reliably. Several others in the top decile of performance are largely
> original equipment. Such evidence suggests it's *not* the equipment
> design but how its operated and maintained.
Just from a casual observation it seems as if there are quite a few
different designs out there and many built around the same time have some
that are still operating and some shut down. Even if you had two with the
same design there could be differences in the installations that would make
one more reliable than the other. Also in large scale electro/mechanical
facilities, the longer they are around, the more bugs that are worked out
over time. Even small modifications like changing parts suppliers on high
failure components can make a big difference. It stands to reason that as
time works out those bugs, and the most problematic sites are shut down the
efficiency rates go up because there aren't new plants coming online with
new problems.
Up until about 10-15 years ago, the FAA was using computers for Air Traffic
Control with central processors designed back in the 50's. Although they
had been continually updated, the basic design was the same and they had a
very high reliability. That's why I'm careful about saying modernized as
opposed to newer as newer doesn't always mean better and sometimes can mean
worse. However when newer systems are given time to work the bugs out, they
can be just as reliable or more reliable if the basic design is solid.
Lots of those kinds of things can be very reliable and even tube type stuff
can be very reliable. The problems you run into sometimes are logistics
headaches when old components just aren't being made anymore and you have to
get a new production run started up which can be VERY expensive. A relay
which should be $5 now costs $500.
> Some changes in instrumentation have helped reduce costs. Replace
> discrete component instrument amplifiers that have to be calibrated
> monthly to adjust for drift with more modern integrated circuits. Then
> show that the drift of the new instruments is much slower and you can
> reduce the calibration frequency. Saves a lot of man-hours and since you
> don't do hi-risk instrument tests as often, less chance of a technician
> inadvertantly causing a scram.
>
> And studying human performance and come up with various barriers to help
> prevent that technician from inadvertantly causing a scram.
>
> BTW, just going through all the routine and corrective maintenance and
> identifying what items are 'high risk' challenges to operation is a
> relatively new initiative as well. If/when performing such high risk
> work, take extra steps to avoid human error. Means less likely to have an
> unplanned shutdown.
>
> That's not 'modern equipment', that's proper management and operation.
There's some of it that's good and some that's not so good. I'm retired
from an engineering company that did some work in the energy industry (never
nuclear). Some of the risk management initiatives we were working on I
thought were quite good, but quite a bit of the cookie-cutter management
crap that's coming out these days is a lot of BS. A lot of it is learning
how to work with generic processes rather than learning how to think on your
feet. I've seen a lot of programs that people thought were great ideas at
the time, but never panned out.
>
>> Vacuum tubes and other unreliable components are gone, switch gear is
>> vastly better, computer monitoring is now in place. As plants have been
>> modernized, they need less maintenance, less overhauls, and less people
>> to operate.
>
> Nope. Look up the NRC's 'maintenance rule'. It describes how plant
> maintenance went from, "overhaul this every six months", to "trend the
> performance and schedule maintenance before it breaks". When trending
> actual equipment performance, it is easy to see which maintenance actually
> provides benefit and what is a waste of time. Being able to trend
> performance, it is also easier to schedule replacements during a scheduled
> outage and avoid unplanned shutdowns.
A lot of that has to do with how the maintenance program was set up to begin
with. Believe me, I know all too well about such things. Engineers like to
design things and make them work. They don't really like to put time into
thinking about how to maintain or keep them working efficiently. The lazy
way out was simply to write the specs to over maintain everything and "play
it safe", but the reality is some things are just better left alone if they
are working OK. A lot of times you get old school engineers which spec
periodic realignments on solid state components that don't drift simply
because they learned the old stuff that did and they never really kept up
with the newer technology. On the procurement side, investors and energy
companies pay for a turn key operation and how much initial costs are going
to be without giving a lot of thought to maintenance and operation.
Inevitably they find things that need more maintenance than originally
planned, so costs go up and they forget about looking at things that need
less. Sometimes also you just have to cut your losses, go back to the
drawing board, and redesign things that don't work and quite often companies
will keep pouring money down a hole instead. So, some of it may depend on
management, but a lot of it depends on design and installation as well.
