...Oil prices hit new record high -- $119.90 a barrel
Harry Hope
From The Associated Press, 4/23/08:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i5TtajgUpSm7KY5jf-lCJGHBB-tAD9076NEG0
By JOHN WILEN
Light, sweet crude for May delivery rose to a new trading record of
$119.90 before retreating to settle up $1.89 at a record $119.37 a
barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
__________________________________________________
Harry
B1ackwater
wrote:
>
>From The Associated Press, 4/23/08:
>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i5TtajgUpSm7KY5jf-lCJGHBB-tAD9076NEG0
>
>By JOHN WILEN
>
>Light, sweet crude for May delivery rose to a new trading record of
>$119.90 before retreating to settle up $1.89 at a record $119.37 a
>barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
Yep - and likely $125 by sometime next week. Gasoline
prices jumped again at US filling stations this morning
in response to the oil prices continued upward trend.
Those "Sweet !" 600-HP hemis ... I wonder if they still
taste quite so sweet to the rednecks and soccer-moms
who bought 'em ? Two and a half miles-per-dollar I'll
bet ... IF they're lucky :-)
Liberals are Guilt-mongering Fascists
Attacks Against Oil for the Purpose of Volatile Prices:
24 articles (20 attacks, 3 threats or busts, 1 uncertain) in 8 Nations
Jan 15, 2006 - Nigeria
Gunmen attack Shell oil plant in Nigeria UPDATE
http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/afx/2006/01/15/afx2450778.html
Jan. 26, 2006 - Nigeria
Nigerian manhunt after oil attack
http://www.kbc.co.ke/story.asp?ID=34690
Feb. 18, 2006 - Nigeria
Militants Attack Nigerian Oil Facilities, Seize Nine Foreign Workers
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/18/AR2006021801294_pf.html
Feb. 25, 2006 - Saudi Arabia
Car bombers attack Saudi Arabia's oil processing facility
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/car-bombers-attack-saudi-arabias-oil-processing-facility-467625.html
Mar. 30, 2006 - Iraq
Oil refinery workers gunned down in Iraq
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/03/30/iraq.main/
June 7, 2006 - Nigeria
Militants attack Nigeria oil field
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/06/07/skorea.kidnappings/index.html
Nov. 27, 2006 - Iraq
Mortar attack ignites huge fire at North Oil Co. refinery in Kirkuk
fields
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/27/africa/ME_GEN_Iraq_Refinery_Attack.php
Dec. 7, 2006 - Nigeria
Gunmen attack Nigeria oil export station
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2006/12/07/gunmen_attack_nigeria_oil_export_station/
*note: this one is funny, b/c they kidnapped 4 people, and demanded
"compensation for environmental pollution")
Feb. 14, 2007 - Canada
Al-Qaeda calls for attacks on Canadian oil facilities
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/02/14/qaeda-canada.html
*note: not an attack, but confirms the over-all agenda that links all
this
Apr. 24, 2007 - Ethiopia
Scores die in Ethiopia oil attack
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/africa/6588055.stm
Apr. 28, 2007 - Saudi Arabia
172 oil-attack suspects arrested
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=3&art_id=vn20070428091955939C631500
*note: this wasn't an attack, but a busted plot
July 10, 2007 - Mexico
Mexico rebels claim oil attacks
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6290222.stm
Sept. 11, 2007 - Mexico
Second Pemex Attack Rocks Mexico
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/sep2007/gb20070911_747279.htm
Sept. 23, 2007 - Iraq
Internal Iraq oil pipeline cut by bomb - police
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L2349748.htm
Oct. 15, 2007 - Iraq
Basra oil attack marks dangerous change
http://www.upi.com/International_Security/Energy/Briefing/2007/10/15/basra_oil_attack_marks_dangerous_change/3178/print_view/
Oct. 19, 2007 - Iraq
Bombers attack pipelines feeding Iraqi refineries
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/COL944914.htm
Nov. 15, 2007 - Nigeria
Nigeria hit by new oil pipeline attack
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL15695646
Nov. 28, 2007 - Saudi Arabia
Saudi arrests 208 militants, foils oil attack
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2007/11/28/42254.html
*note: this wasn't an attack, but a busted plot
Dec. 10, 2007 - Iraq
Baghdad oil refinery ablaze after rocket attack
http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx/2007/12/10/afx4420406.html
Jan. 15, 2008 - Iraq
Iraq refinery shut down after mortar attack
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L15576753.htm
Feb. 15, 2008 - USA/Texas
Explosion Reported at South Texas Oil Pipeline
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330799,00.html
*note: this may or may not be intentional/terror-related
Feb. 28, 2008 - Nigeria
Oil prices climb back above US$100 a barrel after attack on Nigerian
oil facilities
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/02/28/business/EU-FIN-MKT-Oil-Prices.php
Apr. 21, 2008 - Nigeria
Oil production cuts in Nigeria following attacks
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080421/nigeria_oil_unrest.html?.v=2
Apr. 21, 2008 - Yemen
Oil Market Rattled by Attack on Tanker
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/22/world/asia/22tanker.html?ref=world
Patriot Games
news:683v0415qljce23t0...@4ax.com...
> From The Associated Press, 4/23/08:
> http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i5TtajgUpSm7KY5jf-lCJGHBB-tAD9076NEG0
> $119.90 before retreating to settle up $1.89 at a record $119.37 a
> barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
What are the Democrats in Congress doing about this?
Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack' )
You make a reasonable point. Only higher gasoline prices will force
Americans to drive cars (or Vespas) that get decent miles per
gallon.
--
"Question, two men starving to death decide to eat their hair like
spaghetti. Is that funny?"
"Hmmm, well, it depends on if by funny you want to make people
laugh."
-+Eddie Izzard and Joanna Lumley, "The Cat's Meow"
B1ackwater
allusion in lieu of the frontal attack' )"
<tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>B1ackwater wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:25:08 -0400, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >From The Associated Press, 4/23/08:
>> >http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i5TtajgUpSm7KY5jf-lCJGHBB-tAD9076NEG0
>> >
>> >By JOHN WILEN
>> >
>> >Light, sweet crude for May delivery rose to a new trading record of
>> >$119.90 before retreating to settle up $1.89 at a record $119.37 a
>> >barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
>>
>> Yep - and likely $125 by sometime next week. Gasoline
>> prices jumped again at US filling stations this morning
>> in response to the oil prices continued upward trend.
>>
>> Those "Sweet !" 600-HP hemis ... I wonder if they still
>> taste quite so sweet to the rednecks and soccer-moms
>> who bought 'em ? Two and a half miles-per-dollar I'll
>> bet ... IF they're lucky :-)
>>
>You make a reasonable point. Only higher gasoline prices will force
>Americans to drive cars (or Vespas) that get decent miles per
>gallon.
It's what AlGore said all along ... except that he wanted
to artificially boost fuel prices to around $5/gal to
really force the point (and make people buy 'earth friendly'
bio-fuels ... which have, as many predicted, turned out to
be anything BUT friendly to man or nature).
Anyway ... those suckers who kept buying those "Sweet !" hemis,
convinced the momentary slight dip in prices a couple years ago
meant 99-cent gas on the horizon, they've EARNED that sour taste
in their mouths.
I still see some car ads that brag about horsepower - albeit
mostly "sports cars". Apparently that means there are STILL
some fools out there who don't understand that they PAY for
each and every horsie at the gas pump.
Oh well ... I wouldn't mind seeing a "Vespa Nation". They ARE
nice scooters, and rather a lot of people could take advantage
of them ... and that 75 mpg. Hell of a lot cheaper than a
'hybrid' too :-)
However THE answer to the national fuel consumption problem is
the realization that DISTANCE is the enemy and the path to savings
is to THINK LOCALLY as much as possible.
Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack' )
What would you suggest? Sure it's fun to complain, but then people
elect you and it's up to you to "just fix it".
Patriot Games
news:4813CDA7...@yahoo.co.uk...
