| Pages:
1
..
4
5
6
7 |
k-rico
Super Nomad
Posts: 2079
Registered: 7-10-2008
Location: Playas de Tijuana
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by David K
K-pobre y cabra:
Boy, I sure can get a rise out of some of you... If anyone else said the same thing, would you bother taking the time to read and respond?
You guys really need to take a drink and chill out...  |
So what do you think about wind power now? Did you learn something from my post?
[Edited on 5-19-2010 by k-rico]
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64857
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
Yah, wind power? IT BLOWS!
 
|
|
|
monoloco
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6667
Registered: 7-13-2009
Location: Pescadero BCS
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Bajahowodd
Sorry goat. But although I could get aboard the nuke thing eventually, I really have to step back and question how long it will take to achieve truly
green nuclear power. The scientists have been touting fusion for decades, but have not come close to realizing their dream. Current nuclear technology
still provides us with an abundance of toxic leftovers, much like my mother-in-laws Thanksgiving dinners. While I truly hope that we are able to
produce benign nuclear energy in the foreseeable future, and hope that we invest enough capital to support it, currently, I believe that wind and
solar deserve much more investment than they are currently receiving. |
According to a new comprehensive
study by the New York Academy of Sciences the 1986 explosion at Chernobyl has killed 985,000 people and caused 500 billion dollars damage in the
Ukraine and Belarus alone, yet congress has set the maximum liability of the nuclear industry at 22 billion for accidents. What do you think the
damages would run if we had a Chernobyl in SoCal? Liability limits for industry are just another subsidy or form of corporate welfare on top of all
the other government subsidies that the nuclear industry receives.
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64857
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
There was a major difference in the type of reactor used in the Soviet Union vs. America... apples and oranges.
|
|
|
monoloco
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6667
Registered: 7-13-2009
Location: Pescadero BCS
Member Is Offline
|
|
The point is that companies like Duke Energy and Exelon stand to make billions on nuke power while the taxpayer is on the hook for trillions if
something goes wrong. Just look at the Hanford Res. in Wa., I'm sure that General Electric made millions running the program there for the DOE, now we
the taxpayer have spent billions, with no end in sight, trying to mitigate the mess they left. Nuclear power seems cheap until you amortize in the
cost of baby sitting the byproducts for thousands of years or the cost of one catastrophic failure or act of terrorism. IMO, the money is better spent
on conservation rather than subsidizing multi-national corporations.
|
|
|
k-rico
Super Nomad
Posts: 2079
Registered: 7-10-2008
Location: Playas de Tijuana
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by monoloco
The point is that companies like Duke Energy and Exelon stand to make billions on nuke power while the taxpayer is on the hook for trillions if
something goes wrong. Just look at the Hanford Res. in Wa., I'm sure that General Electric made millions running the program there for the DOE, now we
the taxpayer have spent billions, with no end in sight, trying to mitigate the mess they left. Nuclear power seems cheap until you amortize in the
cost of baby sitting the byproducts for thousands of years or the cost of one catastrophic failure or act of terrorism. IMO, the money is better spent
on conservation rather than subsidizing multi-national corporations. |
You've mentioned Chernobyl and Hanford. You can't judge the modern nuke power industry by those sites. Chernobyl was a carbon moderated reactor that I
think was used to produce plutonium for bombs and OBTW they generated some electricity with the heat produced. It had no containment building.
Hanford was built during the Manhattan project (1943) to make plutonium for bombs. More reactors were added later. Those reactors were among the first
ever built and were built real fast with no prior experience no real understanding of safeguards. There is widespread contamination there and it is
costing a fortune to clean up. The DOE was real lax in enforcing NRC rules during its operation. NRC rules probably didn't even apply to Hanford.
National security priorities ya know.
The messiest part of nuclear power is in the fuel cycle including the initial step of mining uranium and the final step of reprocessing spent fuel to
get the "unburned" fissile material out for reuse. Spent fuel rods are not "waste". There's much more to worry about than just the reactors.
