Greenpeace cofounder: Go nuclear
joe
Going Nuclear
A Green Makes the Case
By Patrick Moore
In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that
nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of
my compatriots. That's the conviction that inspired Greenpeace's first
voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing
of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska's Aleutian Islands. Thirty years on,
my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement
needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the
energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster:
catastrophic climate change.
Look at it this way: More than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the
United States produce 36 percent of U.S. emissions -- or nearly 10
percent of global emissions -- of CO2, the primary greenhouse gas
responsible for climate change. Nuclear energy is the only
large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce these
emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power. And
these days it can do so safely.
I say that guardedly, of course, just days after Iranian President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that his country had enriched uranium.
"The nuclear technology is only for the purpose of peace and nothing
else," he said. But there is widespread speculation that, even though
the process is ostensibly dedicated to producing electricity, it is in
fact a cover for building nuclear weapons.
And although I don't want to underestimate the very real dangers of
nuclear technology in the hands of rogue states, we cannot simply ban
every technology that is dangerous. That was the all-or-nothing
mentality at the height of the Cold War, when anything nuclear seemed
to spell doom for humanity and the environment. In 1979, Jane Fonda
and Jack Lemmon produced a frisson of fear with their starring roles
in "The China Syndrome," a fictional evocation of nuclear disaster in
which a reactor meltdown threatens a city's survival. Less than two
weeks after the blockbuster film opened, a reactor core meltdown at
Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island nuclear power plant sent shivers of
very real anguish throughout the country.
What nobody noticed at the time, though, was that Three Mile Island
was in fact a success story: The concrete containment structure did
just what it was designed to do -- prevent radiation from escaping
into the environment. And although the reactor itself was crippled,
there was no injury or death among nuclear workers or nearby
residents. Three Mile Island was the only serious accident in the
history of nuclear energy generation in the United States, but it was
enough to scare us away from further developing the technology: There
hasn't been a nuclear plant ordered up since then.
Today, there are 103 nuclear reactors quietly delivering just 20
percent of America's electricity. Eighty percent of the people living
within 10 miles of these plants approve of them (that's not including
the nuclear workers). Although I don't live near a nuclear plant, I am
now squarely in their camp.
And I am not alone among seasoned environmental activists in changing
my mind on this subject. British atmospheric scientist James Lovelock,
father of the Gaia theory, believes that nuclear energy is the only
way to avoid catastrophic climate change. Stewart Brand, founder of
the "Whole Earth Catalog," says the environmental movement must
embrace nuclear energy to wean ourselves from fossil fuels. On
occasion, such opinions have been met with excommunication from the
anti-nuclear priesthood: The late British Bishop Hugh Montefiore,
founder and director of Friends of the Earth, was forced to resign
from the group's board after he wrote a pro-nuclear article in a
church newsletter.
There are signs of a new willingness to listen, though, even among the
staunchest anti-nuclear campaigners. When I attended the Kyoto climate
meeting in Montreal last December, I spoke to a packed house on the
question of a sustainable energy future. I argued that the only way to
reduce fossil fuel emissions from electrical production is through an
aggressive program of renewable energy sources (hydroelectric,
geothermal heat pumps, wind, etc.) plus nuclear. The Greenpeace
spokesperson was first at the mike for the question period, and I
expected a tongue-lashing. Instead, he began by saying he agreed with
much of what I said -- not the nuclear bit, of course, but there was a
clear feeling that all options must be explored.
Here's why: Wind and solar power have their place, but because they
are intermittent and unpredictable they simply can't replace big
baseload plants such as coal, nuclear and hydroelectric. Natural gas,
a fossil fuel, is too expensive already, and its price is too volatile
to risk building big baseload plants. Given that hydroelectric
resources are built pretty much to capacity, nuclear is, by
elimination, the only viable substitute for coal. It's that simple.
That's not to say that there aren't real problems -- as well as
various myths -- associated with nuclear energy. Each concern deserves
careful consideration:
· Nuclear energy is expensive. It is in fact one of the least
expensive energy sources. In 2004, the average cost of producing
nuclear energy in the United States was less than two cents per
kilowatt-hour, comparable with coal and hydroelectric. Advances in
technology will bring the cost down further in the future.
· Nuclear plants are not safe. Although Three Mile Island was a
success story, the accident at Chernobyl, 20 years ago this month, was
not. But Chernobyl was an accident waiting to happen. This early model
of Soviet reactor had no containment vessel, was an inherently bad
design and its operators literally blew it up. The multi-agency U.N.
Chernobyl Forum reported last year that 56 deaths could be directly
attributed to the accident, most of those from radiation or burns
suffered while fighting the fire. Tragic as those deaths were, they
pale in comparison to the more than 5,000 coal-mining deaths that
occur worldwide every year. No one has died of a radiation-related
accident in the history of the U.S. civilian nuclear reactor program.
(And although hundreds of uranium mine workers did die from radiation
exposure underground in the early years of that industry, that problem
was long ago corrected.)
· Nuclear waste will be dangerous for thousands of years. Within 40
years, used fuel has less than one-thousandth of the radioactivity it
had when it was removed from the reactor. And it is incorrect to call
it waste, because 95 percent of the potential energy is still
contained in the used fuel after the first cycle. Now that the United
States has removed the ban on recycling used fuel, it will be possible
to use that energy and to greatly reduce the amount of waste that
needs treatment and disposal. Last month, Japan joined France, Britain
and Russia in the nuclear-fuel-recycling business. The United States
will not be far behind.
· Nuclear reactors are vulnerable to terrorist attack. The
six-feet-thick reinforced concrete containment vessel protects the
contents from the outside as well as the inside. And even if a jumbo
jet did crash into a reactor and breach the containment, the reactor
would not explode. There are many types of facilities that are far
more vulnerable, including liquid natural gas plants, chemical plants
and numerous political targets.
· Nuclear fuel can be diverted to make nuclear weapons. This is the
most serious issue associated with nuclear energy and the most
difficult to address, as the example of Iran shows. But just because
nuclear technology can be put to evil purposes is not an argument to
ban its use.
Over the past 20 years, one of the simplest tools -- the machete --
has been used to kill more than a million people in Africa, far more
than were killed in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombings
combined. What are car bombs made of? Diesel oil, fertilizer and cars.
If we banned everything that can be used to kill people, we would
never have harnessed fire.
The only practical approach to the issue of nuclear weapons
proliferation is to put it higher on the international agenda and to
use diplomacy and, where necessary, force to prevent countries or
terrorists from using nuclear materials for destructive ends. And new
technologies such as the reprocessing system recently introduced in
Japan (in which the plutonium is never separated from the uranium) can
make it much more difficult for terrorists or rogue states to use
civilian materials to manufacture weapons.
The 600-plus coal-fired plants emit nearly 2 billion tons of
CO2annually -- the equivalent of the exhaust from about 300 million
automobiles. In addition, the Clean Air Council reports that coal
plants are responsible for 64 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, 26
percent of nitrous oxides and 33 percent of mercury emissions. These
pollutants are eroding the health of our environment, producing acid
rain, smog, respiratory illness and mercury contamination.