> Patriot Games wrote:
>> "Harry Hope" <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> news:683v0415qljce23t0...@4ax.com...
>> > From The Associated Press, 4/23/08:
>> > http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i5TtajgUpSm7KY5jf-lCJGHBB-tAD9076NEG0
>> > Light, sweet crude for May delivery rose to a new trading record of
>> > $119.90 before retreating to settle up $1.89 at a record $119.37 a
>> > barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
>> What are the Democrats in Congress doing about this?
> What would you suggest? Sure it's fun to complain, but then people
> elect you and it's up to you to "just fix it".
I never said I had the answer.
DemoKKKrats said they had the answer. Gas went UP.
I never said I'd fix the problem.
DemoKKKrats said they'd fix the problem. Gas went UP.
DemoKKKrats LIED.
We need to do these things, pretty much in this order:
1) Eliminate Federal gas tax completely. Do that today.
2) Release one-half of the Strategic Reserve into inventory. Do that
beginning May 1st.
3) Deliver a simple ultimatum to the Saudis and OPEC. Increase production
by 20% per quarter, beginning June 1st, and continue doing that until told
otherwise, OR WE WILL TAKE OVER YOUR COUNTRY.
4) Hybrid vehicles are a stupid half-measure. Electric-only vehicles that
are both safe and long-haul and highway-ready don't exist. Almost every gas
station in America has a machine to put a quarter in and vacuum your car for
a few minutes. If you keep dropping french fries in your lap you're a pig
and it not my fault or my problem. Convert every single one of these to
quick-charge for electric cars. Get out of everybody's way you fat fucking
pigs and vacuum your own car at your own home.
5) Give States 12 months to provide electric car recharge stations at every
gas station or CUT all Fed Transpo money.
6) Give taxpayers $500 cash rebate and $2,000 tax credit for the cost of
installing electric car recharge capability at home.
7) Give every business that provides employee parking 12 months to provide
electric car recharge stations at 4-1 ratio (1 recharge station for every 4
or less parking spaces). Let's make non-compliance a $100,000 fine per
employee.
8) There IS a market for electric-only short-haul local cars. They exist.
They work fine, they're even safe. They could be mass-produced in six
months. "Detroit" will NEVER step up, they've made that perfectly obvious.
Let's tell "Detroit" to go fuck themselves. The Federal gov't could bankroll
a new US car company to mass-produce already existing short-haul electric
cars.
9) We're going nuclear. We're going nuclear because there's ultimately no
other viably serious choice. That means a lot more and a lot cheaper
electricity. We can make that happen fast by going electric right now.
Matt
frontal attack' )" <tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> B1ackwater wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:25:08 -0400, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >From The Associated Press, 4/23/08:
> > >http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i5TtajgUpSm7KY5jf-lCJGHBB-tAD9076NEG0
>
> > >By JOHN WILEN
>
> > >Light, sweet crude for May delivery rose to a new trading record of
> > >$119.90 before retreating to settle up $1.89 at a record $119.37 a
> > >barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
>
> > Yep - and likely $125 by sometime next week. Gasoline
> > prices jumped again at US filling stations this morning
> > in response to the oil prices continued upward trend.
>
> > Those "Sweet !" 600-HP hemis ... I wonder if they still
> > taste quite so sweet to the rednecks and soccer-moms
> > who bought 'em ? Two and a half miles-per-dollar I'll
> > bet ... IF they're lucky :-)
>
> You make a reasonable point. Only higher gasoline prices will force
> Americans to drive cars (or Vespas) that get decent miles per
> gallon.
Or to look at real alternatives.
Unfortunately, this has been the case for virtually everything. People
really don't pay attention until it hits them in the pocketbook.
Sadly,
this usually causes a knee jerk reaction.
Watch, as a new round of "ultra-cheap" "marvelous gas mileage" cars
comes out with no safety features, that will collapse in a stiff wind
and
cost twice as much in maintenance.
Sad but true.
Matt
Matt
> "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack' )"<tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:4813CDA7...@yahoo.co.uk...
>
> > Patriot Games wrote:
> >> "Harry Hope" <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> >>news:683v0415qljce23t0...@4ax.com...
> >> > From The Associated Press, 4/23/08:
> >> >http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i5TtajgUpSm7KY5jf-lCJGHBB-tAD9076NEG0
> >> > Light, sweet crude for May delivery rose to a new trading record of
> >> > $119.90 before retreating to settle up $1.89 at a record $119.37 a
> >> > barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
> >> What are the Democrats in Congress doing about this?
> > What would you suggest? Sure it's fun to complain, but then people
> > elect you and it's up to you to "just fix it".
>
> I never said I had the answer.
>
> DemoKKKrats said they had the answer. Gas went UP.
>
> I never said I'd fix the problem.
>
> DemoKKKrats said they'd fix the problem. Gas went UP.
>
> DemoKKKrats LIED.
>
> We need to do these things, pretty much in this order:
>
> 1) Eliminate Federal gas tax completely. Do that today.
>
> 2) Release one-half of the Strategic Reserve into inventory. Do that
> beginning May 1st.
There are 701 million barriels of oil in the SR. Processing them will
take
a few months, and will produce, oh, a month or so of gasoline. Another
huge help there.
>
> 3) Deliver a simple ultimatum to the Saudis and OPEC. Increase production
> by 20% per quarter, beginning June 1st, and continue doing that until told
> otherwise, OR WE WILL TAKE OVER YOUR COUNTRY.
Yeah, okay, that will cause WW3. Are you this stupid, or do you just
let your
mouth run on without any help from the brain? Do you think nobody else
will
step in to protect their oil interests? Good God.
>
> 4) Hybrid vehicles are a stupid half-measure. Electric-only vehicles that
> are both safe and long-haul and highway-ready don't exist. Almost every gas
> station in America has a machine to put a quarter in and vacuum your car for
> a few minutes. If you keep dropping french fries in your lap you're a pig
> and it not my fault or my problem. Convert every single one of these to
> quick-charge for electric cars. Get out of everybody's way you fat fucking
> pigs and vacuum your own car at your own home.
I have no idea what your solution here is. We aren't producing any
electric
vehicles to speak of.
>
> 5) Give States 12 months to provide electric car recharge stations at every
> gas station or CUT all Fed Transpo money.
Really. That would be interesting. And under what part of the
Constitution would
you dictate to states that they need to do something WITHIN their
borders?
>
> 6) Give taxpayers $500 cash rebate and $2,000 tax credit for the cost of
> installing electric car recharge capability at home.
Okay, that's actually intelligent. However, once again, there are no
electric cars
to buy.
>
> 7) Give every business that provides employee parking 12 months to provide
> electric car recharge stations at 4-1 ratio (1 recharge station for every 4
> or less parking spaces). Let's make non-compliance a $100,000 fine per
> employee.
Again, intelligent, but see above.
>
> 8) There IS a market for electric-only short-haul local cars. They exist.
> They work fine, they're even safe. They could be mass-produced in six
> months. "Detroit" will NEVER step up, they've made that perfectly obvious.
> Let's tell "Detroit" to go fuck themselves. The Federal gov't could bankroll
> a new US car company to mass-produce already existing short-haul electric
> cars.
They could. The Government is not, however, good at very fast
turnarounds of
anything. And the fact that our current President cut funding to all
of the various
alternative energy and/or engine companies didn't help. Still, a "Moon
Project"
for electric cars might be reasonable.
There are problems with electric cars, you know. Battery life,
disposal, and the
issues with cutting into them for emergencies are just a few that come
to mind.
They won't replace long-haul truckers, nor will they work in places
like the MidWest,
where a drive to work can easily be 60 miles or more.
Still, its a thought.
>
> 9) We're going nuclear. We're going nuclear because there's ultimately no
> other viably serious choice. That means a lot more and a lot cheaper
> electricity. We can make that happen fast by going electric right now.
