ENVIRON-NUTS
Bob Apthorpe
>> PUBLIUS at <alt.fan.publius> Fax: 305 525 8800 (pub...@gate.net)
>>
>>
>This is the most rediculous article I have read in a long time.
Note the source.
>First
>of all, I know of no environmentalist who has or ever would encourage
>the use of fossil fuels to meet our country's energy demand.
Of course not, that would go against the Luddite agrarian political agenda.
But I digress. Herr Publius makes this newsgroup virtually unusable and
should be ignored. This twit-baiting has been going on for about three months
now.
>Nuclear
>power is not justified yet because it creates the most dangerous
>waste material known on Earth, and we don't have any solutions
>dealing with what to do with it since, on a relative human time scale,
>it takes forever to decompose to less-hazardous materials.
More tripe. Techincally, nuclear waste is easy to deal with. Politically,
it's impossible to manage, what with repository development crawling along
under Department of Entropy management, taking direction from the .
>Solar and
>wind power are not nonsense solutions as was stated above.
Until you can bring their cost and reliability to the levels currently
provided by nuclear and fossil generation, they cannot be justified to the
ratepayer. Throw your own money away.
>In fact,
>with current technology, within the next 50 years America could
>meet up to 75% of its energy demands with wind power.
We could meet our energy needs within 50 years by biomass as well, provided
we ditched our comfortable, industrialized, energy-intensive lifestyle and
underwent radical population control. Via chemical and biological warfare
agents, no doubt, with some mass starvation and plagues tossed in for good
measure. But it *could* be done.
Oh. I'm sorry. I should try to be more positive. For about the same
investment fusion would give you more megawatts, a more reliable source of
energy, it would kill less birds, disrupt much less of the environment, and
wouldn't be nearly as noisy as wind power. It would probably end up cleaner
as well...
>The other 25%
>could easily be met by solar power and other renewable forms of
>energy.
For no more than half of the day in selected areas of the country. This is a
tired old argument that Publius loves baiting people into. Look, get a book
(not a pamphlet, a book) on power production and look at the energy density
of wind and solar and ofther renewable sources of energy and compare that to
the energy density of fossil and nuclear fuels. 'Powerplant Technology' by M.
M. El-Wakil is a good book, if a bit technical. He covers most of the energy
technologies mentioned here, though his focus is primarily on thermal plants
(those using nuclear or combustion-generated heat to eventually drive the
generator).
>Renewable forms of energy are the only ones that are sustainable.
That is very true, at least in the long-term. That is not, however, a good
enough reason to return to a low-technology, low-energy consumption, agrarian
civilization overnight.
Again, please ignore Publius. Maybe he'll go bother rec.pets.cats and leave
us alone.
Bob
QWicKeSST - The ultimate database QWK reader, and NO limits.
Richard H. Rustad
Whoever told you about high cancer rates as a result of TMI lied to
you. As for France's nuclear weapon testing, do you propose testing
in populated areas?
.....................................................................
Richard Rustad . It doesn't matter Sweetie, as
W: richard...@srs.gov . long as it's a LaCroix!
H: bru...@aol.com . Edina Monsoon, "Absolutely Fabulous"
.....................................................................
Karl F. Johanson
In a previous article, juli...@mhs.unc.edu (Julie Locascio) says:
>>It is extremely compact. All of the spent nuclear fuel in the US could
>>fit on a single football field in carefully designed and licensed storage
>>containers. The containers are about 15 feet tall and there would only be
>>a single layer.
>>Not one person in the US has ever been hurt by exposure to nuclear waste.
>
>It could all fit in a football field because we have not let nuclear energy
>take over this country. If all our power were generated by nuclear energy,
>forget it, Now, this last sentence...excuse me, did I DREAM Three Mile
>Island? Am I the only one who has been informed of high cancer rates there?
>Were you in kindgergarten when that happened and don't remember?
>
You probably didn't dream reading about high 3 Mile Island cancer rates,
you probably just read it in a newspaper or somesuch non-science journal.
If the radiation from 3 Mile had a significant effect, then why doesn't
the radiation from geothermal power in California (equivalent to more
than 50 3 Mile Islands a year) cause similar but larger effects?
(* stuff about weapons deleted *)
--
Karl Johanson, Victoria B.C. Canada
-It's okay to disagree with me. However, once I explain where you're
wrong you're supposed to become enlightened & change your mind.
Congratulating me on how smart I am is optional.
Doug Huffman
This is some vitriol, privately posted.
On Mon, 28 Aug 95 16:52:47 -0400 Locascio, Julie wrote:
>First of all, I don't monitor your precious little nuclear
energy group,
>I am monitoring an environment group.
Then you need to indicate to the people responding in your
group to where *you* want replys posted. By my reading of the
headers, the thread was spread from an environmental group to
sci.energy (NB: not specifically nuclear).
>
>Secondly, I have never championed fossil fuels, which have
enough
>drawbacks that they do not need to have radioactive residue to
get a
>black mark in my book.
So what do you suggest? What power source do you *think* might
be developed that won't have some deleterious effects?
> If you can only bolster nuclear power by saying
>it is safer than fossil fuels, don't expect all the
environmentalists to
>jump on your wagon.
Do you consider yourself an environmentalist? Can we have
rational discourse?
>Thirdly, forgive me King Data, I do not remember my source on
cancer in
>TMI--it was years ago, and this is not my subject area--but I
will never
>forget the reports on foliage contamination and human hysteria
(theirs,
>not mine). An entire community up and LEFT, in case you don't
remember.
My family is from Kennet Square, not a hundred miles away, and
I don't remember your story.
Evidence for increased incidence of cancer is, at best,
arguable. Specifically, the latency period is variably long; a
decade is the shortest resonable and we're just getting there.
The activity released resulted in about one additional mRem to
the population within 50 miles, less than the dose from a beach
weekend. Within 10Km, the additional dose was about 10mRem and
the highest to anyone off site was less than 100mRem. These
are good numbers from the Senate Committee on Environment and
Public Works (Ser. No. 96-14, June 1980) and the American
Chemical Society symp. ser., May 1985.
>The perceived risk may or may not have been scientifically
proven to your
>liking, but the fact remains that the risk of nuclear
contamination had
>an enormous economic and psychological cost for those people.
The risk of contamination was and is much less than the risk of
a hiway traffic death.
And yes,
>people behave according to PERCEIVED risks, and if the answer
of the
>NUCLEAR science community is to put the burden of proof on US,
well,
>sorry, you're not exactly helping people sleep easier at
night.
>
Sorry, proof of what? Remember, there are no truth statements
from science or technology (not even from the "science of
environmentology") only probabilities.
>Besides, there are plenty of nuclear scientists who have blown
whistles
>on nuclear power facilities around this country and the fact
remains that
>the risk of error or failure in them is catastrophic compared
to most
>other types of generators.
Obviously you can't calculate risk or, more likely, don't know
what it is. Even counting Chernobyl, there have been many
orders of magnitude more deaths from any one other power source
than from all use of nuclear power.
Even if they are safe 99.99 % of the time, I
>sure in hell don't want to be next store the one time it
blows. Japan
>had a huge nuclear power scare only a few years ago, and if
>technologically advanced Japan can come close to disaster with
nuclear
>power, anybody can.
>
So, do you think that the pilot announces, "Ooops, folks..."
every time he corrects the system. Japan copied the United
States development of nuclear power.
>If you think nuclear energy is so great, you might try taking
a polite
>educational tone rather than belittling anybody that disagrees
with you.
>
Sorry, I didn't think I was belittling you (duh!). I was
referring to your "was I dreaming" comment in your reply to
AtomicRod, the most rational and considerate poster I know of
(kinda like my hero).
pqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpq
Grasping another opportunity to be wrong!
Doug Huffman<dhuf...@awod.com 18:00:29 08/28/95
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
Jonathan Maddox
(rus...@aruba.ccit.arizona.edu) wrote:
-PUBLIUS your a moron: Environmentalists as Marxists?!?!? You my friend
-are out of touch with reality.
What about realizing that environmentalists are Marxists makes
your friend (Publius' moron?) lose touch with reality?
Every environmentalist is aware of the debilitating effect
corporate structures have on lives and the world at large. What
more is there to being a Marxist than that?
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
[Economics claims as a matter of principle] the idea that
value-choices are merely preferences that cannot be subjected
to intelligent and shared examination... To define the term
`rationality' or `reason' to exclude reasoning about matters
of value is to demean language and to be false to experience.
-- James Boyd White, _When words lose their meaning_
xoddam. (Jonathan Maddox, jma...@neumann.une.edu.au)
Richard H. Rustad
Your postings make you come across not as a concerned and frightened
citizen, but as the kind of person who creates fear by spreading
either false or misinterpreted information (either inadvertently or
deliberately). Nonetheless, vitriolic responses to your postings via
private E-mail are unnecessary and unprofessional. Unfortunately,
it's one of the hazards of posting in cyberspace.
Paraphrasing from the official TMI report:
There was no official evacuation order given. Unfortunately, a radio
interview with some college professor (providing his uninformed
opinion) left the impression that there was an official evacuation
order for pregnant women and children. The Governor did issue an
advisory for pregnant women and preschool children living within five
miles, but it was the next day. Eventually, the NRC advised the
civil defense authorities to evacuate, and the civil defense
authorities went on the radio to say that an evacuation of a five
mile radius around the plant would most likely be issued, but that
only a warning was being put out at that time. Ultimately about
67,000 folks in a fifteen mile radius left the area on their own
initiative. An estimated 18,000 stayed at home for various reasons.
The bottom line was that there was poor coordination between the
plant spokesmen, the NRC, and the media. Information was passed back
and forth with little verification, interpretations of information
were erroneous, etc. Emergency planning today is a significant
improvement over TMI, probably as a result of TMI.