Meanwhile, the 103 nuclear plants operating in the United States
effectively avoid the release of 700 million tons of CO2emissions
annually -- the equivalent of the exhaust from more than 100 million
automobiles. Imagine if the ratio of coal to nuclear were reversed so
that only 20 percent of our electricity was generated from coal and 60
percent from nuclear. This would go a long way toward cleaning the air
and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Every responsible
environmentalist should support a move in that direction.
----------------------------------------
Alvin Toda
>Washington Post / April 16, 2006
>Going Nuclear
>A Green Makes the Case
>By Patrick Moore
>
>In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that
>nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of
>my compatriots. That's the conviction that inspired Greenpeace's first
>voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing
>of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska's Aleutian Islands. Thirty years on,
>my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement
>needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the
>energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster:
>catastrophic climate change.
>
>Look at it this way: More than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the
>United States produce 36 percent of U.S. emissions -- or nearly 10
>percent of global emissions -- of CO2, the primary greenhouse gas
>responsible for climate change. Nuclear energy is the only
>large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce these
>emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power. And
>these days it can do so safely.
Moore doesn't look very far into the future. This technology can cause
more problems that it can solve. And it is only a stop gap measure for
the intermediate term. We do not have a solution for nuclear waste. We
cannot clean it and we have no good place to store it.
Rubaiyat of Omar Bradley
That is a common logical fallacy - a person is not obliged to supply a
solution in order to report a problem. For example, I could notify you
that your car has a flat, but I would not be obliged to install your
spare tire for you.
John Cowart
Golden State Poppy
Nuclear, gas, coal power plants. Ethanol, electric and gas for cars.
We should never allow ourselves to be dependent on one or too few
sources again.
Jerry Okamura
"Alvin Toda" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:q8t742h4gkrlftsoa...@4ax.com...
What kind of problems?
Jerry Okamura
"Rubaiyat of Omar Bradley" <cowar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1145309183....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
problem is, like many who come up to me, is you tell me what the problem is,
but you offer no solutions to solving the problem. Any Tom, Dick and Harry
can find a problem, or what they see as a problem. What I need as a
manager, is a proposed solution to the problem. Because by telling me about
a problem and not offering a solution, you are not helping me at all,
because you expect me to find a solution to the problem.
Rubaiyat of Omar Bradley
No, I was talking to *you*, correcting your faulty logic. We all have
to pitch in from time to time to help out the unfortunate mentally
deficient people.
John Cowart
Alvin Toda
waste....
Alvin Toda
<GoldenSt...@aol.com> wrote:
No... we need to continue research on better non-fossil fuels and
develop those resources which become feasible. Your comments would
make more sense as an interim stop gap measure.
Alvin Toda
<cowar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I agree. We need to have on-going research for a good solution to the
problem. Moore shouldn't be content with riding on the spare.
Jerry Okamura
So, what is the alternative?
Jerry Okamura
And what happens if we cannot find alternatives that are cost effective?
Glenn
>
> And what happens if we cannot find alternatives that are cost effective?
We'll use coal. What was it that Germany used at the end of WW2 after we
had destroyed their oil production? What energy source is almost
inexhaustible? We'll can always build a giant complex of power stations
near the coal fields, and provide enough electricity to take care of our
needs. We'll use (very fast) electric trains, electric cars, electric
heat, . . . Pollution can be set to any arbitrary figure including zero
and the collectors are just part of the overhead. This isn't the preferred
solution, but it's the fall back solution if we can't find anything better.
--
Glenn
Glenn
> You are right about coal but the left fights construction of new coal
> burning plants. Where are you pulling fast trains and such from???
I'm not sure of your question so I'll give two answers. Japan and Europe
have fast electric trains, I'm sure they will sell them to us. The trains
have to be fast to replace airlines for intermediate travel. The highway
structure will have to take a back seat to freight trains. The jets remain
for overseas and cross country. The boats can run on liquefied coal. The
future is too far away to be specific.
--
Glenn
Alvin Toda
<jimst...@forgetthemail.com> wrote:
>Please,
>
>1. Can you identify the non-fossil fuel energy sources you offer.
>
>2. Suggest some future date when each will come online for us.
>
>3. Project the amounts of power each will provide when then do
>arrive.
>
>Thank you
Opinion pieces aren't research projects....
Alvin Toda
Why look to alternatives that are not cost effective?
Alvin Toda
<jimst...@forgetthemail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 19:39:21 -0500, Glenn <min...@NOSPAM.yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>You are right about coal but the left fights construction of new coal
>burning plants. Where are you pulling fast trains and such from???
Don't think that the left objects so much to coal, as it objects to
irresponsible policies. For example, IIRC they say that with coal
plants, it is possible to scrub the CO2 from the exhaust. Perhaps as a
stop gap measure, we could store the CO2 in the oceans until some
future date when we could utilize the stores, and start depleting it
(IIRC they say that coal produces four times the CO2 that oil does for
the same ammount of energy produced. We'll have a lot stored by then).
At that point (say about 50 years from now. We'd have to develop our
resources to last til then. But other countries less weathy than us
would have to go nuclear. But then they should store their own nuclear
waste in their own countries. France, for example, shouldn't be paying
African countries to store their nuclear waste) we would probably have
a good non-fossil fuel resource to use for the purpose of the
depletion. But we should roll this cost of CO2 processing into the
cost of using coal as a fuel.
Alvin Toda
Jerry Okamura
That is not an alternative....
Jerry Okamura
Because we do it all the time. In Hawaii, our legislators have recently
mandated the use an ethanol mix in our gasoline, haven't they? What happen
to the price of gasoline as a result....it went up....
Alvin Toda
<jimst...@forgetthemail.com> wrote:
>It was a serious question.
>
>So you are blowing hot air up our skirts again. You huff and puff
>about doing something but have nothing to give it definition. Typical
>bullshit and you know it.
>
>You could not even answer the first question and that went right at
>your previous position. But, you take insults so well considering how
>many your earn and receive here.
It's a serious answer. Why try to provide numbers that perhaps no one
has. We really need an active program of research here for real
answers-- rather than denying the problem as the Republicans have
done.
Alvin Toda
<okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>"Alvin Toda" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
>news:5fqd42ph8j1th5nn2...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 00:17:06 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
>> <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Alvin Toda" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
>>>news:g0ba421ogptpmto8e...@4ax.com...
>>>> On 17 Apr 2006 14:57:31 -0700, "Golden State Poppy"
>>>> <GoldenSt...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>It seems to me that the answer for energy is for multiple sources.
>>>>>Nuclear, gas, coal power plants. Ethanol, electric and gas for cars.
>>>>>We should never allow ourselves to be dependent on one or too few
>>>>>sources again.
>>>>
>>>> No... we need to continue research on better non-fossil fuels and
>>>> develop those resources which become feasible. Your comments would
>>>> make more sense as an interim stop gap measure.
>>>
>>>And what happens if we cannot find alternatives that are cost effective?
>>
>> Why look to alternatives that are not cost effective?
>
>Because we do it all the time. In Hawaii, our legislators have recently
>mandated the use an ethanol mix in our gasoline, haven't they? What happen
>to the price of gasoline as a result....it went up....