In a lot of ways, its kind of sad that you are so incredibly angry
about things. You
have some good ideas, and many of them are possible. Nuclear isn't a
short-term
solution nor, as I've pointed out before, will it work everywhere (you
want to build
a nuclear plant on the San Andreas, for example?). We need a mixture
of sources,
so that we don't put all our eggs in one basket.
Tidal energy is an excellent possibility for coastal regions.
Geothermal energy is
a good choice where possible. Even gravitational energy (essentially,
the power generated
by the earth turning on its axis) might contribute some, although not
in the short term.
The simple answer is, in the short term we are stuck. Nothing we can
do will change a
hundred years of mistakes from BOTH sides. It is, however, nice to see
people finally
talking about it.
Matt
nob...@nowhere.com
Under the same part they always use whenever the Feds want something
done -- threaten to cut the Fed highway funding from the states.
>>
>> 6) Give taxpayers $500 cash rebate and $2,000 tax credit for the cost of
>> installing electric car recharge capability at home.
>
>Okay, that's actually intelligent. However, once again, there are no
>electric cars
>to buy.
You forgot that the electrical grid is already near or at capacity.
What would happen if we suddenly added the demand of electric cars to
the current grid?
>
>>
>> 7) Give every business that provides employee parking 12 months to provide
>> electric car recharge stations at 4-1 ratio (1 recharge station for every 4
>> or less parking spaces). Let's make non-compliance a $100,000 fine per
>> employee.
>
>Again, intelligent, but see above.
Not really unless you increase electricity production first.
Matt
That particular threat only works if the states care. More and more,
they have
been ignoring those threats. See Wyoming and Alaska, for example.
> >> 6) Give taxpayers $500 cash rebate and $2,000 tax credit for the cost of
> >> installing electric car recharge capability at home.
>
> >Okay, that's actually intelligent. However, once again, there are no
> >electric cars
> >to buy.
>
> You forgot that the electrical grid is already near or at capacity.
> What would happen if we suddenly added the demand of electric cars to
> the current grid?
Valid point, and one more piece of the infrastructure that needs to be
addresses. Imagine, for example, summer in Phoenix, with all of the
air
conditioners going full-blast, and a sudden run on recharging cars.
Good
point.
>
>
>
> >> 7) Give every business that provides employee parking 12 months to provide
> >> electric car recharge stations at 4-1 ratio (1 recharge station for every 4
> >> or less parking spaces). Let's make non-compliance a $100,000 fine per
> >> employee.
>
> >Again, intelligent, but see above.
>
> Not really unless you increase electricity production first.
I don't know if its the production we need to increase so much as the
delivery
mechanism. Nuclear power could certainly produce enough energy,
although we might
want to go from a centralized distribution to a more localized one.
Imagine, for example,
(and this is only a simple example) a very small nuke plant in every
neighborhood that
provided most of the power needed, sending any excess back into the
grid. Solar, wind,
water, etc, could be used in place of the nuclear plant in this
example. Might be a better
way to approach the problem.
Matt
Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack' )
Matt wrote:
>
> On Apr 28, 4:48 am, nob...@nowhere.com wrote:
> > On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 08:08:15 -0700 (PDT), Matt
> > <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> > >Okay, that's actually intelligent. However, once again, there are no
> > >electric cars
> > >to buy.
> >
> > You forgot that the electrical grid is already near or at capacity.
> > What would happen if we suddenly added the demand of electric cars to
> > the current grid?
>
> Valid point, and one more piece of the infrastructure that needs to be
> addresses. Imagine, for example, summer in Phoenix, with all of the
> air
> conditioners going full-blast, and a sudden run on recharging cars.
> Good
> point.
>
AC and EVs are two sinks that can conceivably be controlled by the
grid managers. This means they can be shunted in or out at will to
match available power increasing the percentage of lower cost base
power that can be efficiently utilized.
But there really is no solution unless there is more power, which
means nuclear power. And really should mean nuclear power farms,
that is a number of reactors built in one location. These would
then provide their power to a high voltage DC grid of grids serving
North America.
nob...@nowhere.com
It's worked pretty well in the past. I suspect the threat will be
continued to be used to control the states that do care.
Well, regardless of whether it's production or distribution, the
simple fact is that the infrastructure is not currently in place to
make electric cars cost efficient or practical.
Matt
frontal attack' )" <tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Matt wrote:
>
> > On Apr 28, 4:48 am, nob...@nowhere.com wrote:
> > > On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 08:08:15 -0700 (PDT), Matt
> > > <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> > > >Okay, that's actually intelligent. However, once again, there are no
> > > >electric cars
> > > >to buy.
>
> > > You forgot that the electrical grid is already near or at capacity.
> > > What would happen if we suddenly added the demand of electric cars to
> > > the current grid?
>
> > Valid point, and one more piece of the infrastructure that needs to be
> > addresses. Imagine, for example, summer in Phoenix, with all of the
> > air
> > conditioners going full-blast, and a sudden run on recharging cars.
> > Good
> > point.
>
> AC and EVs are two sinks that can conceivably be controlled by the
> grid managers. This means they can be shunted in or out at will to
> match available power increasing the percentage of lower cost base
> power that can be efficiently utilized.
I'm not sure the existing grid can handle that kind of levels, but I'm
willing
to be convinced that it can (or could easily be modified to).
>
> But there really is no solution unless there is more power, which
> means nuclear power. And really should mean nuclear power farms,
> that is a number of reactors built in one location. These would
> then provide their power to a high voltage DC grid of grids serving
> North America.
Agreed, although the concept of "farms" can work with nuclear, solar,
wind,
water, and so forth. Use what makes sense in the area to produce the
power,
contribute it to the grid. Alternatively, eliminate the grid and use
local
production for local use (and spill back to other uses). All of these
are valid
and should be tried.
Matt
>
> --
> "Question, two men starving to death decide to eat their hair like
> spaghetti. Is that funny?"
> "Hmmm, well, it depends on if by funny you want to make people
> laugh."
> -+Eddie Izzard and Joanna Lumley, "The Cat's Meow"- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Steve
allusion in lieu of the frontal attack' )"
Actually, Bill, you lose a big part of the efficiency of nuclear
energy by having lots of small units rather than big ones.. and if
you build a large power plant, say 2000 to 3000 mws, you have enough
problems getting the much power out of that location.. as well as the
increased risk of losing that much all at once having 5000 to
10,000 mws or more output at one location just magnifies those
problems.... and, of course, all the big power plants are already
generating onto the high voltage grid.
Steve
I don't think it would be such a problem... a good deal of the
charging would take place at night when loads are down, and it's not
as though all this increased demand would switch in suddenly.. the
transmission, generation and distribution companies will have pretty
good lead time to get the systems up to where they can handle it....
Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack' )
I'm talking about connecting the AC grids with a new grid of grids
using HVDC, see below.
> >
> > But there really is no solution unless there is more power, which
> > means nuclear power. And really should mean nuclear power farms,
> > that is a number of reactors built in one location. These would
> > then provide their power to a high voltage DC grid of grids serving
> > North America.
>
> Agreed, although the concept of "farms" can work with nuclear, solar,
> wind,
> water, and so forth.
>
Only nuclear power of the above options is available to expand as
needed and is available to produce base power. Standard nuke plants
smaller than the usual gigawatt type, maybe 650MW, are easier to
control and would be cheaper to build. Having many in one location
reduces the valid security concerns in a post 9/11 world. I'd like
to see them underground, actually.
> Use what makes sense in the area to produce the
> power,
> contribute it to the grid. Alternatively, eliminate the grid and use
> local
> production for local use (and spill back to other uses). All of these
> are valid
> and should be tried.
>
I'm not sure what you mean by local production. If you mean putting
solar panels on every home and using the EV battery to store power,
recall that the EV isn't home during the day when he sun is out.
And solar panels are impractical for large scale generation. They
are also not capable of base power production.
Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack' )
I'm talking about scaling down to about 650MW from 1000MW or so
previously.
> and if
> you build a large power plant, say 2000 to 3000 mws, you have enough
> problems getting the much power out of that location..