I will attempt to summarize some dose data from the report, generated
mostly from TLDs (thermoluminescent dosimeters) that were deployed
before, during, and after the accident. The highest single offsite
dose recorded was 27 mrem, and was located 2 miles SW of the plant.
Using the TLD data, computer modelling, and expert opinion (mostly
the latter, IMHO), estimates of total population dose ranged from 276
man-rem to 3500 man-rem (sorry, I don't do PERSON-rem!). The task
group concluded a most likely total population dose of 500 man-rem
with an uncertainty of a factor of ten. This gives a range of 50 to
5000 man-rem. Most of this dose occurred the first day, but the bulk
of the self-induced evacuation occurred two days following the
accident, meaning it didn't do much to reduce potential exposure.
The maximum estimated offsite dose to an individual standing in the
plume was 83 mrem. The most probable dose to an actual individual
standing on a hill near TMI was 37 mrem. As a comparison, background
dose is on the order of 10 mrem/day (about 360 mrem/year).
Unfortunately, most of these numbers are meaningless to most of the
general public, and the nuclear industry has not done a good job
educating the public (but we are trying). As a result, dose numbers
can be easily misunderstood, or easily manipulated to cause a
misunderstanding. One tactic I've seen the "loyal opposition" use is
this - when dose numbers come out high, they talk about gloom and
doom and say "see, we are all going to die!" This is usually the
case when looking at the projected doses from severe accident
analyses. However, when dose numbers are low, they attack the
credibility of the folks presenting the numbers, saying things like
"pawns of the nuclear industry," or "they're just trying to save
their jobs."
.....................................................................
Richard Rustad . You got the BFG9000! Oh, yes.
W: richard...@srs.gov . Not ready for Nightmare mode.
H: bru...@aol.com . An easy Deathmatch target.
.....................................................................
John McCarthy
extremists and Marxists. Former Governor of California Jerry Brown
(aka Governor Moonbeam) said about 1979, "Nuclear power will be the
Vietnam issue of the 1980s".
I see Jonathan Maddox continues his drivel about economics.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
Axel Berger
RN>(Still looking for a job)
Then let's hope not too many possible employers have read that post.
Two points:
- Pumped storage is indeed very good. For this reason all possible
sites are used already. For additional storage capacity none is
available any more.
- Even at the low point of the power curve nuclear plants still produce
significantly less than demand. There are enaugh other plants with
lower plant- and higher fuel-cost to turn down. The reason for
storage is not minimum but peak demand.
Tschoe wa
Axel
Will Stewart
>- Pumped storage is indeed very good. For this reason all possible
> sites are used already. For additional storage capacity none is
> available any more.
One can put pumped storage anywhere they want. That's like saying
there is no more room for housing development.
Will Stewart
Will Stewart
writes:
>
>Will Stewart wrote:
>/*
>One can put pumped storage anywhere they want. That's like saying
>there is no more room for housing development.
>Will Stewart
>*/
>Will, getting power from falling water requires both water and a means
>for it to fall. In other words, no matter how much land is available,
>you cannot build a pumped storage facility on flat land. I live in a
>large state whose highest point is a little over 300 feet above sea
>level. There are many other places in the US where there is no grade
>to speak of for hundreds of miles. It is also convenient to have a
>natural container like a big valley. Again, these are not all that
>commonplace.
My response was to your statement that there were no sites available
for pumped storage. I'll assume you concede the point.
Certainly near most population centers there are grades (or underground
caves/caverns) that will support moving water from one reservoir to
another at a different height. To say that they don't exist at every
site in the country does not eliminate pumped storage as a large scale
consideration. Some states will have more access to solar energy,
while others will have greater access to wind energy, hydro, tidal,
etc.
There are many states that export energy now, just as many import.
With deregulation coming soon, this will increase. Just because some
states are not optimally situated for all possible renewable energy
sources and storage thereof does not lessen the effectiveness nor need
for renewable energy.
Regards,
Will Stewart
Atomic Rod
/*
One can put pumped storage anywhere they want. That's like saying
there is no more room for housing development.
Will Stewart
*/
Will, getting power from falling water requires both water and a means for
it to fall. In other words, no matter how much land is available, you
cannot build a pumped storage facility on flat land. I live in a large
state whose highest point is a little over 300 feet above sea level.
There are many other places in the US where there is no grade to speak of
for hundreds of miles.
It is also convenient to have a natural container like a big valley.
Again, these are not all that commonplace.
Rod Adams
BILLC
Steve Baum
John McCarthy <j...@cs.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>There is some resemblance and alliance between environmental
>extremists and Marxists. Former Governor of California Jerry Brown
>(aka Governor Moonbeam) said about 1979, "Nuclear power will be the
>Vietnam issue of the 1980s".
Ah, I see you've chosen to remain true to your namesake
and rely on ad hominem rather than perform that nasty
arithmetic. What else are environmental extremists other
than commies? Sodomites? Pederasts? Or, even worse
*GASP*, AI charlatans?
>
>I see Jonathan Maddox continues his drivel about economics.
>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
And you continue your drivel about anything and
everything.
skb
--
% Steven K. Baum (ba...@astra.tamu.edu) // Physical Oceanography Dept. //
% Texas A&M // Ultimate trendy science paper: "Chaotic fuzzy neural
% wavelet genetic multigrid model of greenhouse warming" //
% URL = http://www-ocean.tamu.edu/~baum
Doug Huffman
With apologies to sci.energy (to which replies should be
aimed), Doug writes with flames shooting from body orifices...
This is from the female human that protested private vitriol.
I privately protested her invective, indicated that trimming
groups would be appropriate (as I have done; to energy and
environment) and attempted to weigh the discussion down with
facts and/or citations.
Julie, I suspect that the UCS would prefer that you learn some
tactics for effective discourse from *them*. Your hysterical
advocacy damages your (worse, their) cause.
If renewables could be of an effective magnitude to replace any
significant portion of "yucky" power production, don't you
think that the UCS or some environmentally aware young people
could develop it to outstrip old fashioned, stagnant proven
technology?
Your invective is so lout that I can not hear your message!
pqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpq
Grasping another opportunity to be wrong!
Doug Huffman<dhuf...@awod.com 08:21:40 08/31/95
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
Laurent Hodges
not overlap. The Marxists seem more likely to think that environmentalism
is a plot to keep poor people poor, or something of the sort. Doesn't make
much sense to me, even when they explain it.
--
Laurent Hodges, Professor of Physics
12 Physics Hall, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011-3160
(515) 294-1185 (office) 294-6027 (fax) lho...@iastate.edu
Julie Locascio
>Julie, I suspect that the UCS would prefer that you learn some
>tactics for effective discourse from *them*. Your hysterical
>advocacy damages your (worse, their) cause.
You think so? My mailbox is full of requests for their address. I was quite
heartened until I saw your posting--perhaps they only want the UCS address to
send letter bombs to!
I am going to risk it anyway because I believe there are people out there
willing to read information on renewable energy without getting so scared they
have to start whining about my gender to make their point (I use "point" in
the loose sense of the word)!
Union of Concerned Scientists
National Headquarters
Two Brattle Square
Cambridge, MA 02238
Washington Office
1616 P Street NW
Washington, DC 20036
West Coast Office
2397 Shattuck Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94704
Kevin O'Connell
I hate to jump into this one because I live in Rod's state and from
an "environmental" point of view I wouldn't particularly advocate doing this
but....
You only need about 50ft of head pressure to supply a nice electrical
generator. You can actually do it with much less. So it wouldn't take much
to build large water storage areas in our state which could be filled and
drained. Levies like those which surround New Orleans would do. And
with so much coast line, they could actually be built off shore and not take
up any land. Now, again, I am not advocating this necessarily. I have seen
you make the point before, quite accurately, that dams cause far more
"environmental damage" than nuclear power ever has. And building the
kinds of storage facilities I describe would take up huge amounts of
land and/or devastate incredible amounts of shoreline/undersea ecosystems.
But it could be done.
Kevin O'Connell
Tom Gray
> Certainly near most population centers there are grades (or underground
> caves/caverns) that will support moving water from one reservoir to
> another at a different height. To say that they don't exist at every
> site in the country does not eliminate pumped storage as a large scale
> consideration. Some states will have more access to solar energy,
> while others will have greater access to wind energy, hydro, tidal,
> etc.
Correct. Compressed-air storage is another option. As I recall, most
of the U.S. has underground media that are suitable for CAES
(compressed-air energy storage).
Storage is still a red herring, though, as long as hydro and wood are
the only significant renewable contributors to electrical generation.
The wind and solar industries will have to grow substantially before it
becomes an issue worthy of serious discussion.
Tom Gray
Northeast Representative
American Wind Energy Association
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested in renewable energy? The free electronic edition of _Wind
Energy Weekly_ reports on energy-related environmental issues, energy
policy, and wind industry trade news. The electronic edition normally
runs about 10kb in length.
For a subscription, send me an e-mail request. Please include information
on your position, organization, and reason for interest in the publication.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Gray <tom...@econet.org>
Axel Berger
BAG>Another way of looking at the nuclear waste issue is that the amount
BAG>of high-level rad waste generated to supply a family's needs is
BAG>equivalent in volume to an aspirin tablet.
This sentence is totally devoid of meaning. Pity, because it looks like
you might be able to make a sensible point. As it is you fail to
specify whether it is a tablet per year, per month, per day, per hour,
per minute, per second ...
Heck, this is an engineering area not a tabloid newspaper, can't one
expect people to think straight even here?
Tschoe wa
Axel
He, who refuses to do arithmetic, is doomed to talk nonsense.