Interesting read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
[Edited on 5-19-2010 by k-rico]
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64857
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
That was refreshing k-rico... thank you.
|
|
|
k-rico
Super Nomad
Posts: 2079
Registered: 7-10-2008
Location: Playas de Tijuana
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by David K
That was refreshing k-rico... thank you. |
I didn't say that nuclear power is not dangerous.
|
|
|
monoloco
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6667
Registered: 7-13-2009
Location: Pescadero BCS
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by k-rico
| Quote: | Originally posted by monoloco
The point is that companies like Duke Energy and Exelon stand to make billions on nuke power while the taxpayer is on the hook for trillions if
something goes wrong. Just look at the Hanford Res. in Wa., I'm sure that General Electric made millions running the program there for the DOE, now we
the taxpayer have spent billions, with no end in sight, trying to mitigate the mess they left. Nuclear power seems cheap until you amortize in the
cost of baby sitting the byproducts for thousands of years or the cost of one catastrophic failure or act of terrorism. IMO, the money is better spent
on conservation rather than subsidizing multi-national corporations. |
You've mentioned Chernobyl and Hanford. You can't judge the modern nuke power industry by those sites. Chernobyl was a carbon moderated reactor that I
think was used to produce plutonium for bombs and OBTW they generated some electricity with the heat produced. It had no containment building.
Hanford was built during the Manhattan project (1942 or so) to make plutonium for bombs. More wee added later. Those reactors were among the first
ever built and were built real fast with no prior experience no real understanding of safeguards. There is widespread contamination there and it is
costing a fortune to clean up. The DOE was real lax in enforcing NRC rules during its operation. NRC rules probably didn't even apply to Hanford.
National security priorities ya know.
[Edited on 5-19-2010 by k-rico] |
I am only comparing them in the sense that at the time they were built the
consequences weren't foreseen. The fact is we don't know what the future holds, especially when considering a time frame of thousands of years. A
terrorist attack, major earthquake, sabotage by a disgruntled employee or any number of things could lead to a catastrophe that could cost society
trillions of dollars and leave a large area uninhabitable for a very long time. Remember the government and the oil industry told us that off shore
drilling was safe too. A nuclear accident would eclipse the gulf oil spill exponentially. When people say that wind and solar is not economically
competitive with nuclear energy, they just aren't looking at all the potential costs, when they complain that alt. e. is heavily subsidized they need
to examine the large subsidies that fossil fuels and nuclear energy receives, and not just the direct subsidies but the back door subsidies. If you
look at the big picture, the cost of nuclear energy doesn't reflect the cost to the taxpayer to store the waste for thousands of years,or mitigate
accidents (I wonder how much the small accident at 3 mi. island cost the taxpayer?). The best solution is conservation, it could employ millions of
Americans to weatherize homes, build efficient appliances, utilize photovoltaic, solar heat, and energy efficient lighting.
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64857
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by k-rico
| Quote: | Originally posted by David K
That was refreshing k-rico... thank you. |
I didn't say that nuclear power is not dangerous. |
Neither did I... but more people die from coal mine disasters than uranium mines. 
|
|
|
k-rico
Super Nomad
Posts: 2079
Registered: 7-10-2008
Location: Playas de Tijuana
Member Is Offline
|
|
I think everyone pretty much is in agreement that all approaches including conservation is the solution. Solar and wind are great but there's the
nagging problem that our whole system is based upon generating electricty where and when it's needed. Solar and wind generators are built where there
is sun and wind and generate when there is sun and wind. Different ballgame. Changing the rules will take a lot of time and money. I doubt anything
will significantly change until oil and coal become scare/expensive. Now, they're just too cheap and easy.
Hmmmmm, it's getting warmer outside.
|
|
|
MrBillM
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21656
Registered: 8-20-2003
Location: Out and About
Member Is Offline
Mood: It's a Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah Day
|
|
Hands Across the Border ?