>
I'm proposing a HVDC grid of grids. This system would be designed
to provide redundant connections between the various reactor farms
around North America. I propose aluminium production be placed next
to the reactor farms as a means of soaking up excess power.
> as well as the
> increased risk of losing that much all at once having 5000 to
> 10,000 mws or more output at one location just magnifies those
> problems....
>
For example, if you had an earthquake and had to shutdown all the
plants in the area, that could take out all of North America. This
would need to be considered in the locations, I think the Midwest
to start, you used. If you placed ten farms around North America
considering the above and connected them with redundant HVDC, I
think that should answer your problems.
> and, of course, all the big power plants are already
> generating onto the high voltage grid.
>
There's no doubt that a grid of grids would be constructed to deal
with this. Can you find ten locations far enough apart that they
wouldn't be impacted by anything like one earthquake? I think I
would not put any of these farms on the West coast because of
earthquake threats. The Pacific Northwest has a lot of hydropower
already. California is a big problem for earthquakes and should be
connected in from farms to the East. Perhaps something in Arizona
would make sense.
Steve
there's already redundant connections between power plants.. and load
centers.....
>> as well as the
>> increased risk of losing that much all at once having 5000 to
>> 10,000 mws or more output at one location just magnifies those
>> problems....
>>
>For example, if you had an earthquake and had to shutdown all the
>plants in the area, that could take out all of North America. This
>would need to be considered in the locations, I think the Midwest
>to start, you used. If you placed ten farms around North America
>considering the above and connected them with redundant HVDC, I
>think that should answer your problems.
Not a chance... the whole idea of having this massive amount of
generation lumped together isn't going to fly.. you want the
generation reasonably close to load center to reduce losses and reduce
risk to the transmission of this power out to the load centers...
>> and, of course, all the big power plants are already
>> generating onto the high voltage grid.
>>
>There's no doubt that a grid of grids would be constructed to deal
>with this. Can you find ten locations far enough apart that they
>wouldn't be impacted by anything like one earthquake? I think I
>would not put any of these farms on the West coast because of
>earthquake threats. The Pacific Northwest has a lot of hydropower
>already. California is a big problem for earthquakes and should be
>connected in from farms to the East. Perhaps something in Arizona
>would make sense.
There's very little advantage to having more than a couple of big
units in one spot, and there's tons of disadvantages....
Matt
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:02:57 +0000, "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique
> allusion in lieu of the frontal attack' )"
>
>
>
>
>
> <tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Steve wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 20:30:42 +0000, "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique
> >> allusion in lieu of the frontal attack' )"
While the connections are redundant, they are also centrally located.
A
disaster in one location affects all this way.
>
> >> as well as the
> >> increased risk of losing that much all at once having 5000 to
> >> 10,000 mws or more output at one location just magnifies those
> >> problems....
>
> >For example, if you had an earthquake and had to shutdown all the
> >plants in the area, that could take out all of North America. This
> >would need to be considered in the locations, I think the Midwest
> >to start, you used. If you placed ten farms around North America
> >considering the above and connected them with redundant HVDC, I
> >think that should answer your problems.
>
> Not a chance... the whole idea of having this massive amount of
> generation lumped together isn't going to fly.. you want the
> generation reasonably close to load center to reduce losses and reduce
> risk to the transmission of this power out to the load centers...
No real reason for this. As the wattage increases, the loss decreases.
I
didn't quite believe this either, but was pointed at some good
evidence of this.
In fact, it makes sense to a certain degree, the lossage becomes
insignificant
quickly.
On the other hand, I do tend to think that more localized (and
smaller) plants
of various types would be a better choice. This is more of a
political and
sociological approach than a technical one, though.
>
> >> and, of course, all the big power plants are already
> >> generating onto the high voltage grid.
>
> >There's no doubt that a grid of grids would be constructed to deal
> >with this. Can you find ten locations far enough apart that they
> >wouldn't be impacted by anything like one earthquake? I think I
> >would not put any of these farms on the West coast because of
> >earthquake threats. The Pacific Northwest has a lot of hydropower
> >already. California is a big problem for earthquakes and should be
> >connected in from farms to the East. Perhaps something in Arizona
> >would make sense.
>
> There's very little advantage to having more than a couple of big
> units in one spot, and there's tons of disadvantages....
There are numerous advantages, but I also agree as to the
disadvantages.
It might make more sense to have local farms of clusters of smaller
reactors
and/or other energy sources. Solves the problem of distribution as
well as
reducing the risk of plants going down.
Matt
Steve
>> >to the reactor farms as a means of soaking up excess power. multile plants.
>>
>> there's already redundant connections between power plants.. and load
>> centers.....
>
>While the connections are redundant, they are also centrally located.
>A
>disaster in one location affects all this way.
But a disaster in one location doesn't necessarily shit down multiple
plants and multiple lines..
>> >> as well as the
>> >> increased risk of losing that much all at once having 5000 to
>> >> 10,000 mws or more output at one location just magnifies those
>> >> problems....
>>
>> >For example, if you had an earthquake and had to shutdown all the
>> >plants in the area, that could take out all of North America. This
>> >would need to be considered in the locations, I think the Midwest
>> >to start, you used. If you placed ten farms around North America
>> >considering the above and connected them with redundant HVDC, I
>> >think that should answer your problems.
>>
>> Not a chance... the whole idea of having this massive amount of
>> generation lumped together isn't going to fly.. you want the
>> generation reasonably close to load center to reduce losses and reduce
>> risk to the transmission of this power out to the load centers...
>
>No real reason for this. As the wattage increases, the loss decreases.
<chuckle> more ignorance from Matt... I'd keep Matt's ignorant
claims like this one, but he's too stupid to bother...
>I
>didn't quite believe this either, but was pointed at some good
>evidence of this.
You were pointed wrong...
>In fact, it makes sense to a certain degree, the lossage becomes
>insignificant
>quickly.
<LOL> total bullshit... resistance losses are directly proportional
to current low....
>On the other hand, I do tend to think that more localized (and
>smaller) plants
>of various types would be a better choice. This is more of a
>political and
>sociological approach than a technical one, though.
technical too...
>> >> and, of course, all the big power plants are already
>> >> generating onto the high voltage grid.
>>
>> >There's no doubt that a grid of grids would be constructed to deal
>> >with this. Can you find ten locations far enough apart that they
>> >wouldn't be impacted by anything like one earthquake? I think I
>> >would not put any of these farms on the West coast because of
>> >earthquake threats. The Pacific Northwest has a lot of hydropower
>> >already. California is a big problem for earthquakes and should be
>> >connected in from farms to the East. Perhaps something in Arizona
>> >would make sense.
>>
>> There's very little advantage to having more than a couple of big
>> units in one spot, and there's tons of disadvantages....
>
>There are numerous advantages, but I also agree as to the
>disadvantages.
<LOL> So what do you believe are all the advantages to having more
than a couple of big generating units in one spot? You might save a
tiny bit on labor costs but only a tiny amount. For a fossil plant
there would be some savings in the fuel delivery and handling
facilities, but that doesn't apply to a nuclear plant... Each unit
of comparable size requires roughly the same manpower and equipment no
matter where it located.
nob...@nowhere.com
And where would this electricity come from? We certainly haven't been
building enough power plants to keep up with current demand.
Steve
Like I said.. a good deal of the charging would take place at night
when demands are low.. OTOH, to handle daytime charging, consider
that the lead time on peaking units isn't very long and any auto
charging load would grow gradually...
Matt
Ignoring the rather amusing typo...
No, it wouldn't shut down multiple lines, but a single location means
closely placed
plants. Closely placed plants mean that a localized disaster
(earthquake, tornado,
etc) rather than a single plant failure would take out all of them. In
addition, closely
placed plants have the issue that they would likely share a single
output and input
power line (or they would be close) which could cause the same
problems.
> >> >> as well as the
> >> >> increased risk of losing that much all at once having 5000 to
> >> >> 10,000 mws or more output at one location just magnifies those
> >> >> problems....