Axel Berger
PC>but you have put it forward as self-evident. It is most certainly not
PC>the latter.
True, not self- but still evident. Let me state what was clearly
observable in Germany. After the Green party was founded on an almost
purely ecolocical and pacifist agenda it sucked up the memberships of
all the then extant marxist splintergroups which just about ceased
their existance. Their influence on "Green" policy is very clearly
evident. There is lots of pure socialism and feminism in their program
which was not there when they were originally founded.
Tschoe wa
Axel
Doug Huffman
In Article<423pif$l...@dub-news-svc-2.compuserve.com>, <Sour...@compuserve.com> write:
> Path: harbour.awod.com!newsjunkie.ans.net!news.kraft.com!kraft.com!gfimda!uunet!in1.uu.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.compuserve.com!newsmaster
> From: <Sour...@compuserve.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,talk.politics.misc,alt.angst,talk.environment,sci.energy,alt.politics.greens,sci.environment,alt.activism
> Subject: Re: ENVIRON-NUTS
> Date: 31 Aug 1995 07:49:35 GMT
> Organization: CompuServe Incorporated
> Lines: 17
> Message-ID: <423pif$l...@dub-news-svc-2.compuserve.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: dd02-014.compuserve.com
> Content-Type: text/plain
> Content-length: 673
> X-Newsreader: AIR Mosaic (16-bit) version 1.00.198.07
> Xref: harbour.awod.com talk.politics.misc:39839 alt.angst:8865 talk.environment:5301 sci.energy:3713 alt.politics.greens:2120 sci.environment:7491 alt.activism:13825
>
>
> pub...@news.gate.net (Publius) writes:
> >
> > The partly spent rods that are stored are not waste. If our utilities
> > were permitted to reprocess them, the true waste would be a very small
> > amount of powder that the French combine with molten glass. It could
> > safely be dumped then into a chasm in the ocean. The French produce
> > Atomic Power for one third our cost. Let's get educated about the
> > real facts concerning 'Atomic Waste'. PUBLIUS
>
> I always thought this was a good idea, until I heard about
> the problem they're having with glass at Chernobil(sp).
> Not quite the same situation, granted. But not the
> perfect solution, either.
>
> Sourmund
>
Have you some details? I hadn't, that I know of, heard of
this. Glass as in the Elephant's Foot?
pqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpq
Grasping another opportunity to be wrong!
Doug Huffman<dhuf...@awod.com 21:52:35 08/31/95
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
Karl F. Johanson
In a previous article, juli...@mhs.unc.edu (Julie Locascio) says:
>
>> The discovery of ionizing radiation occured in 1896 and people received
>> large doses of ionizing radiation as far back as the 1920s (if not sooner).
>> The atomic bombs were dropped on Japan just over 50 years ago, so I
>> think we have a pretty good idea as to the long-term effects of radiation.
>>
>> "An entire community fled a perceived risk." Certainly true, but was
>> the perception justified. In retrospect, certainly not.
>
>Um, ok, so you are saying the survivors of Hiroshima are fine and dandy...?
Reread the post. That's not what was said. Strange debating tactic,
attacking a bit of information your opponent didn't present.
>Interesting observation....I did not KNOW that....Apparently I have, again,
>been misinformed--why, even National Geographic led me astray on that one! Of
>course, it was not a controlled experiment...people in some particular group
>might have more immunity than some other particular group....I think we would
>have to have a controlled experiment--why don't we bomb your city with nuclear
>weapons, and leave mine alone, and then compare our cancer rates 50 years from
>now?
B. Alan Guthrie
>In <199508291...@ac3.maus.de> Axel_...@ac3.maus.de (Axel B
>
>>- Pumped storage is indeed very good. For this reason all possible
>> sites are used already. For additional storage capacity none is
>> available any more.
>
>there is no more room for housing development.
>
No, you can't put pumped storage anywhere. Pumped storage involves
two reservoirs close to each other. During times of peak load, you
release water from the higher one to the lower one, spinning the
turbine-generator in the process. During times of low load, you
run the turbine-generators as pumps and pump the water up from
the lower lake to the upper lake. Thus, suitable sites are not
that common, as two lakes must be used, and one of those lakes
must have a high head.
--
B. Alan Guthrie, III | When the going gets tough,
| the tough hide under the table.
alan.g...@cnfd.pgh.wec.com |
| E. Blackadder
Tom Gray
> No, you can't put pumped storage anywhere. Pumped storage involves
> two reservoirs close to each other. During times of peak load, you
> release water from the higher one to the lower one, spinning the
> turbine-generator in the process. During times of low load, you
> run the turbine-generators as pumps and pump the water up from
> the lower lake to the upper lake. Thus, suitable sites are not
> that common, as two lakes must be used, and one of those lakes
> must have a high head.
Errr, no, this is not true. The reservoirs can be artificial, or they
can make use of existing caverns. Surface lakes are not required.
In an effort to introduce a little documentation here:
"The [Federal Energy Regulatory Commission] has estimated the potential
for pumped hydroelectric capacity at 36,000 MW (an additional 19,000 MW
over existing capacity). This is a conservative estimate, however,
since a complete inventory of undeveloped pumped storage power was not
undertaken due to the fact that sites are 'far more numerous than
needed for the foreseeable future.'" _Power Surge: The Status and
Near-Term Potential of Renewable Energy Technologies_, Rader, N.
(Public Citizen Critical Mass Energy Project, Washington, DC, 1989),
pp. II-30-31. Original source is _Hydroelectric Power Resources of the
United States, Developed and Undeveloped; January 1, 1988, FERC, p.
ix. Report No. FERC-0070.
So much for the assertion that all developable sites have
already been used. Besides, the point is blown anyway, because
of the widespread applicability of compressed air energy storage.
Tom Gray
Northeast Representative
American Wind Energy Association
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested in energy and the environment? The free electronic
Bob Apthorpe
>Is this different from the usual dislike for having in one's
>immediate neighborhood
>
>1. A shelter for the homeless.
>
>2. A sanitary landfill.
>
>3. An airport.
>
>4. A prison.
>
>5. A freeway.
>
>6. A sewage treatment plant.
>
>7. A refinery or other chemical plant.
>
>Yes, it is different. Namely, in the case of the nuclear plant, there
>is a chorus of professional and amateur fearmongers trying to terrify
>those who aren't frightened already. These are amplified by
>politicians competing to appear more frightened than thou.
>
>Actually, bribery is the right solution in all the above cases. Add
>enough side benefits so the new facility is welcomed. It is better to
>bribe the residents, but I suppose it is sometimes cheaper to bribe
>the politicians.
Actually, giving the locals some measure of control and some level of
participation in the project is effective in allaying fears and reducing
resistance but more often than not the locals will take money. And I do mean
'take'. The local fire department allegedly 'extorted' a shitload of cash
from the utility when our plant was under construction. So it's really a
combination of bribery and extortion on the part of both parties.
>The Apaches have voted to acccept a very good deal for a low level
>nuclear waste dump. Does anyone know the details of the Apache deal?
I knew the Apache and Mescalero nations were seriously looking into it, but
I'm not sure what the status of things are. I recall that the state of New
Mexico tried to tell the Mescalero they couldn't build a dump there and the
Mescalero said something to the effect of "Fuck off. It's our land and we'll
do what we want with it." Only more politely.
Bob Apthorpe
wrote:
>
>> In article <julie.cpc....@mhs.unc.edu>, juli...@mhs.unc.edu
>> says...
>> (John McCarthy said)
>> >alarmism. If you read their emergency manifestoes of 15
>> >>years ago, you will discover that if the world didn't do what they
>> >>wanted, disaster would ensue. The world didn't to any substantial
>> >>extent, and the disasters didn't occur.
>>
>> >I think the jury is still out on that.
>> >worrying quite a lot of other people who feel the world is in a
>> >disastrous condition--or close to it.
>> >One might also argue that "total disaster" has been
>> >postponed because we have made strides in "reduce/reuse/recycle",
>>
>> That jury has been dismissed. The war is over. It's time for you to
>> accept the outcome so you can begin to heal. Liberals, name your
>> ambassador - and try to normalize relations with the rest of us.
>>
>> Jack Painter
>> Erected reactor pressure vessels 1978-82.
>> Sailed in nuclear powered submarines 1983-1987
>> Accountant - counting jobs lost from the 1990 CAAA 1988-1995
>> Ambassador - reconciling differences between industry and wacko's
>> on a state air board advisory board. 1992-1995
>
>Ambassadors require diplomacy. That certainly excludes you, given the
>"wacko" remark and your war mentality. I find it hard to believe that you
>actually function in any position that requires mediation skills, since
>your greatest skill seems to be overblown rhetoric. Sorry to call it like
>I see it, but that's how I see it.
Bah. The 'noble opposition' has no use for diplomacy let alone civility or
common decency. So fuck em'. If the dialog between industry and and the
public was based on information transfer and rational discourse on
economics, ecology, risk, and politics there wouldn't be a problem. However,
there is a class of professional advocate with a profit motive and political
agenda that is antithetic to rational discourse. By disseminating lies and
manipulating the media with publicity stunts the leadership makes themselves
a great deal of money at everyone else's expense. They also prevent any
meaningful dialog from occuring. Given a press release from an environmental
advocacy group and a corporation on the same issue, the track record is that
there will be more factual information stated by the company than by the
advocacy group. Which doesn't mean the company is telling the *whole*
truth... But generally there's a fair amount of government paperwork that has
to be filed and the regulations are pretty clear on what is and isn't
acceptable. In short, if you're caught deliberately making materially false
statements to the government, your license will be denied or revoked and
there's a good chance someone will get fined or put in jail. If an advocacy
group lies to the public, oh well, BFD, they just file a lawsuit or send in
the Clown Patrol for a cheap media stunt.