Sometimes when you go with the lowest bidder, you pay far more in the long
run. I've also seen a lot of bad management trying to do too much "trend
analysis" as well and sometimes you get bean counters that might know a lot
about economics, but not so much about mechanical systems. Sometimes the
result is performance based maintenance that defies the laws of physics or
simply trying to save a dime at the risk of a C-note. I've seen some of
these guys say not to regularly replace $2 air filters, or change the oil in
a gearbox to save the $50 or so for whatever a bucket of synthetic oil
costs. So there's a bit of learning curves with such things as well when
the economics have to match up with mechanical realities and risk.
> And while plants have had 'process computers' for decades, most of the
> engineers still monitor their designated equipment by walking around and
> reading local instruments. The number of computer inputs for process
> monitoring in the 70's was woefully inadequate and still is for older
> plants. Yet their performance has improved.
Good remote monitoring can be a beautiful thing or a disaster. I've seen
some operations where a handful of people monitor a huge amount of complex
systems continuously that use to take 10 times as many people monitoring
only at certain intervals. However if you are constantly chasing false
alarms, it can be a disaster. The trend here is towards remote monitoring.
Sensor technology has improved vastly and the days of a guy walking around
with a clipboard are drawing to a close.
>
> Also much more maintenance is being done on-line. Why shutdown the entire
> plant to test an emergency cooling pump? Test it while on-line.
Good risk management has solved a lot of those problems. Many things were
maintained off-line when there was no need and some things that were
maintained off-line shouldn't have been.
>
> You can't 'modernize' a plant and replace 20 or more pumps, hundreds of
> motor operated valves and things like the main generator very easily. Yet
> plants such as FitzPatrick and Vermont Yankee (Entergy) have seen
> improvements in capacity factor without replacement of any significant
> equipment. Just figure out why things are taking you down and focus on
> those issues. Unplanned scrams are way down without replacing reactor
> protection relays designed in the 50's along with other controls.
There's lots of old control equipment out there that's still very good and
in some instances better than the new stuff. Part of the problems here is
there's not a lot of standardization in some segments of the industry, but
that is slowly starting to change.
> Updating safety systems cannot be done that easily. A very long and
> expensive process of qualifying the equipment for the service (including
> accident environment conditions) is needed. Considering the high capacity
> factor of many of these older plants, it's hard to justify tearing out a
> couple of panels full of relays that can withstand several hundred Rads of
> radiation and putting in solid-state equipment that has to be heavily
> shielded to ensure it will function in a similar environment. Especially
> when the current unplanned scram rate is so low, using those old, 50's
> design relay systems. Why spend the time and effort when the number of
> unplanned scrams is less than 0.5 per year? If the number of scrams
> caused by protection relays is 1 in ten years, how long does it take to
> pay back a $250M modification like that?
There's a lot of variables that have to be plugged into the equation such as
how much does each unplanned failure cost? Some production facilities
simply can't afford unreliability as they loose customers and/or production
even on rare failures. Sometimes parts are no longer available.
Maintenance and operations figures in, but there's also the old saying, "if
it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Yep. Even on the newer stuff sometimes you'll get a manufacturer that goes
out of business and with no standardization throughout the industry, you
have to replace a boatload of equipment at a huge expense simply because of
a relatively cheap component you can't get anymore. That's something to
watch out for. Sometimes it's better to go with industry standard equipment
that might cost a little more than proprietary stuff that leaves you out in
the cold when the company goes belly up.
Such things happen in many industries also (albeit perhaps on a smaller
scale). A local regulator can put a company out of business by simply
dragging it's feet on inspections and licenses while giving a competitor
favored treatment. It happens every day at all levels of government for
lots of different reasons.
>
> It's not supposed to be like that anymore thanks to a new method of
> licensing. But Wall street wants some proof that it won't happen again at
> the last minute. This is where the loan guarantees of the new energy bill
> are intended to make nucs more attractive to investors.
I've never liked the idea of putting all your eggs into one basket. The US
needs a diverse supply of energy in all areas to include renewables, coal,
natural gas, nuclear, and perhaps even oil fired in some areas. Even if
some of that needs to be subsidized it may be more economical in the long
run to prevent problems in one segment of the industry to cripple the entire
country.