>
> >> >For example, if you had an earthquake and had to shutdown all the
> >> >plants in the area, that could take out all of North America. This
> >> >would need to be considered in the locations, I think the Midwest
> >> >to start, you used. If you placed ten farms around North America
> >> >considering the above and connected them with redundant HVDC, I
> >> >think that should answer your problems.
>
> >> Not a chance... the whole idea of having this massive amount of
> >> generation lumped together isn't going to fly.. you want the
> >> generation reasonably close to load center to reduce losses and reduce
> >> risk to the transmission of this power out to the load centers...
>
> >No real reason for this. As the wattage increases, the loss decreases.
>
> <chuckle> more ignorance from Matt... I'd keep Matt's ignorant
> claims like this one, but he's too stupid to bother...
>
> >I
> >didn't quite believe this either, but was pointed at some good
> >evidence of this.
>
> You were pointed wrong...
I'll give you a break this time, Steve-o, since you are actually
discussing things.
Electric power transmission
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
It has been suggested that Grid connection be merged into this
article or section. (Discuss)
Energy Portal
"Power line" redirects here. For the conservative U.S. blog, see Power
Line. For the telecommunication technology, see Power line
communication.
"Power grid" redirects here. For the board game, see Power Grid (board
game).
Transmission lines in Lund, Sweden
BC Hydro transmission towers and lines in Coquitlam, British
Columbia.
PG&E's Path 15 500 kV power lines in the California Central Valley.
Power lines near Helsinki, Finland
A tension tower with transposed phases carrying a single phase AC
traction current line (110 kV, 16.67 hertz) near Bartholomä in
Germany
Hydro-Quebec high tension power lines near St-Jean-sur-Richelieu,
QuebecElectric power transmission, a process in the delivery of
electricity to consumers, is the bulk transfer of electrical power.
Typically, power transmission is between the power plant and a
substation near a populated area. Electricity distribution is the
delivery from the substation to the consumers. Electric power
transmission allows distant energy sources (such as hydroelectric
power plants) to be connected to consumers in population centers, and
may allow exploitation of low-grade fuel resources that would
otherwise be too costly to transport to generating facilities.
Due to the large amount of power involved, transmission normally takes
place at high voltage (110 kV or above). Electricity is usually
transmitted over long distance through overhead power transmission
lines. Underground power transmission is used only in densely
populated areas due to its high cost of installation and maintenance,
and because the high reactive power produces large charging currents
and difficulties in voltage management.
A power transmission system is sometimes referred to colloquially as a
"grid"; however, for reasons of economy, the network is not a
mathematical grid. Redundant paths and lines are provided so that
power can be routed from any power plant to any load center, through a
variety of routes, based on the economics of the transmission path and
the cost of power. Much analysis is done by transmission companies to
determine the maximum reliable capacity of each line, which, due to
system stability considerations, may be less than the physical or
thermal limit of the line. Deregulation of electricity companies in
many countries has led to renewed interest in reliable economic design
of transmission networks. However, in some places the gaming of a
deregulated energy system has led to disaster, such as that which
occurred during the California electricity crisis of 2000 and 2001.
[citation needed]
Contents [hide]
1 AC power transmission
1.1 History
2 Bulk power transmission
2.1 Grid input
2.2 Losses
2.3 HVDC
2.4 Grid exit
3 Limitations
4 Communications
5 Electricity market reform
6 Merchant transmission
7 Health concerns
8 Special transmission
8.1 Grids for railways
8.2 Radio frequency power transmission
8.3 Superconducting cables
8.4 Single wire earth return
8.5 Wireless power transmission
9 Records
10 See also
11 Notes
12 Further reading
13 External links
[edit] AC power transmission
AC power transmission is the transmission of electric power by
alternating current. Usually transmission lines use three phase AC
current. Single phase AC current is sometimes used in a railway
electrification system. In urban areas, trains may be powered by DC at
600 volts or so.
Overhead conductors are not covered by insulation. The conductor
material is nearly always an aluminum alloy, made into several strands
and possibly reinforced with steel strands. Conductors are a commodity
supplied by several companies worldwide. Improved conductor material
and shapes are regularly used to allow increased capacity and
modernize transmission circuits. Conductor sizes in overhead
transmission work range in size from #6 American wire gauge (about 12
square millimetres) to 1,590,000 circular mils area (about 750 square
millimetres), with varying resistance and current-carrying capacity.
Thicker wires would lead to a relatively small increase in capacity
due to the skin effect, that causes most of the current to flow close
to the surface of the wire.
Today, transmission-level voltages are usually considered to be 110 kV
and above. Lower voltages such as 66 kV and 33 kV are usually
considered sub-transmission voltages but are occasionally used on long
lines with light loads. Voltages less than 33 kV are usually used for
distribution. Voltages above 230 kV are considered extra high voltage
and require different designs compared to equipment used at lower
voltages.
Overhead transmission lines are uninsulated wire, so design of these
lines requires minimum clearances to be observed to maintain safety.
[edit] History
In the early days of commercial use of electric power, transmission of
electric power at the same voltage as used by lighting and mechanical
loads restricted the distance between generating plant and consumers.
Originally generation was with direct current, which could not easily
be increased in voltage for long-distance transmission. Different
classes of loads, for example, lighting, fixed motors, and traction
(railway) systems, required different voltages and so used different
generators and circuits. [1]
At an AIEE meeting on May 16, 1888, Nikola Tesla delivered a lecture
entitled A New System of Alternating Current Motors and Transformers,
describing the equipment which allowed efficient generation and use of
alternating currents. Tesla's disclosures, in the form of patents,
lectures and technical articles, are useful for understanding the
history of the modern system of power transmission. Ownership of the
rights to the Tesla patents was a key commercial advantage to the
Westinghouse Company in offering a complete alternating current power
system for both lighting and power.
The so-called "universal system" used transformers both to couple
generators to high-voltage transmission lines, and to connect
transmission to local distribution circuits. By a suitable choice of
utility frequency, both lighting and motor loads could be served.
Rotary converters and later mercury-arc valves and other rectifier
equipment allowed DC load to be served by local conversion where
needed. Even generating stations and loads using different frequencies
could also be interconnected using rotary converters. By using common
generating plants for every type of load, important economies of scale
were achieved, lower overall capital investment was required, load
factor on each plant was increased allowing for higher efficiency,
allowing for a lower cost of energy to the consumer and increased
overall use of electric power.
By allowing multiple generating plants to be interconnected over a
wide area, electricity production cost was reduced. The most efficient
available plants could be used to supply the varying loads during the
day. Reliability was improved and capital investment cost was reduced,
since stand-by generating capacity could be shared over many more
customers and a wider geographic area. Remote and low-cost sources of
energy, such as hydroelectric power or mine-mouth coal, could be
exploited to lower energy production cost. [2]
The first transmission of three-phase alternating current using high
voltage took place in 1891 during the international electricity
exhibition in Frankfurt. A 25 kV transmission line, approximately 175
kilometers long, connected Lauffen on the Neckar and Frankfurt.
Initially transmission lines were supported by porcelain pin-and-
sleeve insulators similar to those used for telegraphs and telephone
lines. However, these had a practical limit of 40 kV. In 1907, the
invention of the disc insulator by Harold W. Buck of the Niagara Falls
Power Corporation and Edward M. Hewlett of General Electric allowed
practical insulators of any length to be constructed for higher
voltages. The first large scale hydroelectric generators in the USA
were installed at Niagara Falls and provided electricity to Buffalo,
New York via power transmission lines. A statue of Tesla stands at
Niagara Falls today in tribute to his contributions.
Voltages used for electric power transmission increased throughout the
20th century. By 1914 fifty-five transmission systems operating at
more than 70,000 V were in service, the highest voltage then used was
150,000 volts. [3] The first three-phase alternating current power
transmission at 110 kV took place in 1912 between Lauchhammer and
Riesa, Germany. On April 17, 1929 the first 220 kV line in Germany was
completed, running from Brauweiler near Cologne, over Kelsterbach near
Frankfurt, Rheinau near Mannheim, Ludwigsburg-Hoheneck near Austria.