Bob Apthorpe
>(Jonathan Maddox) wrote:
>
>>Fission products are often chemically reactive, and may dissolve.
>>Much of the nuclear waste (from any type of reactor) is in liquid
>>form. This is neither compact nor easy t handle.
Actually, that's a load of crap, at least as far as US power reactors are
concerned. Wet waste is dewatered to reduce volume and to reduce the
potential for degradation of the waste containers and the potential to get
into the biosphere. Not to mention the fact that most, if not all, low-level
waste facilities WILL NOT ACCEPT wet waste for those exact reasons. Nuclear
plants do emit liquid waste, diluted to concentrations below the limits set
in Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations Part 20 (10CFR20), Appendix B,
Table 1, Column 2, and discharged and as one might expect, these discharges
are monitored and reported on a regular basis to the appropriate regulatory
bodies. Both concentration and gross volume are regulated so the "massive
dilution and discharge" loophole is covered.
Ask your local hospital what it does with the barium used in barium
enemas and other radiographic procedures (hint: <flush>).
Back to the point: 10CFR61.56 might shed some light on all this.
(a) The following requirements are minimum requirements for all classes of
waste and are intended to facilitate handling at the disposal site and
provide protection of health and safety of personnel at the disposal site.
(1) Waste must not be packaged for disposal in cardboard or fiberboard boxes
(2) Liquid waste must be solidified or packaged in sufficient absorbent
material to absorb twice the volume of the liquid.
(3) Solid waste containing liquid shall contain as little free standing
liquid as is reasonably achievable, but in no case shall the liquid exceed 1%
of the volume.
(... more stuff on minimizing explosive, pyrophoric, infectious and
pressurized waste deleted...)
and
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of in Section 61.56(a)(2) and (3), liquid
wastes or wastes containing liquid, must be converted to a form that contains
as little free standing liquid and noncorrosive liquid as is reasonably
achievable, but in no case shall the liquid exceed 1% of the volume when the
waste is in a disposal container designed to ensure stability, or 0.5% of the
volume of the waste for waste processed to a stable form.
The standards for waste disposal vary from country to country so the
preceding laws are not applicable outside the US. The Russians and Japanese
are not known for their stellar environmental record.
>On that note, let's remember the outrage expressed by Japan when the
>Russians dumped liquid nuclear waste into the Sea of Japan in 1994. Just
>drove the waste ship around, dumping... dumping... dumping...
On that note, I've got some more boring regulations for you:
10CFR20.302(b) The [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission will not approve any
application for a license for disposal of licensed material at sea unless the
applicant shows that sea disposal offers less harm to man or the environment
than other practical alternative methods of disposal.
Well, that rules out dumping at sea, at least for the US...
>Except for Russia, it seems that every country currently using nuclear
>power has a plan for disposal of the waste products, but plans only. There
>are no active permanent waste management facilities anywhere on the
>planet. None. All are currently in the theoretical stage, awaiting
>construction. It seem that the siting of these facilities poses a problem.
The sites aren't in the theoretical stage, they are in or beyond the design
stage. All that is required is the political will to resolve this issue.
Currently there is a bill in the US Congress that is trying to *prevent* the
contruction of a permanent high-level waste repository and to take several
billion dollars collected by nuclear utilities to construct such a facility
AS MANDATED BY LAW and apply it to deficit reduction (the Upton-Towns bill -
complain loudly to your legislator today!).
The nuclear waste 'crisis' is completely artificial - it is the result of
political mismanagement, and lies and deception on the part of the federal
government to the nuclear industry, the state governments, and the citizens
of the US. If the original plan to characterize several sites and choose the
technically superior site would have been followed instead of 'railroading'
the site on Nevada, there wouldn't be the fierce and almost-justifiable
political resistance from the state of Nevada. Note that the site in question
is located on the grounds of the Nevada Test Site - there's more plutonium
currently lying around in that desert from detonations and one-point-safe
tests than could ever migrate out of a waste repository.
The utilities were lied to when their plants were licensed under the
assurance that the federal government would provide disposal for high-level
waste. During the design phase of these plants, it would have been a simple
issue to require plants to be able to store all the spent fuel they could
produce over plant life indefinately. Assurances were made to the utilities
and these assurances were broken. The utilities were also required by law to
collect money from ratepayers to fund the repository that the government
promised to build. It is now being proposed by Congress that this money be
used to reduce the deficit - in essence, the federal government is stealing
from the ratepayers since if the government ever does build a repository,
they will force the utilities to collect that money AGAIN to fund
construction. And, of course, industry will be blamed for gross governmental
incompetence.
>
>Atomic Rod (atom...@aol.com) wrote:
>
>[Nuclear waste]
>- is extremely compact. All of the spent nuclear fuel in the US could
>-fit on a single football field in carefully designed and licensed storage
>-containers. The containers are about 15 feet tall and there would only be
>-a single layer.
>
>Absolutely wrong. There is far, far more.
And your proof to back up this statement...
>But even if it *could* fit into
>such a tiny area, no one would want to live near it. And therein lies the
>difficulty.
Not really. US law is quite clear on the issue. If you can keep yourself
awake while doing so, take a look at 10CFR61 which covers land disposal of
radioactive waste. Subpart D is on technical requirements, the first couple
pages have definitions and basic concepts on what constitutes a good (or
legally acceptable) waste disposal facility. The issue is not whether people
want to live next to it, the issue is where can we put it where there aren't
any people. NIMBY works both ways. If I build a waste facility and given a
choice of technically acceptable sites, I want to put it in the most remote,
god-forsaken barren expanse of nothing that I can find. The lower the
population density (people per square mile, not average stupidity level,
though that helps too...), the less likely I am to have to worry about some
stupid fucker climbing the fence or digging a hole nearby. In every case,
nuclear facilities have to worry more about their neighbors than their
neighbors do about them.
>The Japanese have dealt with the problem of siting reactors by
>literally bribing local residents to accept their placement.
Reactor siting and waste facility siting are two completely different issues.
>People like
>the power, they just don't want to live anywhere near the plants, or the
>waste storage facilities. Because they are scared shitless.
Well, considering how much money gets pumped into the local economy near the
plant I work at in the form of jobs, home sales, disposable income spent in
town (like today's lunch) and the generally warm reception I get there, I
don't get the impression that anyone's scared shitless of our plant, at least
not anyone who's close enough to be evacuated in case of emergency.
The Kewaunee plant in Wisconsin has been operating extremely well since it was
built 20 years ago and the locals are generally pretty supportive - that
plant is part of their community.
Personally, I'm worried about the 20 or so chemical plants on the 30-mile
drive to and from work each day or getting killed by the logging trucks that
are continually ripping up the road. I live less than 15 miles from two
massive tanks of phosgene gas and less than four miles from a major inland
waterway (you never know when a bargeload of anhydrous ammonia or chlorine
gas is going to crash into a bridge piling.)
A word of advice: before you make a lot of comments about radioactive waste,
you might want to look at the laws that govern it and maybe talk to someone
who has a reasonable chance of dealing with it on a day-to-day basis. Maybe
you'd like to talk to a number of people who live next to operating nuclear
facilities and find out exactly how 'scared shitless' they really are instead
of making baseless claims and rehashing third-hand news stories. I don't see
what you're claiming is going on and I'm closer to it than you'll ever be.
B. Alan Guthrie
>Will Stewart writes:
>
> > Certainly near most population centers there are grades (or underground
> > caves/caverns) that will support moving water from one reservoir to
> > another at a different height. To say that they don't exist at every
> > site in the country does not eliminate pumped storage as a large scale
> > consideration. Some states will have more access to solar energy,
> > while others will have greater access to wind energy, hydro, tidal,
> > etc.
>
>Correct. Compressed-air storage is another option. As I recall, most
>of the U.S. has underground media that are suitable for CAES
>(compressed-air energy storage).
>
>Storage is still a red herring, though, as long as hydro and wood are
>the only significant renewable contributors to electrical generation.
>The wind and solar industries will have to grow substantially before it
>becomes an issue worthy of serious discussion.
>
No, there are not very many suitable sites. There are not many
suitable sites left for normal hydroelectric facilities, much less
pumped storage where two reservoirs are needed.
Is any compressed-air energy storage actually being used anywhere
in the world? Asking for information (not posing a rhetorical question).
B. Alan Guthrie
>*B. Alan Guthrie* wrote on Wed, 95-08-30 17:48 in sci.energy:
>BAG>Another way of looking at the nuclear waste issue is that the amount
>BAG>of high-level rad waste generated to supply a family's needs is
>BAG>equivalent in volume to an aspirin tablet.
>
>This sentence is totally devoid of meaning. Pity, because it looks like
>you might be able to make a sensible point. As it is you fail to
>specify whether it is a tablet per year, per month, per day, per hour,
>per minute, per second ...
>Heck, this is an engineering area not a tabloid newspaper, can't one
>expect people to think straight even here?
>
Sorry, the word "annual" was supposed to be inserted in there somewhere.
In fact, I recall going back to make sure that I had put it in. Perhaps
something sinister is lurking out there in the aether. Or perhaps I
got distracted.
B. Alan Guthrie
>Alan Guthrie writes:
>
> > No, you can't put pumped storage anywhere. Pumped storage involves
> > two reservoirs close to each other. During times of peak load, you
> > release water from the higher one to the lower one, spinning the
> > turbine-generator in the process. During times of low load, you
> > run the turbine-generators as pumps and pump the water up from
> > the lower lake to the upper lake. Thus, suitable sites are not
> > that common, as two lakes must be used, and one of those lakes
> > must have a high head.
>
>Errr, no, this is not true. The reservoirs can be artificial, or they
>can make use of existing caverns. Surface lakes are not required.