No the price of gas has gone up because they have gone up all over the
country. Haven't you been following the gas cap news? The PUC
calculation has gone up for about a month now.
And the ethanol mix is not a new mandate. That's why it has been
instituted so fast. Companies here have had years to prepare for this.
People only notice now when it has finally happened. The nice thing
about ethanol is that it will be produced in Hawaii instead of being
shiped in. Another nice thing is that fossil fuel emissions have been
reduced as a result, and cars have more power and efficiency. If oil
prices continue to rise, then a greater mix which will affect the pump
price will be demanded. BTW, have heard of the super bugs that our
University here is working on. Or just chemical processing to produce
ethanol or something similar. Perhaps we'll also have real cheap
liquor to drink as a by-product in the future.
Alvin Toda
Jerry Okamura
Jerry Okamura
That is also true. But the simple fact is that going to an ethanol mix has
not reduced the price of gasoline, it has increased the price of gasoline.
>
> And the ethanol mix is not a new mandate. That's why it has been
> instituted so fast. Companies here have had years to prepare for this.
> People only notice now when it has finally happened.
Well, yes. When you "mandate" something, then it will be implemented...
The nice thing
> about ethanol is that it will be produced in Hawaii instead of being
> shiped in.
Not yet.
Another nice thing is that fossil fuel emissions have been
> reduced as a result, and cars have more power and efficiency. If oil
> prices continue to rise, then a greater mix which will affect the pump
> price will be demanded. BTW, have heard of the super bugs that our
> University here is working on. Or just chemical processing to produce
> ethanol or something similar. Perhaps we'll also have real cheap
> liquor to drink as a by-product in the future.
Well, yes, but it still does not change the fact that it has increased the
cost of fuel for our cars, not decreased it.
Glenn
>
> That is also true. But the simple fact is that going to an ethanol mix
> has not reduced the price of gasoline, it has increased the price of
> gasoline.
. . .
>
> The nice thing
>> about ethanol is that it will be produced in Hawaii instead of being
>> shiped in.
>
> Not yet.
Think! Here the ethanol plants are numerous, thus transportation cost are
low, and therefore, ethanol lowers the, now twenty percent, gas mixture
cost. If you have no ethanol plants, than the transportation costs are
high and you may find increased mixture cost. Ethanol can be distilled
from most vegetation source so why don't you have at least an experimental
ethanol plant?
--
Glenn
Jerry Okamura
"Glenn" <min...@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.04.20....@NOSPAM.yahoo.com...
Alvin Toda
<jimst...@forgetthemail.com> wrote:
>You said "No... we need to continue research on better non-fossil
>fuels and develop those resources which become feasible." I would
>expect you could at least list three that are the most promising and
>speculate on a future time window when they may make a difference.
>Otherwise we can't take you serious. And you know we really want to
>take you seriously.
Well. Since this is a question of opinion...1. Wind 2. Ocean-Thermal
Energy 3. Ethanol are promising short-term measures to supplement oil
for the next 50 years. For long term power, I would go for nuclear
fusion. R&D could start now if we want experimental fusion plants in
2056.
Alvin Toda
<okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>"Alvin Toda" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
>news:3rpf42h6rbl5aaogu...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 18:23:41 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
>> <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Alvin Toda" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
>>>news:5fqd42ph8j1th5nn2...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 00:17:06 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
>>>> <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Alvin Toda" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:g0ba421ogptpmto8e...@4ax.com...
>>>>>> No... we need to continue research on better non-fossil fuels and
>>>>>> develop those resources which become feasible. Your comments would
>>>>>> make more sense as an interim stop gap measure.
>>>>>
>>>>>And what happens if we cannot find alternatives that are cost effective?
>>>>
>>>> Why look to alternatives that are not cost effective?
>>>
>>>Because we do it all the time. In Hawaii, our legislators have recently
>>>mandated the use an ethanol mix in our gasoline, haven't they? What
>>>happen
>>>to the price of gasoline as a result....it went up....
>>
>> No the price of gas has gone up because they have gone up all over the
>> country. Haven't you been following the gas cap news? The PUC
>> calculation has gone up for about a month now.
>
>That is also true. But the simple fact is that going to an ethanol mix has
>not reduced the price of gasoline, it has increased the price of gasoline.
That's currently because a lot of ethanol has to be shipped in. But
the increase is reportedly small because bigger increases at the
present time come from oil price increases.
>> And the ethanol mix is not a new mandate. That's why it has been
>> instituted so fast. Companies here have had years to prepare for this.
>> People only notice now when it has finally happened.
>
>Well, yes. When you "mandate" something, then it will be implemented...
may is the word, not "will".... you'll note that we are not sustaining
in ethanol because we ship some in. The goal is 10% of the gasoline is
ethanol and produced in Hawaii. IIRC the Maui plant on your island is
also mixing the ethanol with diesel fuel because the cost on Maui is
now way over the national average for a long time. I don't think that
it has been reported to go significantly down on your island since
hurricane Katrina. The big controversy there is do you think that the
cost of diesel is still high on Maui because there is a monopoly on
the product? The refinery denies that and will probably only reveal
numbers which justify the cost if the legislators ever figure out a
way to get figures from the refinery.
>> Another nice thing is that fossil fuel emissions have been
>> reduced as a result, and cars have more power and efficiency. If oil
>> prices continue to rise, then a greater mix which will affect the pump
>> price will be demanded. BTW, have heard of the super bugs that our
>> University here is working on. Or just chemical processing to produce
>> ethanol or something similar. Perhaps we'll also have real cheap
>> liquor to drink as a by-product in the future.
>
>Well, yes, but it still does not change the fact that it has increased the
>cost of fuel for our cars, not decreased it.
That's not the question. The question is how much is it?
Alvin Toda
wrote:
Actually we do have experimental plants. But their capacity is not
high because the market was probably not there when investors were
asked to risk the money. Actually, we are at a 10% level in Hawaii,
and we also ship in all oil. However, it is cheap oil from Indonesia
bound for the west coast. But IIRC it is further from Indonesia so I
would guess that the shipment in bulk is still expensive.
Alvin Toda
<okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
What do you mean? Why is it a viable alternative to you? I've already
said that the waste is no good.
Jerry Okamura
A couple of points. First, while doing something about nuclear waste if a
problem, it is not an unsurmountable problem. Second, if you do not go
nuclear, then you have to have a working plan on what other energy source
you are going to use (which is not mentioned), and third the alternative
plan has to be just as good or better than the nuclear option.
Jerry Okamura
It is still an increase isn't it? The price of gasoling did not decrease as
a result of adding ethanol did it? As for whether it will decrease sometime
in the future, well we will see if that actually happens...
Rubaiyat of Omar Bradley
now if we want experimental fusion plants in 2056.>>
R&D of nuclear fusion has already been underway for well over 20 years.
It's a difficult technology.
John Cowart
Earl
news:0a7i42pgsknvqo8t5...@4ax.com:
> What is Ocean-Thermal??
>
> I agree on wind as some places have potential. I have also
> seen Ocean that uses tidal movement. Not familiar with
> Ocean Thermal???