The masts of this line were designed for eventual upgrade to 380 kV.
However the first transmission at 380 kV in Germany was on October 5,
1957 between the substations in Rommerskirchen and Ludwigsburg-
Hoheneck. In 1967 the first extra-high-voltage transmission at 735 kV
took place on a Hydro-Québec transmission line. In 1982 the first
transmission at 1200 kV was in the Soviet Union.
The rapid industrialization in the 20th century made electrical
transmission lines and grids a critical part of the economic
infrastructure in most industrialized nations. Interconnection of
local generation plants and small distribution networks was greatly
spurred by the requirements of World War I, where large electrical
generating plants were built by governments to provide power to
munitions factories; later these plants were connected to supply civil
load through long-distance transmission. [4]
Small municipal electrical utilities did not necessarily desire to
reduce the cost of each unit of electricity sold; to some extent,
especially during the period 1880-1890, electrical lighting was
considered a luxury product and electric power was not substituted for
steam power. Engineers such as Samuel Insull in the United States and
Sebastian Z. De Ferranti in the United Kingdom were instrumental in
overcoming technical, economic, regulatory and political difficulties
in development of long-distance electric power transmission. By
introduction of electric power transmission networks, in the city of
London the cost of a kilowatthour was reduced to one-third in a ten-
year period. [5]
In 1926 electrical networks in the United Kingdom began to be
interconnected in the National Grid, initially operating at 132,000
volts.
[edit] Bulk power transmission
Engineers design transmission networks to transport the energy as
efficiently as feasible, while at the same time taking into account
economic factors, network safety and redundancy. These networks use
components such as power lines, cables, circuit breakers, switches and
transformers.
A transmission substation decreases the voltage of electricity coming
in allowing it to connect from long distance, high voltage
transmission, to local, lower voltage, distribution. It also rerouts
power to other transmission lines that serve local markets. The
substation may also "reboost" power allowing it to travel greater
distances from the power generation source along the high voltage
transmission lines.This is the PacifiCorp Hale Substation, Orem,
Utah.Transmission efficiency is improved by increasing the voltage
using a step-up transformer, which reduces the current in the
conductors, while keeping the power transmitted nearly equal to the
power input. The reduced current flowing through the conductor reduces
the losses in the conductor and since, according to Joule's Law, the
losses are proportional to the square of the current, halving the
current makes the transmission loss one quarter the original value.
A transmission grid is a network of power stations, transmission
circuits, and substations. Energy is usually transmitted within the
grid with three-phase AC. DC systems require relatively costly
conversion equipment which may be economically justified for
particular projects. Single phase AC is used only for distribution to
end users since it is not usable for large polyphase induction motors.
In the 19th century two-phase transmission was used, but required
either three wires with unequal currents or four wires. Higher order
phase systems require more than three wires, but deliver marginal
benefits.
The capital cost of electric power stations is so high, and electric
demand is so variable, that it is often cheaper to import some portion
of the variable load than to generate it locally. Because nearby loads
are often correlated (hot weather in the Southwest portion of the
United States might cause many people there to turn on their air
conditioners), imported electricity must often come from far away.
Because of the economics of load balancing, transmission grids now
span across countries and even large portions of continents. The web
of interconnections between power producers and consumers ensures that
power can flow even if a few links are inoperative.
The unvarying (or slowly varying over many hours) portion of the
electric demand is known as the "base load", and is generally served
best by large facilities (and therefore efficient due to economies of
scale) with low variable costs for fuel and operations, i.e. nuclear,
coal, hydro. Renewables such as solar, wind, ocean/tidal, etc. are not
considered "base load" but can still add power to the grid. Smaller-
and higher-cost sources such as combined cycle or combustion turbine
plants that run on natural gas are then added as needed.
Long-distance transmission of electricity (thousands of miles) is
cheap and efficient, with costs of US$ 0.005 to 0.02 per kilowatt-hour
(compared to annual averaged large producer costs of US$ 0.01 to US$
0.025 per kilowatt-hour, retail rates upwards of US$ 0.10 per kilowatt-
hour, and multiples of retail for instantaneous suppliers at
unpredicted highest demand moments).[6] Thus distant suppliers can be
cheaper than local sources (e.g. New York City buys a lot of
electricity from Canada). Multiple local sources (even if more
expensive and infrequently used) can make the transmission grid more
fault tolerant to weather and other disasters that can disconnect
distant suppliers.
Long distance transmission allows remote renewable energy resources to
be used to displace fossil fuel consumption. Hydro and wind sources
can't be moved closer to high population cities, and solar costs are
lowest in remote areas where local power needs are the least.
Connection costs alone can determine whether any particular renewable
alternative is economically sensible. Costs can be prohibitive for
transmission lines.
[edit] Grid input
At the generating plants the energy is produced at a relatively low
voltage of up to 30 kV (Grigsby, 2001, p. 4-4), then stepped up by the
power station transformer to a higher voltage (115 kV to 765 kV AC, ±
250-500 kV DC, varying by country) for transmission over long
distances to grid exit points (substations).
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#Losses
Losses
Transmitting electricity at high voltage reduces the fraction of
energy lost to Joule heating. For a given amount of power, a higher
voltage reduces the current and thus the resistive losses in the
conductor. For example, raising the voltage by a factor of 10 reduces
the current by a corresponding factor of 10 and therefore the losses
by a factor of 100, provided the same sized conductors are used in
both cases. Even if the conductor size is reduced x10 to match the
lower current the losses are still reduced x10. Long distance
transmission is typically done with overhead lines at voltages of 115
to 1,200 kV. However, at extremely high voltages, more than 2,000 kV
between conductor and ground, corona discharge losses are so large
that they can offset the lower resistance loss in the line conductors.
>
> >In fact, it makes sense to a certain degree, the lossage becomes
> >insignificant
> >quickly.
>
> <LOL> total bullshit... resistance losses are directly proportional
> to current low....
See above. To a given point, loss decreases with current increase.
>
> >On the other hand, I do tend to think that more localized (and
> >smaller) plants
> >of various types would be a better choice. This is more of a
> >political and
> >sociological approach than a technical one, though.
>
> technical too...
Not really technical. We aren't talking about anything that doesn't
exist today.
Certainly there is a monetary issue in putting it together, and a
political problem in
getting it done. There is a need for a fairly large number of
technical people, sure, but
I don't think we have mentioned anything that isn't already feasible.
> >> >> and, of course, all the big power plants are already
> >> >> generating onto the high voltage grid.
>
> >> >There's no doubt that a grid of grids would be constructed to deal
> >> >with this. Can you find ten locations far enough apart that they
> >> >wouldn't be impacted by anything like one earthquake? I think I
> >> >would not put any of these farms on the West coast because of
> >> >earthquake threats. The Pacific Northwest has a lot of hydropower
> >> >already. California is a big problem for earthquakes and should be
> >> >connected in from farms to the East. Perhaps something in Arizona
> >> >would make sense.
>
> >> There's very little advantage to having more than a couple of big
> >> units in one spot, and there's tons of disadvantages....
>
> >There are numerous advantages, but I also agree as to the
> >disadvantages.
>
> <LOL> So what do you believe are all the advantages to having more
> than a couple of big generating units in one spot? You might save a
> tiny bit on labor costs but only a tiny amount. For a fossil plant
> there would be some savings in the fuel delivery and handling
> facilities, but that doesn't apply to a nuclear plant... Each unit
> of comparable size requires roughly the same mapower and equipment no
> matter where it located.
Technically, there are no real advantages. Politically, there are a
few (less people
to convince to allow you to build in their backyard), less
transportation costs, since
you are going to a single location. Less infrastructure cost, since
you build the access
once.
Again, there are a lot of disadvantages, which is why I didn't like it
either. That doesn't
mean I can't see the positives.