>
I never argued that the reservoirs could not artificial - in fact,
I thought that the term reservoir implied that it was artificial.
>In an effort to introduce a little documentation here:
>
>"The [Federal Energy Regulatory Commission] has estimated the potential
>for pumped hydroelectric capacity at 36,000 MW (an additional 19,000 MW
>over existing capacity). This is a conservative estimate, however,
>since a complete inventory of undeveloped pumped storage power was not
>undertaken due to the fact that sites are 'far more numerous than
>needed for the foreseeable future.'" _Power Surge: The Status and
>Near-Term Potential of Renewable Energy Technologies_, Rader, N.
>(Public Citizen Critical Mass Energy Project, Washington, DC, 1989),
>pp. II-30-31. Original source is _Hydroelectric Power Resources of the
>United States, Developed and Undeveloped; January 1, 1988, FERC, p.
>ix. Report No. FERC-0070.
>
>So much for the assertion that all developable sites have
>already been used. Besides, the point is blown anyway, because
>of the widespread applicability of compressed air energy storage.
>
>
Now this is *really* unfair - inserting numbers and documentation
into the question! Thanks muchly! I did not realise how much
pumped storage was in use.
I will note that 36,000 MW isn't really a whole lot, compared to
the installed capacity of the Republic, which is more than 500,00
MW.
I will also note that we nukes drool at the idea of pumped storage.
If a miracle occurs and nuclear power makes a come-back to the
extent that nuclear plants need to load follow, pumped storage
will lessen that need.
Bob Apthorpe
><Sour...@compuserve.com> writes:
>>
>> pub...@news.gate.net (Publius) writes:
>>>Atomic Rod (atom...@aol.com) wrote:
>>>: Julie Locascio wrote:
>>>: Not one person in the US has ever been hurt by exposure to nuclear waste.
>>>: The material definitely has the potential for harming someone, however,
it
>>>: is so easy to control that it never has.
>>
>>Would you call getting a control rod skewered through your
>>chest harm? Granted, this wasn't a controlled waste, but
>>therein lies the problem. There certianly have been
>>uncontrolled releases, isn't this a form of waste?
>
> Not by the usual, widely-used definition of the subject.
Actually, it didn't become waste until it pinned the guy to the ceiling. Most
of the solid waste from commercial operation is innocuous stuff like plastic
bags, rubber gloves, paper towels and some higher activity stuff like spent
demineralizer resins used in water treatment. Generally our control blades
don't go flying around containment and the used ones get hung in the spent
fuel pool awaiting disposal at a mythical federal waste repository.
>>(skewering was done durring a test in the US of a portable
>>reactor, seems the control rod got stuck, some jerk tried
>>to pull it out...pressure was building... you get the idea.
>>Also, many people were exposed to excessive radiation,
>>government even gave them dissability)
>>
>
> The incident occured at the SL-1 reactor in Idaho back in 1961, as I
> recall. But what does it have to do with commercial nuclear power
> plants and/or high-level rad waste disposal? It's a colourful anecdote
> but of little relevance.
This was an industrial accident at a research facility. You might want to
read about the rescue efforts of the people who worked there and the
workers' frustration of only being allowed a single 30-second trip in there
when
other people's lives are at stake. But Alan's right - there's no connection
between the SL-1 accident and current commercial radwaste handling and
disposal practices.
Bob Apthorpe
>Locascio) writes:
>>
>>> The discovery of ionizing radiation occured in 1896 and people received
>>> large doses of ionizing radiation as far back as the 1920s (if not
>>> sooner).
>>> The atomic bombs were dropped on Japan just over 50 years ago, so I
>>> think we have a pretty good idea as to the long-term effects of
>>> radiation.
>>>
>>> "An entire community fled a perceived risk." Certainly true, but was
>>> the perception justified. In retrospect, certainly not.
>>
>>Um, ok, so you are saying the survivors of Hiroshima are fine and dandy...?
>>been misinformed--why, even National Geographic led me astray on that one!
>>Of course, it was not a controlled experiment...people in some particular
>>group might have more immunity than some other particular group....I think
>>we would have to have a controlled experiment--why don't we bomb your city
>>with nuclear weapons, and leave mine alone, and then compare our cancer
>>rates 50 years from now?
>
>
> and dandy, now did I? What you had written was that we did not have much
> knowledge of the long-term effects of exposure to ionizing radiation, and
> I was trying to demonstrate that we did. You are putting words into my
> mouth.
>
> Maybe I should complain that I'm being subjected to unkind invective.
Well, if she can't make her point using evidence and logical argument, she
might as well put words in your mouth and mock you.
Maybe Julie ought to look at the BIER Report [The Effects on Populations of
Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation]; they have a nice, long section
on data collected and analysis performed by the Atomic Bomb Casualty
Commission. As to her assertion that certain groups may have increased
resistance or suceptability to ionizing radiation, sex- and race-biasing are
addressed there as well. It's certainly a much better source of information
than National Geographic. A good engineering or medical library should have a
copy, so if it's not too much effort, she can go look it up when she's done
looking at all the pretty pictures in National Geographic.
Dan Ferber
> significant portion of "yucky" power production, don't you
> think that the UCS or some environmentally aware young people
> could develop it to outstrip old fashioned, stagnant proven
> technology?
>
mid-western states. Rome wasn't built in a day, and it takes time to get
new technologies up to speed to compete with established, subsidized
industries with well-refined (but still dirty) technologies. Have you
read any of Tom Gray's posts on wind energy? Seems, if I may paraphrase,
that wind a quite viable alternative in certain areas of the country.
also, there is not very much discussion in this newsgroup on solar or
biomass (at least that I've seen), but there's no a priori reason to
believe these can't be viable clean alternatives as well. And before, the
nuke people flame me again, I'm not NECESSARILY opposed to nukes, if it
can be done safely. It may be a viable short to medium-term solution
until all energy can be renewable (I may be idealistic, but I think at
least it's a goal to shoot for) Dan Ferber
Tom Gray
> I never argued that the reservoirs could not artificial - in fact,
> I thought that the term reservoir implied that it was artificial.
Your pardon. What I mean by "artificial" is that it is possible to
excavate underground reservoirs even in the absence of caverns and make
a pumped storage facility. I vaguely remember about some utility
planning this several years ago--I believe it was a Japanese utility.
I personally believe the real issue with storage is not physical
capability, but cost.
> Now this is *really* unfair - inserting numbers and documentation
> into the question! Thanks muchly! I did not realise how much
> pumped storage was in use.
>
> I will note that 36,000 MW isn't really a whole lot, compared to
> the installed capacity of the Republic, which is more than 500,00
> MW.
Agreed. I was simply responding to the comment that the available
sites are all used up. Also, do note that the original document says
the survey was not done thoroughly.
> I will also note that we nukes drool at the idea of pumped storage.
> If a miracle occurs and nuclear power makes a come-back to the
> extent that nuclear plants need to load follow, pumped storage
> will lessen that need.
Agreed. I believe storage is largely a red herring in the renewables debate:
(1) Lack of it is not a serious obstacle until wind and/or solar become
a much larger part of installed capacity than they are today. Wind
could grow nicely for 20 years without reaching that threshold.
(2) Having it won't necessarily help, since utilities' use of choice
will be to run baseload plants more.
Tom Gray
> Is any compressed-air energy storage actually being used anywhere
> in the world? Asking for information (not posing a rhetorical question).
Here's a little more info on CAES I was able to dig up.
Tom Gray
Northeast Representative
American Wind Energy Association
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested in renewable energy? The free electronic edition of _Wind
Energy Weekly_ reports on energy-related environmental issues, energy
policy, and wind industry trade news. The electronic edition normally
runs about 10kb in length.
For a subscription, send me an e-mail request. Please include information
on your position, organization, and reason for interest in the publication.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Gray <tom...@econet.org>
[from Written Testimony of the Council for Renewable Energy
Education (CREE) on "Energy and the Environment," National
Energy Strategy Hearing, Atlanta, Ga., 14 December 1989 by
Thomas O. Gray]
Compressed-air energy storage (CAES) is now beginning to look
like a realistic option for wind and photovoltaic energy which
could add greatly to the value and attractiveness of those inter-
mittent technologies to utilities.
Alabama Electric Cooperative is currently building the first
commercial CAES plant in the U.S., a 110-MW facility located
above a salt dome 45 miles north of the city of Mobile. Several
aspects of this technology look especially promising:
o A similar 290-MW plant at Huntorf, West Germany, has com-
piled a record of 90% availability and 99% starting relia-
bility over 10 years of commercial operation.
o Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) studies show that
approximately 3/4 of the U.S. could provide potential CAES
sites, in salt, rock, or aquifers or combinations of the
three.
o The turnkey contract for the 110-MW CAES plant with 26 hours
of storage came to $50.9 million, or $463/kW, compared with
over $1,000/kW for pumped hydro storage.
This progress in storage gives rise to an important policy issue.
The most economic way for utilities to use storage is to extend
the hours of operation of conventionally-fueled baseload plants,
meeting peaking needs with storage. The highest environmental
use of storage is to combine it with intermittent renewables as a
substitute for conventionally-fueled plants of all kinds.
Since our argument is that in the end, environmental value is
essentially equal to economic value, we support a policy which
encourages the construction and use of energy storage facilities
as a means of extending the application of renewable energy
technologies.
Tom Gray
> Is any compressed-air energy storage actually being used anywhere
> in the world? Asking for information (not posing a rhetorical question).
As Bob Apthorpe has written, there is a plant in Germany. But here's
some more information on CAES in the U.S.
Tom Gray
Northeast Representative
American Wind Energy Association
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested in renewable energy? The free electronic edition of _Wind
Energy Weekly_ reports on energy-related environmental issues, energy
policy, and wind industry trade news. The electronic edition normally
runs about 10kb in length.