![Green Xenon [Radium]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjXIeIJhTqOxEYFvKAuip5ejWy8hTeL-C1nyXJxAbSVgQnnxXQ=s40-c)
Green Xenon [Radium]
Nuclear *fusion*, not fission. Fission is bad. Fusion is good. Is it
physically-possible to design and build a 400 nm laser that is
directly-"pumped" by aneutronic nuclear fusion and in which the active
lasing medium/gain-medium is a rare-earth crystal?
The "pump" is the part of the laser that excites the atoms in the laser
medium.
Hydrogen-Boron fusion is an example of aneutronic fusion. 400 nm is
about the shortest wavelength the human eye can detect.
In aneutronic fusion no more than 1% of the total energy released is
carried by neutrons. Aneutronic fusion is the best nuclear power. It
emits charged particles that can be directly converted to electricity.
No turbine or steam are needed. In D-T fusion requires turbines and
steam, the neutrons hit water, boiling it. In aneutronic fusion, the
nuclear energy can be directly converted to light/electricity so it is
better.
Fusion is better than fission. Death to fission. Of all types of fusion,
aneutronic is the best. Hydrogen-Boron fusion is the best candidate for
this type of fusion.
I don't want to need any steam, turbines, or other cantankerous devices.
I want direct conversion.
I dream of using this for a variety of applications. Telecommunications
and power supply are two significant purposes.
One potential advantage I see, is that -- unlike electrical devices --
these optical devices will not be damaged by solar flares [a common
cause of blackouts] or EMP [ElectroMagnetic Pulse].
So using light -- instead of electricity -- as a power source has this
benefit.
In this hypothetical situation, the following would likely be utilized:
The power supply starts off as a high-power 400 nm laser that is pumped
by aneutronic fusion at a remote power station. As the laser light runs
to my home, it does not do so at full-blast -- that would mean total
destruction in everything in the path of the laser. Instead this
gigalaser is used to power and pump smaller less intense 400 nm lasers
which lead to my house. The lasers get smaller and less intense on their
way from the power-station to my house. At my house they provide the
same amount of power that a normal electric socket would provide.
Telephones and cable television would also benefit heavily from using
the coherent light in place of electric signals. Optical signals can
carry far more bandwidth than electric signals.
Now how does one convert 400 nm laser light into motive power? Well,
there are certain proteins that change shape when exposed to light.
Perhaps contractile proteins -- similar to those found in our muscles --
could be constructed in such a way that they would contract and relax in
a manner analogous to the intensity of the blue light they are exposed
to. Muscle cells from donors could be bioengineered so that they respond
solely to 400 nm light by changing their contractile state. Muscle cells
from donors could be bioengineered so that they respond solely to 400
nm light by changing their contractile state. Photoreceptors engineered
from retina could be attached to the muscle cells. When light is shined
onto the photoreceptors, photochemical protein-based process could be
engineered such that excitant-proteins will be released into the muscle
cells causing them to contract. When the light is removed, then the lack
of excitation in the photoreceptors trigger the release of
relaxant-proteins which will relax the muscle cells.
Also, I would like to use this laser light for cybernetics -- i.e.
connecting the brain to optical digital computers. Certain types of
proteins at certain concentrations can be made to code for 400 nm laser
light of varying intensities and rates; and visa versa. The rate at
which the intensity of the laser light varies could code for various
concentrations of certain proteins. Many neurotransmitters are proteins.
The neurons in our retinae, respond to light as they have photoreceptors
attached to them. When photons hit a photoreceptor, there is a
photochemical reaction involving proteins. Some bioengineering could be
done on the brain so that the brain's neurons also sprout photoreceptors
that specifically respond to 400 nm light.
The reason I want aneutronic fusion is that it is more solid state than
other types of fusion. For example, deuterium-tritium relies on emitting
neutrons to hit and boil water making the steam move a turbine. I want
solid-state power which is why aneutronic fusion is the best bet.
Aneutronic fusion can directly generate photons and pump a crystal,
where as D-T fusion would require a lot more steps to get the intended
result.