Matt
Matt
I think I mentioned the idea of putting them underground in another
thread.
Its a good idea, and reduces a fair amount of risk. On the other hand,
I have
no idea what it does to the heat problem, since you'd have to build on
solid
rock and would have to figure out a way to handle heat dissipation.
What's the advantage to the smaller MW reactor? The basic
infrastruture is
the same, you just have less power to worry about. As for security,
you could
make the case that by "putting all your eggs in one basket", you
actually increase
the security risk.
>
> > Use what makes sense in the area to produce the
> > power,
> > contribute it to the grid. Alternatively, eliminate the grid and use
> > local
> > production for local use (and spill back to other uses). All of these
> > are valid
> > and should be tried.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by local production. If you mean putting
> solar panels on every home and using the EV battery to store power,
> recall that the EV isn't home during the day when he sun is out.
> And solar panels are impractical for large scale generation. They
> are also not capable of base power production.
I wasn't particularly thinking of large scale production. Consider the
idea
of the cable head-end. The idea is that a small area (say,a
neighborhood)
is supplied with data (or power) from a local provider. That provider
could
actually be generating the data (or power) via a variety of sources.
Nuke
power works fine, but why not scale the reactor down even further and
supplement it with other green sources (wind, solar, water). You get
some
buy-in from the ecofolk, and satisfy the power needs.
Matt
Steve
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the losses in the conductor and since, according to Joule's Law, the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>losses are proportional to the square of the current, halving the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>current makes the transmission loss one quarter the original value.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
See the sentence above....
Nothing in there that says that "loss decreases with current
increases." Indeed, the sentence I noted above says the exact
opposite and agrees with what I posted... It's also basic science
101....
You should know by now that I don't often post things that are
incorrect....
>> >On the other hand, I do tend to think that more localized (and
>> >smaller) plants
>> >of various types would be a better choice. This is more of a
>> >political and
>> >sociological approach than a technical one, though.
>>
>> technical too...
>
>Not really technical. We aren't talking about anything that doesn't
>exist today.
Technical reasons for there not to be large generating farms..
Nope, infrastructure cost would not be reduced much for a multiple
unit nuclear plant.. You'd still need enough transmission capacity
to get all the power out and you couldn't bundle it all in one or two
corridors without increasing risk of totally isolating the plant for a
single line transmission line outage event. You'd have to have the
same amount of cooling tower capability and once again, building one
or two big ones instead of several little ones only increases forced
outage time risk... transportation costs might apply to fossil plants
but they don't go down for nuclear since nukes don't involve
transporting much besides electricity..
Matt
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:44:21 -0700 (PDT), Matt
>
> >On Apr 30, 3:22 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:08:37 -0700 (PDT), Matt
>
> >> <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> >> >On Apr 29, 5:07 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:02:57 +0000, "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique
> >> >> allusion in lieu of the frontal attack' )"
>
> >> >> <tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> >> >Steve wrote:
>
> >> >> >> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 20:30:42 +0000, "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique
> >> >> >> allusion in lieu of the frontal attack' )"
> >> >> >> <tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >Matt wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> On Apr 28, 4:48 am, nob...@nowhere.com wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 08:08:15 -0700 (PDT), Matt
>
> >> >> >> >> > <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> > >Okay, that's actually intelligent. However, once again, there are no
> >> >> >> >> > >electric cars
> >> >> >> >> > >to buy.
>
> >> >> >> >> > You forgot that the electrical grid is already near or at capacity.
> >> >> >> >> > What would happen if we suddenly added the demand of electric cars to
> >> >> >> >> > the current grid?
>
> >in allowing it to connect from long distance, high voltage
> >transmission, to local, lower voltage, distribution. It also rerouts
> >power to other transmission lines that serve local markets. The
> >substation may also "reboost" power allowing it to travel greater
> >distances from the power generation source along the high voltage
> >transmission lines.This is the PacifiCorp Hale Substation, Orem,
> >Utah.Transmission efficiency is improved by increasing the voltage
> >using a step-up transformer, which reduces the current in the
> >conductors, while keeping the power transmitted nearly equal to the
> >power input. The reduced current flowing through the conductor reduces
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^>the losses in the conductor and since, according to Joule's Law, the
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^>losses are proportional to the square of the current, halving the
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^>current makes the transmission loss one quarter the original value.
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> See the sentence above....
Yes, that's what Joule's Law says. The "loss" is heat. You are
confusing the heat given off (which can be contained)
with actual loss of power, which it is not. Its a fairly common
mistake, because people simply read Joule's Law and
think it applies without any modification. This is the whole point of
HVDC, otherwise it would make no sense at all.
> >> <LOL> total bullshit... resistance losses are directly proportional
> >> to current low....
>
> >See above. To a given point, loss decreases with current increase.
>
> Nothing in there that says that "loss decreases with current
> increases." Indeed, the sentence I noted above says the exact
> opposite and agrees with what I posted... It's also basic science
> 101....
Again, you are confusing heat, which is generated by resistance with
loss of power.
>
> You should know by now that I don't often post things that are
> incorrect....
Really. LOL.
>
> >> >On the other hand, I do tend to think that more localized (and
> >> >smaller) plants
> >> >of various types would be a better choice. This is more of a
> >> >political and
> >> >sociological approach than a technical one, though.
>
> >> technical too...
>
> >Not really technical. We aren't talking about anything that doesn't
> >exist today.
>
> Technical reasons for there not to be large generating farms..
Ah, ok, I thought you were talking about technical problems.
> >> <LOL> So what do you believe are all the advantages to having more
> >> than a couple of big generating units in one spot? You might save a
> >> tiny bit on labor costs but only a tiny amount. For a fossil plant
> >> there would be some savings in the fuel delivery and handling
> >> facilities, but that doesn't apply to a nuclear plant... Each unit
> >> of comparable size requires roughly the same mapower and equipment no
> >> matter where it located.
>
> >Technically, there are no real advantages. Politically, there are a
> >few (less people
> >to convince to allow you to build in their backyard), less
> >transportation costs, since
> >you are going to a single location. Less infrastructure cost, since
> >you build the access
> >once.
>
> Nope, infrastructure cost would not be reduced much for a multiple
> unit nuclear plant.. You'd still need enough transmission capacity
> to get all the power out and you couldn't bundle it all in one or two
> corridors without increasing risk of totally isolating the plant for a
> single line transmission line outage event. You'd have to have the
> same amount of cooling tower capability and once again, building one
> or two big ones instead of several little ones only increases forced
> outage time risk... transportation costs might apply to fossil plants
> but they don't go down for nuclear since nukes don't involve
> transporting much besides electricity..
Different infrastructure. You have to get people in there, meaning
roads
and such. You have to have disposal facilities for anything, meaning
that
you are creating multiple sites.
I'm quite sure all of this could be accomplished. The question is
whether
anyone would be willing to foot the bill. The initial startup cost
would be
horrifying.
Matt
Steve
<LOL> Meaningless bluster from Matt......
>mistake, because people simply read Joule's Law and
>think it applies without any modification.
<snort> OK, what modification applies?
> This is the whole point of
>HVDC, otherwise it would make no sense at all.
More nonsense.....
So actually, your claim that "loss decreases with current increase" is
just one more stupid claim from you that you can support....
>> >> <LOL> total bullshit... resistance losses are directly proportional
>> >> to current low....
>>
>> >See above. To a given point, loss decreases with current increase.
>>
>> Nothing in there that says that "loss decreases with current
>> increases." Indeed, the sentence I noted above says the exact
>> opposite and agrees with what I posted... It's also basic science
>> 101....
>
>Again, you are confusing heat, which is generated by resistance with
>loss of power.
<LOL> Again, Nothing in your cite says that says that "loss
decreases with current increases." Your claim that "loss decreases
with current increase" is just one more stupid claim from you that you
can support....
>> You should know by now that I don't often post things that are
>> incorrect....
>
>Really. LOL.