For a subscription, send me an e-mail request. Please include information
on your position, organization, and reason for interest in the publication.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Gray <tom...@econet.org>
[from EPRI Journal, December 1991]
ALABAMA COOPERATIVE GENERATED POWER FROM AIR
The Story in Brief
Alabama Electric Cooperative marked a milestone in the history
of the electric utility industry with the dedication of the
nation's first compressed-air energy storage plant on September
27. Located in McIntosh, Ala., the 110-MW facility compresses
air into a 19-million-cubic-foot underground cavern during
periods of low electricity demand. During periods of peak
demand, the air can be released, heated, and expanded through a
turbine to generate electricity as needed. Overall during the
generation period, the plant uses one-third of the fuel required
by a conventional combustion turbine plant and, as a result,
releases one-third the emissions. EPRI STUDIES SHOW THAT 79% OF
THE COUNTRY'S GEOLOGY HAS THE POTENTIAL TO PROVIDE RELIABLE
UNDERGROUND AIR STORAGE. A dozen other utilities are seriously
investigating the implementation of this technology. [emphasis added]
[from Wind Energy Weekly #528, 28 December 1992]
EPRI DEVELOPS SITING METHOD FOR COMPRESSED-AIR STORAGE
The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) said it has
developed a method for rating and ranking potential sites for
compressed-air energy storage (CAES).
In a recent issue of its EPRI Journal, Ben Mehta of EPRI's
Generation and Storage Division calls CAES "a modular, fast-
responding, environmentally attractive technology that can help
utilities make the best use of generation and transmission
resources."
With CAES, a utility can store energy underground in the form
of compressed air. Studies suggest that about three-fourths of the
U.S. contains geological formations underground -- of salt, hard
rock, porous rock, or combinations of the three -- that are
suitable for CAES.
"Many utilities have completed CAES geology screening and
economic system planning analyses with positive results," Mehta
said, adding that "EPRI plans to assist a number of utilities in
building CAES plants."
At present, the most economic use of CAES is to permit
utilities to operate baseload conventional power plants for longer
periods. When demand is low, the power from the plants is stored.
When demand is high, it is released. But as utilities turn to CAES
and other storage technologies, the technical difficulties involved
in adding an intermittent power source like wind energy to the
system should also be greatly reduced.
EPRI's site evaluation approach uses the Geologic Information
System (GIS) to map geological data and also considers logistical
items such as the proximity of electrical transmission lines and
power plants to candidate sites.
Michael Pereckas
>Actually, it didn't become waste until it pinned the guy to the ceiling. Most
>of the solid waste from commercial operation is innocuous stuff like plastic
>bags, rubber gloves, paper towels and some higher activity stuff like spent
>demineralizer resins used in water treatment. Generally our control blades
>don't go flying around containment and the used ones get hung in the spent
>fuel pool awaiting disposal at a mythical federal waste repository.
That control rods eventually have to be put in the pool and replaced
is something that I was not even aware of until recently, and I'd like
to understand it better. What reaction or reactions turn shiny new
control rods into waste?
--
Michael Pereckas pere...@uiuc.edu N9TNC -- People tell me that
I should get into packet radio, for some reason. :-)
Will Stewart
writes:
>[from EPRI Journal, December 1991]
>... EPRI STUDIES SHOW THAT 79% OF
>THE COUNTRY'S GEOLOGY HAS THE POTENTIAL TO PROVIDE RELIABLE
>UNDERGROUND AIR STORAGE.
> With CAES, a utility can store energy underground in the form
>of compressed air. Studies suggest that about three-fourths of the
>U.S. contains geological formations underground -- of salt, hard
>rock, porous rock, or combinations of the three -- that are
>suitable for CAES.
This is far beyond what I had expected. Thank you for providing the
references and text.
This shows that immense amounts of energy storage is possible and the
information can be used to make a case for renewable energy sources, as
well as off-peak generation.
Regards,
Will Stewart
Tom Gray
> All of the renewable sources have major problems-
So do the conventional sources, so I guess that really can't be used as
a reason not to discuss renewables.
> Solar: can only be used in certain areas, expensive fragile equipment,
> needs huge storage facities for night and cloudy day, equipment
> has to be exposed to the elements. In the future will be useful
> for more than calculators, but not now...
Coal can only be used in certain areas too. Otherwise, the economics
of transportation come into play. Huge storage facilities are only
required for solar if it is used exclusively, instead of contributing a
portion of power to an already existing grid. Your comment is as if I
were to say, "Oil is no good, needs huge shipping facilities."
> Wind-Only useful in some areas, very small scale
Right. Even the Electric Power Research Institute, which I consider
fairly conservative, says wind can supply 20% of our electric power in
the U.S. Small scale, to be sure--that is about what nuclear supplies
today.
> Geothermal-only useful in certain areas
>
> Hydro-all areas it can be used it is being used, at least within the US.
Add up all of those "certain areas" and they amount to virtually all of
the country, particularly if biomass is included.
Tom Gray
Northeast Representative
American Wind Energy Association
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested in energy and the environment? The free electronic
Tom Gray
> This is far beyond what I had expected. Thank you for providing the
> references and text.
>
> This shows that immense amounts of energy storage is possible and the
> information can be used to make a case for renewable energy sources, as
> well as off-peak generation.
Correct. Note, however, that storage adds to the price of intermittent
renewables (wind and solar), which are already too expensive to crack
the electric generating market in a big way. I think there is a strong
case to be made for large amounts of wind and solar without storage.
Jeremy Whitlock
> Actually, it didn't become waste until it pinned the guy to the ceiling.
> Most of the solid waste from commercial operation is innocuous stuff
> like plastic bags, rubber gloves, paper towels and some higher activity
> stuff like spent demineralizer resins used in water treatment.
> Generally our control blades don't go flying around containment and the
> used ones get hung in the spent fuel pool awaiting disposal at a
> mythical federal waste repository.
I assume we're referring to the SL-1 accident here. For the record, it
wasn't a control rod that pinned the guy to the ceiling, it was a shield
plug. All control rods remained in the core, including the one pulled
out too far.
For an excellent summary of all relevant reactor accidents, see "Reactor
Accidents", by David Mosey (I believe published by Nuclear Engineering
International).
--
Jeremy Whitlock e-mail: whit...@mcmaster.ca
"My thoughts are mine"
J. Bryan Ferguson
says...
>
>
>What dictates the options our society develops is
>subsidies and tax breaks.
>
>The subsidies involved in the externalies associated with uranium
>mining. Has anyone seen the statistics of how many miners died of
cancer and other horrible diseases?
No, do you hace them?
>How about the waste piles that remain and
>the leaching problems associated with them.
Could you supply info on these too?
>For ten years I have been involved with the Wind Harvest Company's
>vertical axis wind turbine invented by Bob Thommas. It can produce
>electricity at between $.03-.07/kilowatt hour depending on the
>windspeed, the distance to the nearest grid access point and land
costs. It doesn't
>hurt raptors and birds, has a low profile, is quiet, and easy to
>maintain. Why isn't this turbine everywhere?
What is the output capacity of one of these turbines?
>If nukes and coal were gone, how could wind and other renewabless
replace them? Timing and the wise use of natural gas.
Do you consider natural gas a renewable and clean energy source?
Bryan
Atomic Rod
compressed air storage, why is it that renewable energy advocates refuse
to accept the statement that there is adequate room to store the very
concentrated (small volume) wastes left over from nuclear generation?
Please do not talk about half-lives measured in thousands of years and
peril to future generations.
Nuclear waste material is most active when it is first removed from the
reactor. By definition it gets less active every day. So far, we have
proven over a fifty year period that we can protect people from hazard
from the highly active stuff; why is it that we worry about our ability to
protect future generations from the stuff that is less and less active.
There are lots of industrial waste products that are dangerous for human
consumption and will be forever. In fact, nuclear waste falls into this
category, because even if it is no longer radioactive there will be a
chemical hazard of certain daughter products like lead. The question is
"So what?"
As long as the material is under human control and is not randomly
dispersed to the environment it is safe to use for the betterment of human
society.
I guess it all falls back to the money issue. Tom Gray is employed by an
industrial group that wants to sell windmills. Their product has inferior
capabilities to well built nuclear plants. (Their output is not under the
control of people, but at the whim of the weather. They require
structures over 100 feet tall with moving wings visible for tens of miles
to produce a few hundred kilowatts. At best, they can produce power for
about 5 cents per kilowatt hour.)
The only way that they can convince profit minded businesses to purchase
their product is through mandates and by trying to instill fear of
competitive products. They also push a feel good message for those groups
that are not concerned about money (as long as it is someone else's money
that they can spend.)
Bah, humbug.
Face it Tom and all you other renewable advocates out there. You are
engaging in deceipt in an attempt to sell a product.
I know, I am also trying to sell a product, but I will leave it to the
readers to determine who is more accurate and honest.
Rod Adams
Adams Atomic Engines, Inc
P. O. Box 1017
Tarpon Springs, Fl. 34688-1017
******************************************************
Are nuclear power plants cheap enough to compete? The August issue of
Atomic Energy Insights reports electricity costs from several example
plants in the U.S. For a free trial of Atomic Energy Insights send an
e-mail request (subject line: Atomic Energy Insights) with a postal
address to Atom...@aol.com
*******************************************************
Ernst G. Knolle
: Will Stewart writes:
: > This is far beyond what I had expected. Thank you for providing the
: > references and text.
: >
: > This shows that immense amounts of energy storage is possible and the
: > information can be used to make a case for renewable energy sources, as
: > well as off-peak generation.