>
A plant floating at sea( or shoreline like Hawaii) that
generates power from the differance in temperature between the
surface and the cold deep waters below 500 feet. Generally you
will find a 20C difference just about anywhere in the tropics.
Was a big interest back in the early '80s. Warm water passed
through heat exchanger boils a working fluid like ammonia. Which
runs a turbine and is condensed using the cold deep water.
But the first problem is that it is generated at sea in the
tropics. Fine for fertilizer and aluminum production, but that
cable to Glenn Poolers house is a mite long.
Second major problem is biofouling. Warm water tends to have all
those happily growing plants and animals that gum up the works.
EPA and enviromentalist go ape over the idea of using nasty
chemicals to kill the critters and spoil the pristine seas. (and
those chemicals tend to wrek havock on the metals used in the
heat exchangers)
Third problem is the low Carnot efficiency, thus a very little
design error can make the plant impractical. Very high capital
cost per generated MWH.
Golden State Poppy
on sugar can for ethanol. It is 5 times more efficient than corn which
we use. And Hawaii is already set up for growing sugar cane, isn't it?
Jerry Okamura
yes, we stil grow sugar here in Hawaii, but I believe that is done only on
Maui and the Big Island, but I could be wrong.
"Golden State Poppy" <GoldenSt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1145722496.6...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Earl
news:1145685512.4...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
Yes!!
It has been just 30 years away for the last 50 years.
And even if they achieve energy breakeven a fusion reactor is
going to produce so much radiation that the enviros will go ape
once they find out what actually has to occur.
Alvin Toda
<jimst...@forgetthemail.com> wrote:
>What is Ocean-Thermal??
>
>I agree on wind as some places have potential. I have also seen Ocean
>that uses tidal movement. Not familiar with Ocean Thermal???
Also called OTEC or Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion is most effective
in warm waters like in the tropics where the warm water is available
all year round for extraction of energy. It would also help IIRC to
reduce ocean temperatures if a lot of plants were set up.
>Ethanol or other processes that use garbage or waste from existing
>agricultural processes makes sense. However, knocking over forests to
>grow crops for Ethanol seems to be problematic. I am unconvinced on
>this and believe it is another alternative to paying subsidies to
>farmers.
Yes. I don't think that we want to look for subsidizing farmers, but
this technology can be sustainable as in Hawaii where bioDiesel fuel
is created from the grease in restaurant grease traps that restaurants
are required to have in Hawaii. IIRC I've also heard of methane
produced from sewege water treatment. I think that these methods in
general are too expensive to implement and more study should be done
to reduce cost or streamline operations. For example, one big
complaint about the bioDiesel plant is the bad odor from the plant.
Don't know if they've figured out a way to end this. They should
because the city will shut down the plant if residents complain much
longer.
>I want nuclear priority 1 now and fusion number one long term
>investment.
>
>(Now that was not painful was it?)
Well, you have no solution for the number one problem with nuclear
plants. That is nuclear waste. People wont tolerate it. At least in
Hawaii, politicians would voted out of office.
Even here, the Navy has screwed up with their nuclear sub operations
and alarmed the city a number of times. It's now very difficult for
the paper work and procedures to do work on nuclear subs and store
nuclear weapons here. Military commanders have been proven to be
unreliable in safety matters. And it doesn't seem like civilian
managers would be any better. But from the Navy's viewpoint, it's
probably better than having the Navy support that work from somewhere
in the East Coast where people there are more desparate to keep that
kind of work. If you can't offer a viable solution for the waste
problem, then the nuclear option shouldn't even be considered. It's
stupid to advocate for an alternative that wont even get off the
ground. BTW, IIRC on NOW, public televsion show, these "temporary"
storage areas for waste at nuclear plants are at great risk from
terrorists. Why create even greater problems with nuclear plants?
Alvin Toda
>jimstevens <jimst...@forgetthemail.com> wrote in
>news:0a7i42pgsknvqo8t5...@4ax.com:
>
>
>> What is Ocean-Thermal??
>>
>> I agree on wind as some places have potential. I have also
>> seen Ocean that uses tidal movement. Not familiar with
>> Ocean Thermal???
>>
>
>A plant floating at sea( or shoreline like Hawaii) that
>generates power from the differance in temperature between the
>surface and the cold deep waters below 500 feet. Generally you
>will find a 20C difference just about anywhere in the tropics.
>Was a big interest back in the early '80s. Warm water passed
>through heat exchanger boils a working fluid like ammonia. Which
>runs a turbine and is condensed using the cold deep water.
>
>But the first problem is that it is generated at sea in the
>tropics. Fine for fertilizer and aluminum production, but that
>cable to Glenn Poolers house is a mite long.
It's been studied since IIRC about the 60's here. What's been found
that the deep sea water is a valuable resource and has been used for
abalone farming, growing spirulina a health food and what makes farmed
salmon so red, etc. It's even bottled here and sold in Japan as a
health food. Other applications include cheap air conditioning of
buildings and hotels, and it's even been shown effective in cooling
the ground for cold weather plants like strawberries. Due to our warm
climate the fruits are huge, and tropical weed seeds can't germinate
in the cold ground. Another byproduct is fresh water from the steam
produced from the warm surface water (well, 80 feet anyway). The deep
sea water condenses the steam in one system instead of ammonia because
the presure of the turbine-evaporator is low enough for the
temperature of the surface sea water. Salt is also extracted as a
byproduct. Some are convinced that the deep sea water is a more
valuable resource than the power produced from the plant.
>Second major problem is biofouling. Warm water tends to have all
>those happily growing plants and animals that gum up the works.
>EPA and enviromentalist go ape over the idea of using nasty
>chemicals to kill the critters and spoil the pristine seas. (and
>those chemicals tend to wrek havock on the metals used in the
>heat exchangers)
I think that there may be significant progress in this area. My
friends at the local shipyard say that the Navy's ships biofouling
coatings are now so good that the bottoms of ships and subs are now
very clean even on a five year overhaul. It's been something like
about 20 years like this that they've been using these coatings. Of
course, the fishing near the dry docks where there is sand blasting is
now terrible. Don't know if any fishing complaints are heard. :)
>Third problem is the low Carnot efficiency, thus a very little
>design error can make the plant impractical. Very high capital
>cost per generated MWH.
Yes the deep sea water is about freezing and tropical waters are about
70-80 degrees-- a 20 degree Centigrade difference-- but an enormous
about of available energy for power even if all energy from the water
cannot be extracted (that's about 273 degree Centigrade difference to
the so-called "absolute zero thermal energy" point where no thermal
energy would exist in the water). IIRC this is because the rate of
flow in small pipes is less, and it costs about the same to put in a
big pipe as a small pipe. And it may be that a big pipe would be
easier to transport divers and equipment down to periodically inspect
and maintain. The power company does not want to install a large pipe
and also sell the deep sea water to make up for the costs of the big
pipe. So it seems that this is a huge investment that wary investors
avoid.