I heard that one of the latest ideas for sharing Mexico's Wind Energy with the Nortes is to use that energy to charge small batteries which will be
given to those making their clandestine crossings. Arriving North, they'll turn the cells over to Utility Providers as a "Token" of their desire to
contribute to the Economy of the United States. Given the numbers, our dependence on oil should be dramatically reduced. Of course, transporting all
of those batteries back for repeat use might be a bit difficult and energy intensive.
Worth a try, though.
"It's one small step for a man, but one giant leap for mankind"
Or not.
|
|
|
BajaNews
Super Moderator
Posts: 1439
Registered: 12-11-2005
Member Is Offline
|
|
Del Mar firm signs deal for Mexican wind farm
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/may/20/del-mar-firm-...
By Onell R. Soto
May 20, 2010
A Del Mar company said Wednesday it plans to spend up to $1 billion to build as many as 500 wind turbines on the mountains between Tijuana and
Mexicali to provide power to the United States and Mexico.
Cannon Power Group said it signed a 10-year deal with Spanish wind giant Gamesa for the wind turbines, technical support and additional work on the
1,000-megawatt Aubanel Wind Project.
If built as planned beginning next year, the project will dwarf wind farms proposed for the mountains of San Diego County and will put towers as high
as 25-story buildings with blades bigger than the wings of a Boeing 747 on desert ridges in a region of striking wind-carved rock formations spread
over 140 square miles.
The wind farm is planned southeast of the town of La Rumorosa, about 75 miles from downtown San Diego. The first phase of the project, between 70 and
100 megawatts, will put its power on the Mexican grid about three months after construction begins, said Gary Hardke, president of Cannon, which has
developed wind projects for 30 years.
Hardke said his company is working out who will buy the power and how it will get to market.
“There’s plenty of demand for power, green power, in the region,” Hardke said.
Cannon has built wind farms in California, he said, but getting permits got so difficult that it is focused on building elsewhere. It still sells
power into the state to take advantage of California rules that require a certain percentage of electricity to come from the sun, the wind and other
renewable sources.
In a move by state officials to fight global warming, California utilities are required to get 20 percent of their power from such sources by the end
of the year, and one-third by 2020.
“We intend for this project to be an environmental cross-border model,” said Gamesa spokesman Michael Peck.
Major components for the wind turbines will be made in Gamesa’s Pennsylvania factories, including the blades and the covers, or nacelles, for the
mechanical workings.
Gamesa, founded in Spain 34 years ago, is one of the biggest developers of wind turbines and wind farms in the world, and its windmills can generate
more than 18,000 megawatts worldwide.
Over the past few years, Cannon has been developing a 500-megawatt wind farm on the Columbia River Gorge in Washington state and selling the power it
produces to California buyers. That project is about 80 percent done.
“The Baja project has the potential of being twice as big,” Hardke said.
Such projects typically are financed and built in phases as Cannon signs contracts known as power-purchase agreements with electricity buyers, Hardke
said.
The Aubanel project is separate from the nearby Energía Sierra Juárez, another 1,000-megawatt wind project Cannon began developing and then sold to
Sempra Generation, which is owned by the same company as San Diego Gas & Electric Co.
Wind studies indicate the region has some of the best conditions for wind generation near large population centers in the border region.
“Let them bring hundreds, thousands of turbines,” Baja California Gov. José Guadalupe Osuna Millán told The San Diego Union-Tribune earlier this year.
Both projects await permits from Mexican environmental regulators.
Environmentalists worry about the effects of wind turbines on wildlife, including bats, birds and sheep. Mexican officials said their environmental
laws are as tough as California’s.
Cannon and Sempra Generation said their developments depend on new transmission lines to get the power they produce in the rural region to customers.
“The transmission is the big issue,” said energy consultant Nicolas Puga, who has studied Mexico’s wind industry.
A line connecting Sempra’s project to the California grid, along with a substation in a corner of San Diego County for several other wind projects, is
undergoing environmental review.
That power will be put on the Southwest Powerlink, a major transmission line connecting San Diego to Arizona. SDG&E said it needs another big
line, the Sunrise Powerlink, to help make room on the Southwest Powerlink for the wind power.
Unlike Sempra’s project, which is being built exclusively to supply California, Cannon’s project will supply customers in Mexico and the United
States.