: Correct. Note, however, that storage adds to the price of intermittent
: renewables (wind and solar), which are already too expensive to crack
: the electric generating market in a big way. I think there is a strong
: case to be made for large amounts of wind and solar without storage.
: Tom Gray
In Northern California, Pacific Gas & Electric Company has the Helms
pumped (water) storage facility. It is no longer able to meet peak loads.
However, in 1992 PG&E reported pumping power of 398,000 Megawatt going in
and 344,000 Megawatt generated (coming out), which is a loss of 15.7%. If
you add to that the cost of the investment in this facility and operating
costs, you might come to the conclusion that it is not worth it.
Water pumping and hydro generation is relatively efficient as compared to
compressing and uncompressing gases, which is practiced in Southern
California by the Southern California Gas & Electric Company. They
receive natural gas from Canada and Texas at a steady pace and store it
underground in two abandoned (depleted) oil fields in Los Angeles. Then in
winter time during cold snaps, the stored gas is retrieved to keep
everybody warm. But, again, there are losses, which one should expect
with an underground compressed air storage system.
Ernst
Tom Gray
> =Dan Ferber wrote:
> =/*
> =why is this discussion and similar ones on energy in this group
> =perennially framed as a contest between coal and nuclear? Don't nuclear
> =proponents think renewable energy (solar, biomass, wind) are viable
> =alternatives?
>
> Solar and wind aren't dispatchable. That means that you've got to have some
> energy storage system in your setup. So the figures you see for the cost of
> solar and wind energy are usually substantially understated (e.g., you can't
> simply replace one megawatt of fossil fuel-powered generating capacity with 1
> megawatt of solar or wind generating capacity). Biomass typically requires the
> conversion of cropland to biomass farms.
I'm not following you here, Carl. When you say the figures you see for
the cost of solar and wind are understated, what figures are you
talking about? The numbers I see are normally levelized costs over
expected plant life expressed in cents per kWh. Can you cite something
in particular that you consider to be understated?
Also, I'm not aware that storage is required on, say, the utility grid
system if wind is added. It would be nice to have, but it's not
required. The system has to be able to respond to the unexpected
outage of conventional capacity, and this, I believe, is done by making
sure there is a quantum of quick-response capacity in the mix.
Tom Gray
Northeast Representative
American Wind Energy Association
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested in renewable energy? The free electronic edition of _Wind
Don Fong
Atomic Rod <atom...@aol.com> wrote:
>If there is so much room available in the U.S. for pumped storage and
>compressed air storage, why is it that renewable energy advocates refuse
>to accept the statement that there is adequate room to store the very
>concentrated (small volume) wastes left over from nuclear generation?
uranium mining, and from decommissioning.
>Please do not talk about half-lives measured in thousands of years and
>peril to future generations.
>Nuclear waste material is most active when it is first removed from the
>reactor. By definition it gets less active every day. So far, we have
>proven over a fifty year period that we can protect people from hazard
>from the highly active stuff; why is it that we worry about our ability to
>protect future generations from the stuff that is less and less active.
because it's the responsible thing to do? even though it may become
"less and less" dangerous every day, it starts out being so tremendously
dangerous that, it will be many many days until it is "not dangerous".
its dangerous days will be longer than the expected lifetime of our
human institutions.
>There are lots of industrial waste products that are dangerous for human
>consumption and will be forever. In fact, nuclear waste falls into this
>category, because even if it is no longer radioactive there will be a
>chemical hazard of certain daughter products like lead. The question is
>"So what?"
the answer is that it is unethical to impose such burdens on people
without their consent. creating long-lived toxic waste imposes a deadly
burden on future generations. they have not and cannot consent to live
in a toxic world created by their parents' greed. you could argue that
it is unavoidable to some extent. but we should try to reduce that extent,
not try to pretend that "nothing is black and white, so everything is
the same".
>As long as the material is under human control and is not randomly
>dispersed to the environment it is safe to use for the betterment of human
>society.
that depends on which humans have the control, and how responsible
they are. many people do not trust the "humans" who happen to be in
charge of large corporations to deal responsibly with wastes that can
endanger everyone.
>I guess it all falls back to the money issue.
no, not for some of us... and you wonder why some of us don't feel
safe knowing that the radioactive material is under your "human" control?
>Tom Gray is employed by an
>industrial group that wants to sell windmills. Their product has inferior
>capabilities to well built nuclear plants.
OTOH, a poorly built windmill isn't going to force an entire community
to evacuate... a windmill accident isn't going to make large areas of
the planet uninhabitable... windmill manufacturers didn't ask for an
act of congress to limit their liability in the event of a catastrophe...
and when a windmill is retired, it doesn't become toxic waste...
also you don't need to worry about windmill workers accumulating
genetic damage from excessive occupational exposure. etc.
>(Their output is not under the
>control of people, but at the whim of the weather. They require
>structures over 100 feet tall with moving wings visible for tens of miles
>to produce a few hundred kilowatts. At best, they can produce power for
>about 5 cents per kilowatt hour.)
nuclear isn't so cheap either when you add in the hidden social and
economic costs. true, all forms of energy have hidden costs. but they
are not equal. so don't pretend that cents per kilowatt hour tells the
whole story.
>The only way that they can convince profit minded businesses to purchase
>their product is through mandates and by trying to instill fear of
>competitive products. They also push a feel good message for those groups
>that are not concerned about money (as long as it is someone else's money
>that they can spend.)
hmm... where would nuclear be today if gov't hadn't spent other
people's money doing all that research? there is nothing wrong in
principle with govt pursuing various strategic technologies. renewable
energy technologies are paying their own way to a far greater extent
than did nuclear in its infancy.
>Bah, humbug.
>
>Face it Tom and all you other renewable advocates out there. You are
>engaging in deceipt in an attempt to sell a product.
or just maybe, they're trying to make a career doing something good
for the planet. as for Tom Gray, he puts out a lot of news and information,
and lets people draw their own conclusions. he doesn't say "trust me, i'm
an expert".
>I know, I am also trying to sell a product, but I will leave it to the
>readers to determine who is more accurate and honest.
i vote for Tom Gray.
--
===================================
--- don fong ``i still want the peace dividend''
===================================
Atomic Rod
(much snipped)
/*
ignoring the LARGE volume of DANGEROUS wastes left over from
uranium mining, and from decommissioning.
Don, the wastes from uranium mining are natural ROCKS that have been
ground up to allow humans to extract most of the radioactive material
(thats why we call it URANIUM mining.) The best place to put this
material is right back where we found it.
BTW, do you understand that most current uranium mining in the US is done
with INSITU solution mining techniques, which does not result in the
production of any tailings? (Even though the tailings are not
particularly dangerous, they are expensive to transport to licensed
facilities under current law.)
Rod Adams
Adams Atomic Engines, Inc
P. O. Box 1017
Tarpon Springs, Fl. 34688-1017
******************************************************
How do nuclear rockets work? The September issue of Atomic Energy
Insights provides some details. For a free trial of Atomic Energy
Insights send an e-mail request (subject line: Atomic Energy Insights)
with a postal address to atomi...@aol.com
Back issues of AEI are free on the Web at URL
http://www.ans.neep.wisc.edu/public.info/submissions/AEI/
*******************************************************
Atomic Rod
(much snipped)
/*
"less and less" dangerous every day, it starts out being so tremendously
dangerous that, it will be many many days until it is "not dangerous".
its dangerous days will be longer than the expected lifetime of our
human institutions.
Don, I happen to expect that our "human institutions" will last
indefinitely. We are continuously adding to our stored human knowledge
and I find it very difficult to believe in any scenario that postulates
that people will not be able to construct a simple Geiger counter or be
able to keep track of where dangerous materials are stored or at least
understand that you should not try to eat stuff that is stored in a thick
concrete and steel container.
(First Don quotes me then adds his comment)
/*
>There are lots of industrial waste products that are dangerous for human
>consumption and will be forever. In fact, nuclear waste falls into this
>category, because even if it is no longer radioactive there will be a
>chemical hazard of certain daughter products like lead. The question is
>"So what?"
the answer is that it is unethical to impose such burdens on people
without their consent. creating long-lived toxic waste imposes a deadly
burden on future generations. they have not and cannot consent to live
in a toxic world created by their parents' greed. you could argue that
it is unavoidable to some extent. but we should try to reduce that
extent,
not try to pretend that "nothing is black and white, so everything is
the same"
*/
Don, I do not believe that everything is the same. I also happen to have
a highly developed ethical and moral sense. (I graduated from a service
academy with a strong honor concept, I serve on the vestry at my church,
and I have qualified to serve as the commanding officer of a US Navy
submarine.) I resent your implication that I am somehow immoral or
unethical. I also happen to be a father of two very important young
ladies; I am very concerned about the health and prosperity of future
generations. I do not advocate leaving them a "toxic" world, but one in
which people have access to energy, clean water, clean air, trees, birds,
free running streams and lots of open land unsullied by solar panels and
windmills.
(Again, Don quoted me then added a comment)
/*
>As long as the material is under human control and is not randomly
>dispersed to the environment it is safe to use for the betterment of
human
>society.
that depends on which humans have the control, and how responsible
they are. many people do not trust the "humans" who happen to be in
charge of large corporations to deal responsibly with wastes that can
endanger everyone.
*/
Don, Adams Atomic Engines, Inc. is perhaps the smallest corporation in the
country with only one full time employee who has stopped drawing a salary
and is about to be moved to occasional work. Therefore, I do not qualify
as one of those large corporation people that you talk about.
However, those people that you do not "trust" happen to have solid
technical educations, highly developed ethical rules, solid business
educations, and a healthy dose of real world decision making. You, on the
other hand, appear to be a college student who likes to repeat the
rhetoric that you hear from others.