IIRC an experimental plant is being planned with some govt assistance
and will supply fresh water for some planned residential and business
real estate projects. We are at the limits of the water supply on this
island. The power company will just buy power from the plant and
distribute it. IIRC the extra deep sea water may be used for air
conditioning and if they are smart, they'll also bottle it and sell it
in this country as a health food. Why not? We bottle ground water here
and sell it as bottled water. IIRC they've even added some vague
flavors to the bottled water.
Alvin Toda
<cowar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
It goes to show the level of our commitement when the Russians in the
past have made more progress than us in this area despite their
limited resources.
Alvin Toda
<okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
You response is not satisfactory because you neglect to address the
ammount. So what if the increase is so small?
Alvin Toda
<GoldenSt...@aol.com> wrote:
Problem is that large landowners can own agricultural land without
farming it. It's a legacy from when American missionaries from the
mainland USA, cornered the land in Hawaii. The owners would rather
build residential subdivisions or hotels on their land.
IIRC they also get a tax break on the capital gains. IIRC it's about
100% from the Feds for those estates that are considered non-profit
like the Bishop Estate. But then corporations always get giant tax
breaks. On some of the other islands, large land owners have to plant
some fruit trees to keep their agricultural zoning. There are actually
some gated gentlemen's farm subdivision communities that have
covenants that prohibit real farming on the property. Their propertay
taxes are low for the agricultural zoning that they enjoy.
Unfortunately, large land owners would rather not give cheap long term
leases to real farmers. There's a lot of jockeying in govt to bring
development to their lands. Even when a survey of agricultural land in
the state was mandated in our state constitution about 30 years ago,
politicians have kept that from being fullfilled. There hasn't been a
Constitutional Convention since probably because of fear that was
placed in the establishment when the overwhelming popular
participation at the last convention made such sweeping changes. I
would guess that politicans would rather not have a new constitutional
convention put some teeth into the provision to do the land survey.
BTW, creation of a unicameral legislature also came very close to
being adopted.
Needless to say, we could have a lot more farming here just to supply
local food needs rather than importing most of our food from the
mainland. Growing sugar cane for ethanol would be a luxury. I think
it'd be better to sell the ethanol for rum if we were going to grow
the cane for that. We import all of the rums for MaiTais that we serve
in hotels here. The only native beverage is Okolehau which does not
have too large a following. It's a special taste. We also a small wine
production on Maui and some sake. There has been a lot of excitement
because we are getting some sochu liquor from Japan lately and there
are plans for marketing to the mainland.
Alvin Toda
<okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>"Alvin Toda" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
>news:pc3i425csr1s5m3cj...@4ax.com...
>> What do you mean? Why is it a viable alternative to you? I've already
>> said that the waste is no good.
>
>A couple of points. First, while doing something about nuclear waste if a
>problem, it is not an unsurmountable problem. Second, if you do not go
>nuclear, then you have to have a working plan on what other energy source
>you are going to use (which is not mentioned), and third the alternative
>plan has to be just as good or better than the nuclear option.
Jerry...1. It is insurmountable. No one's come up with an acceptable
solution. Nor is that ever likely to happen. No one wants a waste
dump in their own back yard, and shipping it to a foreign country is
just evil. 2. Oil is choice for the midterm. Why would you assume we
would change? We just need to learn how to make friends with the
Iranians. Yes oil may get up to $100 a barrel. But maybe we might have
efficient mass transportation systems then. 3. What's so good about an
unacceptable nuclear option? It's the negatives you need to address
here.
Earl
There is a BIG difference in using the deep waters as a thermal
sink and using it as a power source in conjunction with surface.
As a cold water source, any shore area with a close in deep
water (generally 600 feet within 5 miles of shore) can work (of
course shore areas here are about 150 miles from deep water).
You just have an unlimited 50degree water supply for the cost of
pumping. (Northern areas can tap the equivilent with a deep
aquafer well).
But the efficiency is extremely bad, and normal engineering
margins can quickly erase any benefit.
Normal deltaT across a heat exchanger is about 15 F degrees,
You have 2 such heat exchangers in the system. So if everything
works fine you are down to less than 10 C degree difference to
do any work. A hull biofouling treatment is a layer of paint --
which would reduce the heat flow by about a factor of 100 -
definitely a poor choice. What is proposed is a titanium heat
exchanger that is periodicly treated (about 1 minuite in 10)
with a shot of chlorine. Which causes severe enviro problems and
possible materials difficulties.
Without the treatment the bacteria would build up on the surface
(we are not even talking about seaweed, barnacles, oysters etc)
and cut heat transfer by a factor of 100.
So the best you could have would be a 6% efficiency, but real
world engineering brings that to about 2%, if everything works
perfectly. And zilch if someone made a mistake and overlooked
something.
IIRC the ideas were first proposed in the '20s. But engineering
problems kept killing any efforts to generate power. They still
are only at the "maybe it can work" stage, but people who have
worked with the sea shake their heads and mutter about eternal
optimists. Neptune extracts a high price on those who seek to
trespass on his realms.
Jerry Okamura
It is not "insurmountable". Just see how "insurmountable" it becomes if
global warming becomes a reality, or if we really find the energy sources we
now depend on, go sky high, and there are no other alternatives. But you do
bring up an interesting point. How and where are countries like France
disposing of their nuclear waste....do you know? As for mass
transportation, think Japan, has the number of automobiles used in that
country increased or decreased. In recent trips to Los Angeles, I was
amazed to see the significant increase in mass transportation capability. I
was also amazed to see how wide the freeways have become, and yet when we
drove on those freeways, they were clogged with vehicle traffic, at just
about all hours of the day (that never used to be the case when I worked
there)...and that was less then ten years ago. As for the negatives, that
is dependent on what the other options you have to solve a crisis.
Jerry Okamura
I do not care if the increase is small, what I care about is that it was an
increase. What I care about is the simple fact that our State has been
complaining for years about the high cost of gasoline, and they tried to do
something about it. Then they turn right around and "mandate" the use of an
ethanol mix which only resulted in an increase in the price of fuel for the
cars we use.
Alvin Toda
>There is a BIG difference in using the deep waters as a thermal
>sink and using it as a power source in conjunction with surface.
>
>As a cold water source, any shore area with a close in deep
>water (generally 600 feet within 5 miles of shore) can work (of
>course shore areas here are about 150 miles from deep water).
>You just have an unlimited 50degree water supply for the cost of
>pumping. (Northern areas can tap the equivilent with a deep
>aquafer well).
>
>But the efficiency is extremely bad, and normal engineering
>margins can quickly erase any benefit.
As compared to what? The available heat from the temperature
difference, is probably as efficiency gathered as any power source. We
don't expect that steam produced from oil for example will extract all
the energy from the steam. We do expect that most of the energy put in
by the oil will be extracted. And the same goes for most of the energy
put into the surface water by the sun-- with the limits of the 20
degree Centigrade difference in temperatures.
The advantage of solely the cold water source is not the efficiency of
extracting the energy but in the valuable products it can produce or
grow. Hence, having a pipe with more than the water for power means
that the cold water itself can be used or sold for profit as well as
the power for plant. So the pipeline seems to be used for both
applications-- ie the coldwater product (or byproduct as some power
guys might say) and the power byproduct. I don't think that the energy
from the cold water not used in power production should be counted as
part of the power production. There should be a little more
complicated amortization of the costs of this system.