I would like the 400 nm laser should be pumped by aneutronic fusion. The
lasing medium should be some kind of rare-earth crystal. The light
energy emitted from the aneutronic fusion should cause the atoms in the
rare-earth crystal to emit 400 nm light after exciting the electrons in
those atoms. When photons resulting from the fusion energy are released,
they hit the atoms in the rare-earth crystal. This causes electrons in
those atoms to initially move to a higher-energy state, then from the
higher-energy state back to the lower-energy state. When the electrons
move from higher-energy to lower-energy state in the crystal's atoms,
they cause those atoms to emit 400 nm light. The laser has two mirror,
one with specs of silver, the other without. The 400 nm photons will
leave the half-silvered mirror. The laser then emits 400 nm light.
Now, you might ask "What do you do to utilize the 400 nm energy
delivered to your house? Certainly, one way would be to stimulate
fluorescence and produce visible light, but what about heat, appliance
power, etc.? "
My answer is, To make white light, stimulate fluorescence. As for heat,
400 nm light of sufficient intensity can produce sufficient heat for any
task. It is possible that these lasers could also be used -- to some
extent -- for cooling, though this would only work on certain
substances. Google "laser cooling".
Computers and similar devices can be made purely optical. Instead of
electronic, they are photonic. Light becomes the source of power as well
as data.
As a die-hard fan of nuclear fusion, I am very offended when Bush talks
like a middle-school turd and says "nukyular". Bush deserves to be
punished badly.
Al Smith
Fission isn't bad, fission is a real, practical energy source that
we are using right now. We don't know what fusion would be, since as
an energy source for the world, it doesn't exist yet.
-Al-
The Ghost In The Machine
<inv...@address.com>
wrote
on Sat, 07 Jun 2008 14:56:18 GMT
<mkx2k.107$L03.30@edtnps92>:
The supporting issues for fission are problematic, mostly
because of radioactive mine tailings and the disposal
of the waste after fission, though that's not nearly as
bad as, say, radioactive fly ash from coal, which sans
scrubbers may get spread far and wide.
Fusion might have its own issues, though at this point
the only ones I'm aware of are neutrons embedding into
the containment wall (or elsewhere) and the deuterium or
tritium possibly escaping into the environment. (Deuterium
is relatively harmless but can alter various hydrogen
bonding reactions, as it differs in weight and size from
standard hydrogen. Tritium is rather radioactive, with
a half-life of about 12.33 years.)
I'd have to study how much U235 we have; once it's gone,
it's gone, though it might be extended by breeder reactors
processing U238 into plutonium -- the most deadly substance
known to man.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
/dev/brain: Permission denied
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Green Xenon [Radium]
> Fusion might have its own issues, though at this point
> the only ones I'm aware of are neutrons embedding into
> the containment wall (or elsewhere) and the deuterium or
> tritium possibly escaping into the environment. (Deuterium
> is relatively harmless but can alter various hydrogen
> bonding reactions, as it differs in weight and size from
> standard hydrogen. Tritium is rather radioactive, with
> a half-life of about 12.33 years.)
In aneutronic fusion, you don't have to worry about D-T or their
neutrons. Aneutronic fusion uses hydrogen and boron.
The Ghost In The Machine
<gluc...@excite.com>
wrote
on Sat, 07 Jun 2008 19:37:09 -0700
<484b45d4$0$7043$4c36...@roadrunner.com>:
Good point. I'm vaguely aware of that reaction (only
because it's mentioned in Wikipedia, among with some other
possibilities) and have no idea as to its practicality.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Error 16: Not enough space on file system to delete file(s)
disgoft...@yahoo.co.uk
But we know what you mean.
The Ghost In The Machine
<disgoft...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote
on Sun, 8 Jun 2008 13:16:23 -0700 (PDT)
<a21e4dd2-28f6-4cdf...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
Well, the delivery's a tad unreliable from 93 million miles
out (mostly because of the last 50-100 miles) and there's
already competition on extracting it (vegetation), but
yeah, we've been depending on fusion power for millennia,
mostly for farming. :-)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Q: "Why is my computer doing that?"
A: "Don't do that and you'll be fine."