You've yet to show anything that I've said was wrong....
Oh gawd... you think that building a driveway into the plant is a
significant cost?
>You have to have disposal facilities for anything, meaning
>that
>you are creating multiple sites.
Minimal savings perhaps.. you have to have the same capacity
reqardless of the plants location...
>I'm quite sure all of this could be accomplished. The question is
>whether
>anyone would be willing to foot the bill. The initial startup cost
>would be
>horrifying.
Huh? you obviously don't know what you're talking about... Startup
costs for x number of nuclear units would be pretty much the same
regardless of whether they were all together or spread across the
country...
>Matt
Kurt Lochner
>
> Matt wrote:
> >
> >"senile comprehensions" <semen...@tamponbuoy.rr.com> whined:
> >>
> >> Matt wrote:
- -- -
> >> > A transmission substation decreases the voltage of electricity coming
> >> > in allowing it to connect from long distance, high voltage
> >> > transmission, to local, lower voltage, distribution. It also rerouts
> >> > power to other transmission lines that serve local markets. The
> >> > substation may also "reboost" power allowing it to travel greater
> >> > distances from the power generation source along the high voltage
> >> > Utah. Transmission efficiency is improved by increasing the voltage
> >> > using a step-up transformer, which reduces the current in the
> >> > conductors, while keeping the power transmitted nearly equal to the
> >> > power input. The reduced current flowing through the conductor reduces
> >>
> >
> > Yes, that's what Joule's Law says. The "loss" is heat. You are
> > confusing the heat given off (which can be contained) with actual
> > because people simply read Joule's Law and think it applies
> > without any modification.
>
Yourself, you blitheringly ignorant right-wing retard..
> > This is the whole point of HVDC, otherwise it would make no sense at all.
>
>More nonsense.....
More intentional ignorance on your behalf, actually.. *>LOL!<*
Example follows..
>So actually, your claim that "loss decreases with current increase"
Nope, he originally cited the following..
"Transmission efficiency is improved by increasing the voltage
using a step-up transformer, which reduces the current in the
conductors, while keeping the power transmitted nearly equal to the
power input. The reduced current flowing through the conductor reduces
the losses in the conductor and since, according to Joule's Law, the
losses are proportional to the square of the current, halving the
current makes the transmission loss one quarter the original value."
Did you need an adult to help you understand the above?
Let's go over that again..
"halving the current makes the transmission loss one quarter
the original value."
Did it finally sink in that what you claimed was completely wrong?
Or will you try to bluster and spit your way out of this?
> >>Nothing in there that says that "loss decreases with current
> >>increases." Indeed, the sentence I noted above says the exact
> >>opposite and [..]
And you just didn't understand where you screwed up..
>Again, Nothing in your cite says that says that "loss decreases
>with current increases."
Correct, that was *YOUR* claim, you ambitiously ignorant pedophile..
>You've yet to show anything that I've said was wrong....
*>LOL!<* This would be funny, if it weren't so spastically stupid..
--Got any "magnetic capacitors", sparky? Let's see 'em, m'kay?
Steve
<snicker> and Lochner imagines that the above supports Matt's claim
that "loss decreases with current increase."
>Did it finally sink in that what you claimed was completely wrong?
<LOL>
>Or will you try to bluster and spit your way out of this?
>
>> >>Nothing in there that says that "loss decreases with current
>> >>increases." Indeed, the sentence I noted above says the exact
>> >>opposite and [..]
>
>And you just didn't understand where you screwed up..
>
>>Again, Nothing in your cite says that says that "loss decreases
>>with current increases."
>
>Correct, that was *YOUR* claim, you ambitiously ignorant pedophile..
Lochner *IS* reading impaired... It was Matt's claim... Here's
Matt's words...
"As the wattage increases, the loss decreases."
--mattt...@sprynet.com Apr 29, 2008
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/d8ff3e51e76c1f45
>>You've yet to show anything that I've said was wrong....
>
>*>LOL!<* This would be funny, if it weren't so spastically stupid..
No wonder Lochner is still paying rent... the stupid moron cant even
read...
Kurt Lochner
> >
> >"senile comprehensions" <semen...@tamponbuoy.rr.com> sniveled at:
> > >
> > > Matt wrote:
> > > >
> > > >"senile comprehensions" <semen...@tamponbuoy.rr.com> whined:
> > > >>
> > > >> Matt wrote:
> >
>
>that "loss decreases with current increase."
> > > >>Nothing in there that says that "loss decreases with current
> > > >>increases." Indeed, the sentence I noted above says the exact
> > > >>opposite and [..]
> >
> > And you just didn't understand where you screwed up..
> >
> > >Again, Nothing in your cite says that says that "loss decreases
> > >with current increases."
> >
> > Correct, that was *YOUR* claim, you ambitiously ignorant pedophile..
>
>Lochner *IS* reading [..]
What you wrote in the above.. I already know that your 'cites'
are not to be taken seriously, because you deliberately mis-quote
and lie about it after the fact..
And, you just got exposed for an intentionally ignorant fraud..
> > >You've yet to show anything that I've said was wrong....
> >
> > *>LOL!<* This would be funny, if it weren't so spastically stupid..
> >
> > --Got any "magnetic capacitors", sparky? Let's see 'em, m'kay?
>
>No wonder Lochner is still paying rent [..]
Still making up your straw-man personal attacks when you're
confronted with the facts that dispute your tiny-minded opinions
and lack of formal education.. You've never gotten past a
junior high school level science course, have you?
--See subject header for details..
Mr. Jim
"WE" elected them to work for us, NOT for themselves.
Darn straight, WE elected them to do what is right for the American taxpayers.
I am of the opinion: If we the American voters would stick together we could eliminate the majority of the US Congress that votes in their favor, NOT ours.
To do so, we would have to STOP voting to the same old politicians that have been in office for more then two terms. Take a good look at Senator Burd from WVA, he can hardly stand on his feet and speak (C-Span).
Well, that should eliminate half of the US Congress. WE the American Taxpayers need new blood in
"OUR" Congress. We need positive thinking open minded people., not what we have.
Speaking of "OIL", tell the Congress to start DRILLING, and tell Nancy "kiss my ass" Pelosi to move on.
"God Bless America"
Mr. Jim, Veteran
"Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack' )" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:4813CDA7...@yahoo.co.uk...
Patriot Games wrote:
>
> "Harry Hope" <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:683v0415qljce23t0...@4ax.com...
> > From The Associated Press, 4/23/08:
> > http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i5TtajgUpSm7KY5jf-lCJGHBB-tAD9076NEG0
> > Light, sweet crude for May delivery rose to a new trading record of
> > $119.90 before retreating to settle up $1.89 at a record $119.37 a
> > barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
>
> What are the Democrats in Congress doing about this?
>
What would you suggest? Sure it's fun to complain, but then people
elect you and it's up to you to "just fix it".
--
Day Brown
> What would you suggest? Sure it's fun to complain, but then people
> elect you and it's up to you to "just fix it".
what else we can agree on... online?
The coalitions behind the established political parties are not
logically consistent.
The Dems have tried to join the well educated liberals with the working
stiffs; the former wants a cleaner environment, the latter wants more
beer and bigger SUVs.
The GOP tried to join the fiscal conservatives with the religious
conservatives, with neither getting what they want. The former sees an
even bigger national debt, and the latter has not seen any action at all
on abortion, flag burning, prayer in schools, or trust in god, cause you
sure cant trust the Republicans.
The Greens cant seem to add, and figure out that if we cant stop people
from coming in, the carbon footprint they collectively add up to will
make the environmental problems even worse.
The Libertarians want greater personal freedom without realizing that
what they advocate will create a power vacuum for transnational
corporations to move in to.
They all want free speech, oblivious to the fact that subsidized
corporate speech drowns out anything any of us have to say. Each of them
has inherited a form of group think that feeds their egos, increases the
sense of self righteousness, and fails to see the downsides of policy-
unless it was advocated by some perceived opposition.