>Normal deltaT across a heat exchanger is about 15 F degrees,
>You have 2 such heat exchangers in the system. So if everything
>works fine you are down to less than 10 C degree difference to
>do any work. A hull biofouling treatment is a layer of paint --
>which would reduce the heat flow by about a factor of 100 -
>definitely a poor choice. What is proposed is a titanium heat
>exchanger that is periodicly treated (about 1 minuite in 10)
>with a shot of chlorine. Which causes severe enviro problems and
>possible materials difficulties.
I think that you make too many assumptions here. The pipeline itself
might just as well be concrete with a plastic liner which insulates as
well as protects against biofouling. I doubt that painting of the
pipeline can be done in place for maintenance. It might be more
feasible to replace sections of the liner if there are cracks, etc. If
there is good insulation, then the deep water effluent can very well
be close to the freezing temperature of the deep ocean. IIRC Japan
offshore plants go directly down to the ocean floor. In Hawaii, once
past the coral reef the line goes steeply down the side of a volcanic
slope to the ocean bottom.
I don't understand why you would want to add chlorine to the water to
disinfect it. Nobody's going to drink it. It's used for cooling. There
is probably some sediment that settles to the bottom of the ocean but
I would expect that there would be a screen to keep stuff out. And the
flow velocity for a large pipe might be pretty slow so as not to get
too clogged a screen-- or not. Sea life that would go through the
screen may be too big to come back out as it grows bigger. Just
wouldn't want too big a sea animal like a big squid that would swim up
the pipe and clog it.
>Without the treatment the bacteria would build up on the surface
>(we are not even talking about seaweed, barnacles, oysters etc)
>and cut heat transfer by a factor of 100.
Not sure that these grow at these depths and temperature. Probably the
surface pipe at 80 feet might have these problems. And I can see these
affecting water flow rate through the pipe. I can't this treatment
affecting heat insulation.
>So the best you could have would be a 6% efficiency, but real
>world engineering brings that to about 2%, if everything works
>perfectly. And zilch if someone made a mistake and overlooked
>something.
As compared to what? If the plant got 80% of the energy available from
the water and used 20% for operations and losses, then it would be
pretty efficient. If the Carnot efficiency of the available energy is
only 6%, then that theoretical efficiency cannot be used to compare
this to another plant. It would be like comparing apples to oranges.
IIRC for large enough plants, IIRC studies have shown that the plant
will be efficient. It's the upfront cost that has to be amortised
(even with the free cost of fuel from the ocean) that has most
investors worried. They only compare the power to that which an
equivalent number of barrels of oil would produce rather than compare
with the total benefits that exploitation of the cold water would
bring-- ie selling it to an abalone farm for example, or selling it
for air conditioning.
>IIRC the ideas were first proposed in the '20s. But engineering
>problems kept killing any efforts to generate power. They still
>are only at the "maybe it can work" stage, but people who have
>worked with the sea shake their heads and mutter about eternal
>optimists. Neptune extracts a high price on those who seek to
>trespass on his realms.
No. There are a number plants in existance in the far east for
example, where overcrowding and lack of available land forces plants
out to sea. And in Japan for example, a few of these plants use the
fresh water as a byproduct from the plant. IIRC the upfront cost does
prevent many from building these type of plants. A more common
alternative is for a manufacturing business to buy an old ship and run
the ship's power plant offshore to provide power if local power by the
city is unreliable.
Alvin Toda
<jimst...@forgetthemail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 09:27:27 -1000, Alvin Toda <a...@lava.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 18:01:59 GMT, jimstevens
>><jimst...@forgetthemail.com> wrote:
>>>I want nuclear priority 1 now and fusion number one long term
>>>investment.
>>>
>>>(Now that was not painful was it?)
>>
>>Well, you have no solution for the number one problem with nuclear
>>plants. That is nuclear waste. People wont tolerate it. At least in
>>Hawaii, politicians would voted out of office.
>
>People would not tolerate construction of nuclear power plants for 30
>years either. Have rates continue to climb for energy and more are
>supporting new plants now.
>
>We have solutions to the waste. Just some folks don't like them.
>Tough.
>
>That is another problem for scientists to work on. Build the plants
>now.
>
>
>>If you can't offer a viable solution for the waste
>>problem, then the nuclear option shouldn't even be considered.
>
>We disagree. Park it out the Yucca and no more problem.
This is a stupid idea now and in the future with even higher costs for
oil. It's doesn't make it any smarter to keep doing the same dumb
thing. You need to address the negative here. The positive takes care
of itself.
Alvin Toda
Radiation risks and waste are less and are manageable as reported for
fusion. But it might be hard to convince the public of that. Oh well,
there's plenty of time to do that fifty years into the future, and
that's if we bother to commit the money for R&D. Coal interests may
oppose that. We might have to wait for coal to run out before there is
any signicant change here.
Alvin Toda
<okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
You might think of a slightly higher cost of the gasoline due to
ethanol as an investment for a sustainable source of fuel and in the
war against global warming. In that sense, it more than pays for
itself.
Complaining about this small amount if the face of large oil price
increases means you don't have any idea of what the price cap is
supposed to accomplish. It's mean to control the whole sale price of
gasoline not the retail cost of an ethanol mixture.
Earl
Actually I would be quite happy with a scientificly designed
nuclear waste dump in my back yard.
The difference between me and you is that I actually know quite
a bit about nuclear physics, chemistry, and the nuclear
industry.
All the high level waste ever produced would fit into a space
smaller than a single house.
A glassified mass of waste is stable chemically, will not melt -
though it can get rather hot (I would cheat and use it as a
power source, should be able to get a gigawatt from the "dump"
I would bury it in a nice safe (selfsealing) salt dome. (one of
my previous properties had one, but for my current location you
have to go a ways down to get to salt) with piping leading to my
power plant.
Migrating fission particles and aquafers? Glad you asked. If you
look up some of the technical details about the Gabon swamp
natural reactor (about 1.7 billion years ago) you will find that
this was a surface deposit with uranium concentrations just like
current reactors. It was a water cooled and moderaterd reactor
(the swamp where the uraniates collected). Naturally it produced
fission fragments and plutonium. Those waste particles generally
moved only millimers and the max movement of the plutonium was
10 feet. In open water and aquafers over almost 2 billion years.
(but if I were running things I would not just throw away the
plutonium - I would reprocess it and get more energy)
(plutonium is the big bugaboo because of its 10,000 year life --
but that same long life means it has so little radioactivity
that you can hold enough of it in your hand to build an atom
bomb without ill effect. The highly radioactive waste decays in
seconds providing the energy for the power plant)
All radioactivity is bad? That turns out to be another lie.
There is an apartment building in Taiwan that was mistakenly
build using radioactive materials. Everyone at the complex got
about 75 times the legal dosage of radiation. Sounds horrible
doesn't it? Until you actually look at the health numbers and
discover that their cancer rates (over about a 30 year period)
was only 3% that of the rest of the city. Seems as if low level
radiation doses are actually GOOD for you!!!