I could go on, but I am getting tired. Grow up young man! Stop accusing
people that you do not know of being immoral. Learn something about
technology before you start contributing to a sci. newsgroup.
Rod Adams
I am a nuke and I am damned proud of what I do!!
Atomic Rod
/*
Rod, I've admired many of your posts. Regretably, this is not one.
Tom presents the facts squarely and without the hype you often tend
towards. I myself have absolutely no financial interests in renewable
energy sources, except for the future wellbeing of my descendants.
Persons are living comfortably "off-the-grid" in many parts of the
industrial world, and do not require energy input from the local
electric utility. While this is bothersome or threatening to many
people, I find these actions applaudable. Are these person paying more
for their energy? In most cases, yes. But they are pioneers in a new
frontier and so must break new ground so that others can follow.
*/
Will, I have tried being calm. I have tried presenting facts. People who
have been following my threads for the last two years can attest to that.
However, after two years of meeting with people who tell me that there
will never be another nuclear plant constructed in the US, I am starting
to get a little upset and perhaps a little shrill.
It is easy for Tom to post lots of facts. He is employed by an
association that pays him to spend his time on line. They also helpfully
provide at least some staffing to help write and smooth the information.
There is no organized groups threatening the very existence of Tom's
technology despite all figures. There is no one who stands up and claims
that he is lying no matter what numbers he posts (anti-nukes frequently
accuse the industry of cooking the books whenever we tell them what the
accountants tell us about nuclear costs.)
Nukes are an endangered species and are starting to feel like cornered
animals. I keep hearing about friends with advanced degrees in a tough
subject who have worked hard all their lives being laid off. Some of the
most talented engineers and scientists in America are now "early retired"
at age 50-55. The Clinton Adminstration has actually stated that they are
trying to remove all funding from nuclear power. Wouldn't you start
getting a little defensive or maybe a little offensive?
Axel Berger
DF>they have not and cannot consent to live in a toxic world created by
DF>their parents' greed.
Full and total agreement here! Go visit your nearest neighbourhood eco-
group and let them show you material on the real actual and now
occuring nature devastation all around us. None of it is created by
nuclear power, but nuclear could go a long to aleviate it.
DF>also you don't need to worry about windmill workers accumulating
DF>genetic damage from excessive occupational exposure. etc.
I wouldn't say that. The single most significant risk from overexposure
to dangerous radiation is skin cancer - something windmill workers will
be more prone to than nuclear personnel.
Tschoe wa
Axel
Will Stewart
>Face it Tom and all you other renewable advocates out there. You are
>engaging in deceipt in an attempt to sell a product.
Rod, I've admired many of your posts. Regretably, this is not one.
Tom presents the facts squarely and without the hype you often tend
towards. I myself have absolutely no financial interests in renewable
energy sources, except for the future wellbeing of my descendants.
Persons are living comfortably "off-the-grid" in many parts of the
industrial world, and do not require energy input from the local
electric utility. While this is bothersome or threatening to many
people, I find these actions applaudable. Are these person paying more
for their energy? In most cases, yes. But they are pioneers in a new
frontier and so must break new ground so that others can follow.
I have made no qualms about my leanings, and will continue to discuss
various aspects of promising energy technology and implementation.
Don't worry, be happy,
Will Stewart
Kevin O'Connell
>The only way that they can convince profit minded businesses to purchase
>their product is through mandates and by trying to instill fear of
>competitive products. They also push a feel good message for those groups
>that are not concerned about money (as long as it is someone else's money
>that they can spend.)
You're better than this. Try this one on for size. Everyone
who creates electricity for sale is ultimately converting it to heat.
That wind mill takes wind that is blowing (and will ultimately turn
into heat anyway) and converts it to electricity and then it
turns into heat. The source of the energy was the sun which got the
air moving in the first place. You take uranium (plutonium?) and
generate heat and convert that heat into electricity which is turned
back into heat. Plus, since your process isn't 100% effecient, you also
have alot of "waste heat" left over. It can be used alot of different
ways, but frequently you just put it in a cooling tower and dissipate it
to the atmosphere. Okay, where does your original energy come from?
Which process creates more "waste heat" the wind mill or the nuclear
power plant? On a global scale, how much waste heat that doesn't have
its origins in the daily sunshine can the environment handle?
Ultimately, what it gets down to for some of us has less to do
with all of the high level waste you will plan to bury under the control
of some government agency that we hope stays the same for 10,000 years
(by the way, how many nuclear processing facilities are now Super Fund
sights?) and more to do with the fact that we cannot continue down the
road of generating so much heat whose source is not in the daily sunshine.
At least with oil it is from sunshine (although from days gone by).
But we need to be moving towards only utilizing what comes here everyday
from the sun. For one thing, it isn't clear that what comes from the sun
is already too much for a stable environment here. Adding to that process
may not be in our long term interests.
I would accept the proposition that nuclear was better in the
short term (because of the relatively lower pollution levels than oil or
coal) if I didn't believe that the long term impact was greater energy
usage. We waste the vast majority of the energy we capture anyway
(can't get past thermal effeciency now matter what you do) and then
we use it so ineffieciently it isn't funny. We do need to begin (notice I
say begin) to move towards energy capture and usage which is more
efficient, and which utilizes only the energy which arrives on basically a
daily basis from the sun. Nuclear energy is stored energy from the creation
of the universe. Releasing that energy into our environment in the form
of heat will only cause damage.
Kevin O'Connell
Atomic Rod
question:
/*
On a global scale, how much waste heat that doesn't have
its origins in the daily sunshine can the environment handle?
Kevin, considering the fact that the Earth is surrounded by a very large
heat sink, I would imagine that answer should be pretty obvious,
particularly for a power source that does not inhibit the ability of the
heat to leave the earth's atmosphere.
The heat from nuclear plant operations, even if they were to be our sole
source of energy, is several orders of magnitude lower than what comes
from solar insulation.
BTW, I never dispute those who believe that the sun gives the earth lots
of free energy, what I try to point out is that energy is diffuse and
difficult to collect. Nuclear energy, on the other hand, is compact and
easy to carry in a reasonable sized vessel.
Rod Adams
Malcolm Patterson
Megawatt >going in and 344,000 Megawatt generated (coming out), which is a loss of >15.7%. If you add to that the cost of the invest=
ment in this facility >and operating costs, you might come to the conclusion that it is not >worth it.
Hello? Do these units make sense? Are you talking about annual production
of MWHr or some ENORMOUS facility? For discussions of peak shaving and
load filling capacity (which is what these units are generally built to
allow), MW would seem to be the appropriate unit. I would guess that the
size of the facility is 3 *orders of magnitude* lower than what's cited.
Off the top of my head, the big plants of the 70's were ~1 GW.
--
Malcolm Patterson, P.E.
Ernst G. Knolle
: >In Northern California, Pacific Gas & Electric Company has the Helms
: >pumped (water) storage facility. It is no longer able to meet peak >loads. However, in 1992 PG&E reported pumping power of 398,000 =
: Megawatt >going in and 344,000 Megawatt generated (coming out), which is a loss of >15.7%. If you add to that the cost of the invest=
: ment in this facility >and operating costs, you might come to the conclusion that it is not >worth it.
: Hello? Do these units make sense? Are you talking about annual production
: --
: Malcolm Patterson, P.E.
Good job, Malcolm,
I goofed. The units are "Megawatt Hours". I stand corrected.
Thanks, Ernst
Kevin Fultz
Kevin O'Connell <ocon...@sal9000.orl.mmc.com> wrote:
>atom...@aol.com (Atomic Rod) wrote:
>>The only way that they can convince profit minded businesses to purchase
>>their product is through mandates and by trying to instill fear of
>>competitive products. They also push a feel good message for those groups
>>that are not concerned about money (as long as it is someone else's money
>>that they can spend.)
>
> You're better than this. Try this one on for size. Everyone
>who creates electricity for sale is ultimately converting it to heat.
>That wind mill takes wind that is blowing (and will ultimately turn
>into heat anyway) and converts it to electricity and then it
>turns into heat. The source of the energy was the sun which got the
>air moving in the first place. You take uranium (plutonium?) and
>generate heat and convert that heat into electricity which is turned
>back into heat. Plus, since your process isn't 100% effecient, you also
>have alot of "waste heat" left over. It can be used alot of different
>ways, but frequently you just put it in a cooling tower and dissipate it
>to the atmosphere. Okay, where does your original energy come from?
>Which process creates more "waste heat" the wind mill or the nuclear
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>its origins in the daily sunshine can the environment handle?
I think you should try to calculate this before you get too worried.
I remember doing this once, but I'll try not to spoil it for you.
Kevin O'Connell
>In article <431kl5$r...@theopolis.orl.mmc.com>,
>Kevin O'Connell <ocon...@sal9000.orl.mmc.com> wrote:
>>Which process creates more "waste heat" the wind mill or the nuclear
>>power plant? On a global scale, how much waste heat that doesn't have
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>its origins in the daily sunshine can the environment handle?
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>I think you should try to calculate this before you get too worried.
>I remember doing this once, but I'll try not to spoil it for you.
>
Interesting. Last time I was involved in this we didn't have
enough info on the environment to do the calc. In fact there was some
school of thought that what we got was already too much without adding to
it. This basically suggests what I suspect we will find out some day is that
we are not a "stable" environment. We are just a wee bit too close to the
sun to continuously sustain the atmosphere we currently have. But the
equation had far too many unmeasureable parameters to calculate it. Remember
we are talking about processes which are severly nonlinear and have taken
millions of years to show the variety of changes which can occur. The
danger of course is that by adding to it we increase the rate of change.
Have they done a new calculation with better data to demonstrate that our
poles are in the left hand plane?
Kevin O'Connell