Alvin Toda
<okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>"Alvin Toda" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
>news:3q6l42d1a84qg337e...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 17:42:31 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
>> <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>A couple of points. First, while doing something about nuclear waste if a
>>>problem, it is not an unsurmountable problem. Second, if you do not go
>>>nuclear, then you have to have a working plan on what other energy source
>>>you are going to use (which is not mentioned), and third the alternative
>>>plan has to be just as good or better than the nuclear option.
>>
>> Jerry...1. It is insurmountable. No one's come up with an acceptable
>> solution. Nor is that ever likely to happen. No one wants a waste
>> dump in their own back yard, and shipping it to a foreign country is
>> just evil. 2. Oil is choice for the midterm. Why would you assume we
>> would change? We just need to learn how to make friends with the
>> Iranians. Yes oil may get up to $100 a barrel. But maybe we might have
>> efficient mass transportation systems then. 3. What's so good about an
>> unacceptable nuclear option? It's the negatives you need to address
>> here.
>
>It is not "insurmountable".
Political... No re-elction.
>Just see how "insurmountable" it becomes if
>global warming becomes a reality, or if we really find the energy sources we
>now depend on, go sky high, and there are no other alternatives.
Not true. There are alternatives. I think doing nothing just means
higher costs, and we try to conserve more. Maybe that's good. We waste
a lot presently.
>But you do
>bring up an interesting point. How and where are countries like France
>disposing of their nuclear waste....do you know? As for mass
>transportation, think Japan, has the number of automobiles used in that
>country increased or decreased. In recent trips to Los Angeles, I was
>amazed to see the significant increase in mass transportation capability. I
>was also amazed to see how wide the freeways have become, and yet when we
>drove on those freeways, they were clogged with vehicle traffic, at just
>about all hours of the day (that never used to be the case when I worked
>there)...and that was less then ten years ago. As for the negatives, that
>is dependent on what the other options you have to solve a crisis.
We tend to design for political ends and not to solve real problems.
Ie solutions are not real solutions, but just a means to show that
something is being done, even if it may not solve the problem, or may
cause other problems. Yes. My sister now takes the train from Clarmont
instead of carpooling it into LA downtown. And she may work a little
longer instead of retiring this year for the extra convenience of the
trains. But you would have thought that if they really intended to
remove more cars that they would have good bus transit to train
stations. And France should probably be more responsible in it's
nuclear waste disposal.
Jerry Okamura
> On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 00:36:16 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
> <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>"Alvin Toda" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
>>news:3q6l42d1a84qg337e...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 17:42:31 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
>>> <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>>>A couple of points. First, while doing something about nuclear waste if
>>>>a
>>>>problem, it is not an unsurmountable problem. Second, if you do not go
>>>>nuclear, then you have to have a working plan on what other energy
>>>>source
>>>>you are going to use (which is not mentioned), and third the alternative
>>>>plan has to be just as good or better than the nuclear option.
>>>
>>> Jerry...1. It is insurmountable. No one's come up with an acceptable
>>> solution. Nor is that ever likely to happen. No one wants a waste
>>> dump in their own back yard, and shipping it to a foreign country is
>>> just evil. 2. Oil is choice for the midterm. Why would you assume we
>>> would change? We just need to learn how to make friends with the
>>> Iranians. Yes oil may get up to $100 a barrel. But maybe we might have
>>> efficient mass transportation systems then. 3. What's so good about an
>>> unacceptable nuclear option? It's the negatives you need to address
>>> here.
>>
>>It is not "insurmountable".
>
> Political... No re-elction.
>
Courage. Besides, if that is the reason they do not want to make the hard
choices, then we should not be voting for them.
>>Just see how "insurmountable" it becomes if
>>global warming becomes a reality, or if we really find the energy sources
>>we
>>now depend on, go sky high, and there are no other alternatives.
>
> Not true. There are alternatives. I think doing nothing just means
> higher costs, and we try to conserve more. Maybe that's good. We waste
> a lot presently.
What alternatives that can compete with oil?
>
>>But you do
>>bring up an interesting point. How and where are countries like France
>>disposing of their nuclear waste....do you know? As for mass
>>transportation, think Japan, has the number of automobiles used in that
>>country increased or decreased. In recent trips to Los Angeles, I was
>>amazed to see the significant increase in mass transportation capability.
>>I
>>was also amazed to see how wide the freeways have become, and yet when we
>>drove on those freeways, they were clogged with vehicle traffic, at just
>>about all hours of the day (that never used to be the case when I worked
>>there)...and that was less then ten years ago. As for the negatives, that
>>is dependent on what the other options you have to solve a crisis.
>
> We tend to design for political ends and not to solve real problems.
> Ie solutions are not real solutions, but just a means to show that
> something is being done, even if it may not solve the problem, or may
> cause other problems. Yes. My sister now takes the train from Clarmont
> instead of carpooling it into LA downtown. And she may work a little
> longer instead of retiring this year for the extra convenience of the
> trains. But you would have thought that if they really intended to
> remove more cars that they would have good bus transit to train
> stations. And France should probably be more responsible in it's
> nuclear waste disposal.
Everytime you post such a message, I keep asking the same question. How
often have you taken advantage of some form of mass transit system on a
regular basis?
Jerry Okamura
I might, but I instead "choose" to point out the simple fact that our
legislators talk out of both sides of their mouth simultaneously.
>
> Complaining about this small amount if the face of large oil price
> increases means you don't have any idea of what the price cap is
> supposed to accomplish. It's mean to control the whole sale price of
> gasoline not the retail cost of an ethanol mixture.
There is a difference between what the price cap is SUPPOSE to do, and what
it actually does.
Earl
You appear to not have a practical engineering background.
In any event you missed what I was saying.
There is nothing WRONG with a cold water pupe. It does not even
have the problems of biofouling that I mentioned. It does need
to be large enough/insulated enough to get maximum availability
of initial delta T, but that is merely a mater of a large enough
pipe and pumps and the willingness to pay the price.
Note that there is nothing inherently good about the water
itself. Any plant will do well in a hot environment if you
recuce the temperature of the roots, it just is uneconomic to
place refrigerating pipes in every row in anyplace other than a
research facility. The nutrients in the deep water are the ones
that are already in use by the upper warm water, so you can have
an initial bloom -- look at the action in SAmerica along the
Humboldt Current and the wind induced upwelling. As for people
drinking the water for health benefits -- it is salt water,
there are fools who drink the water from the Dead Sea.
Now for power purposes we come to a different world. The Tc pipe
is of no consequence other than sizing, there is insignificant
biofouling. It is the Th side where all the problems reside.
This is water that has the larval form of everything in the sea,
just looking for a flat surface. The Th pipe is of little
consequence, except that it has to filter out the big stuff,
hand hense the screens end up fouling and reduce flow.
It is the heat exchanger itself were there is the problem. To
get good heat transfer it has to be clean, hense the need to
frequently treat with an algaecide (as in hours). Failure to do
this will reduce the heat transfered by a factor of over 100 due
to bacterial/algae films. Add barnacles that form solid lum and
you have an expensive heat exchanger that is worthless.
Because of the low efficienciency you have to have extrememly
large heat exchangers which increase costs linearly. The
avialable efficiency after taking in the heat transfer losses
dictate how expensive the project will be, and if it is possible
to get the investment back. So far all the studies/demonstration
plants indicate that it is impossible without massive government
subsidies, which just mean a hidden tax placed on everyone else.
Left to itself such power plants would lose money or be
uneconomic.
If it were possible to do this for real, you would already see
it it operation on a huge scale, Imagine a plant at sea with no
government regulators looking over your shoulder, and the only
question is could you sell the fertilizer or aluminum on the
world market.
Alvin Toda
>Alvin Toda <a...@lava.net> wrote in
>news:oacn421hhhhh3iuq0...@4ax.com:
>You appear to not have a practical engineering background.
I do. I'm an engineer. But that's not the issue here.
>In any event you missed what I was saying.
>
>There is nothing WRONG with a cold water pupe. It does not even
>have the problems of biofouling that I mentioned. It does need
>to be large enough/insulated enough to get maximum availability
>of initial delta T, but that is merely a mater of a large enough
>pipe and pumps and the willingness to pay the price.
I think that you miss my point. You try to separate the costs of a
cold water pipe and an OTEC pipe. They need to be amortized together
and costed together. Revenue and costs are intertwined in this system.
Rather than saying something wrong, you just ignore the problem.
>Note that there is nothing inherently good about the water
>itself. Any plant will do well in a hot environment if you
>recuce the temperature of the roots, it just is uneconomic to
>place refrigerating pipes in every row in anyplace other than a
>research facility. The nutrients in the deep water are the ones
>that are already in use by the upper warm water, so you can have
>an initial bloom -- look at the action in SAmerica along the
>Humboldt Current and the wind induced upwelling. As for people
>drinking the water for health benefits -- it is salt water,
>there are fools who drink the water from the Dead Sea.
However, most who are familiar with this system claim that the deep
sea water itself is more valuable than the power derived from it. They
claim rightly so that the salt has a different effect on our bodies
than regular sea salt because the salt from deep sea water is formed
under great pressure. It's great for sales. It isn't worth arguing
here.
>Now for power purposes we come to a different world. The Tc pipe
>is of no consequence other than sizing, there is insignificant
>biofouling. It is the Th side where all the problems reside.
>This is water that has the larval form of everything in the sea,
>just looking for a flat surface. The Th pipe is of little
>consequence, except that it has to filter out the big stuff,
>hand hense the screens end up fouling and reduce flow.
>
>It is the heat exchanger itself were there is the problem. To
>get good heat transfer it has to be clean, hense the need to
>frequently treat with an algaecide (as in hours). Failure to do
>this will reduce the heat transfered by a factor of over 100 due
>to bacterial/algae films. Add barnacles that form solid lum and
>you have an expensive heat exchanger that is worthless.
>
>Because of the low efficienciency you have to have extrememly
>large heat exchangers which increase costs linearly. The
>avialable efficiency after taking in the heat transfer losses
>dictate how expensive the project will be, and if it is possible
>to get the investment back. So far all the studies/demonstration
>plants indicate that it is impossible without massive government
>subsidies, which just mean a hidden tax placed on everyone else.
>Left to itself such power plants would lose money or be
>uneconomic.
No you're looking at the thermodynamic figure-- something like 20/293
or less than 10%-- which is a theoretical number for the Carnot cycle
for the available thermodynamic from the theoretical thermodynamic
total energy.
No doubt there are some losses but they really aren't that great when
you consider the ammount of available energy that is extracted. The
pipe is quite efficient when it is large, well insulated and free of
clogging algae.
>If it were possible to do this for real, you would already see
>it it operation on a huge scale, Imagine a plant at sea with no
>government regulators looking over your shoulder, and the only
>question is could you sell the fertilizer or aluminum on the
>world market.
It's already been in development for too long. Govt need to fund these
for the large start up costs. And allow a reasonable period and
ammount for ammortization to make the system attractive to investors.
Alvin Toda
<jimst...@forgetthemail.com> wrote:
>Stupid? Dumb? Does not take you long to get down and wallow in the
>gutter does it. So you don't have the courtesy to engage in polite
>exchange.
It's just the truth. What else do you call ignoring dangerous negative
consequences?
Alvin Toda
<okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
No you talk out of both sides of your mouth. It only does what
legislators intended it to do.
Alvin Toda
<okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
Why would I want to use a system that does not meet my personal needs?
That's the rub BTW before there is a significant drop in car usage.
Alvin Toda
Don't think that this is a controled study. And yes people do die from
the radiation. Yes we can improve on the risk but the waste is still a
problem we can't avoid. It's inherent in the system. Find a way to
deactivate the waste and you'll make a lot of money.
Jerry Okamura
That depends on what your "personal" needs are. Just about anyone who can
drive and owns a car, puts up with some level of inconenience, some a lot of
inconvenience, so that you can drive your car with a little less
"inconvinence".
Jerry Okamura
And what was that?
Alvin Toda
<jimst...@forgetthemail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 07:22:48 -1000, Alvin Toda <a...@lava.net> wrote:
>
>>On 24 Apr 2006 14:11:28 GMT, Earl <nep...@wt.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Alvin Toda <a...@lava.net> wrote in
>>>news:oacn421hhhhh3iuq0...@4ax.com:
>>
>>>You appear to not have a practical engineering background.
>>
>>I do. I'm an engineer. But that's not the issue here.
>
>Explains the severe deficit in social skills. What accounts for the
>outright boorish behavior that is added on?
So we don't insult each other with as much class as you do?
Alvin Toda
<okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
I think you argue that legislators are supposed to do what you think
is best. We don't elect them for that. We elect them to do what is
best for the public.
Alvin Toda
<okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>"Alvin Toda" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
>news:9i2q42d1tng63r4gj...@4ax.com...
>> Why would I want to use a [bus] system that does not meet my personal needs?
>> That's the rub BTW before there is a significant drop in car usage.
>
>That depends on what your "personal" needs are. Just about anyone who can
>drive and owns a car, puts up with some level of inconenience, some a lot of
>inconvenience, so that you can drive your car with a little less
>"inconvinence".
Inconvenience is not a need. Convenience is.
Needs are more general.
Jerry Okamura
Alvin Toda
<okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Alvin Toda" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
>news:n99v42hs4gvcioauu...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 00:06:51 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
>> <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Alvin Toda" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
>>>news:9i2q42d1tng63r4gj...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>> Why would I want to use a [bus] system that does not meet my personal
>>>> needs?
>>>> That's the rub BTW before there is a significant drop in car usage.
>>>
>>>That depends on what your "personal" needs are. Just about anyone who can
>>>drive and owns a car, puts up with some level of inconenience, some a lot
>>>of
>>>inconvenience, so that you can drive your car with a little less
>>>"inconvinence".
>>
>> Inconvenience is not a need. Convenience is.
>>
>> Needs are more general.
>
>Sure they are
>
That's the point.
Jerry Okamura
Like eating or having water.....
Alvin Toda
<okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
Too general. Not only convenience.