Because such projects depend on the wind, they don’t generate power all the time. The wind in local mountains blows strongest and most steadily at
night, when power demand is low.
If fully built, the two projects will generate nearly as much power as the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.
That measure is slightly misleading because a typical wind project makes about 30 percent to 40 percent of the energy it would make if it ran at full
capacity all the time. A nuclear plant runs at closer to 90 percent capacity.
To be fully developed, Cannon’s wind farm will have to land long-term contracts with big power users, Puga said.
“They’re going to have to export the vast majority of it,” he said.
That is a challenge Cannon can take on, he said.
“Cannon Power is a formidable developer,” Puga said. “These guys are not naive or young or new. … They are pretty capable.”
Construction will create up to 400 jobs, most of which will pay U.S.-level wages and will go to people from the region, including Tijuana, Mexicali
and San Diego, said John Prock, director of Cannon’s Mexican operations.
“The impact to the community here in Mexico is a huge story in itself,” Prock said. “We’re going to have needs for restaurants and hotels during the
construction project.”
|
|
|
TMW
Select Nomad
Posts: 10659
Registered: 9-1-2003
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Member Is Offline
|
|
The areas where wind and solar can be installed effectively are limited. Even those who want them are against just putting them anywhere. One of the
biggest problems is getting them connected to the grid from some remote location like the middle of the desert. Solar panels are not that efficient
and without government tax breaks most people would not buy them for their homes. For a commercial system they take up large amounts of land. Wind
mills are high maintenance systems and must be placed in specific areas of constant wind. I view both as a supplement and nothing more.
Nuclear power is as safe an energey sourse as we want it to be, the navy has shown that. But it takes strict control and training. One thing the
government has to do is setup a waste dump site and quit BSing about it. NIMBY is BS. I've listened to experts who say the total amount of nuclear
waste used in the U.S. will fill a cube the size of a football field and when recycled a room 12ftx12ftx12ft. It's the containment of such waste in
small amounts that's takes so much space.
|
|
|
MrBillM
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21656
Registered: 8-20-2003
Location: Out and About
Member Is Offline
Mood: It's a Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah Day
|
|
Pumping out Power
Awhile back, there was an interview with a researcher and author (pimping his book) IN FAVOR of Wind and Solar Energy who also said that the current
price of producing Electricity from Wind or Solar was approx $0.38 per KW while power produced from Oil, Coal or Natural Gas was $0.05 KW. For that
economic reason, he said, there was little incentive (none economic) for the country which holds the largest supplies of Natural Gas to lead the way
in alternative power production.
Concerning Nuclear Waste, it's interesting that the Naysayers ALWAYS refer to the waste in terms of WEIGHT rather than physical volume. It makes the
problem sound so much worse.
Nuclear IS the answer. Stict regulation and strict conformity along with a waste disposal and retainment program. Even the author in the "The
Warning" about the Three-Mile Island accident pointed out that one of the root problems was the "Competitive" Free-Market philosophy extended to
Nuclear Power production resulting in units from different manufacturers resulting in layouts and control systems with too many variances and too many
revisions.
If the Navy can put hundreds of men underwater living next to a nuclear reactor, it IS possible to operate safely.
|
|
|
k-rico
Super Nomad
Posts: 2079
Registered: 7-10-2008
Location: Playas de Tijuana
Member Is Offline
|
|
The spent fuel rods are not waste, there's considerable fissionable material (U235 and Pu239) in rods that are no longer useful for power generation.
The recovery of that material, if they decide to do it, is a very nasty, highly radioactive chemical process, but you can wait a loooong time for the
fission fragments to decay off before doing it, or not do it at all.
The repository at Yucca Flats, NV, which is an already contaminated area from weapons testing is being built, I read about some recent permitting
action for some part of the task. Getting the spent fuel to the repository will require shipment through populated areas so many folks will be against
it and of course there is resistance in Nevada.
Plus decommissioned reactors can't simply be taken apart and disposed of like other types of power stations. There are many old reactors in the US
that are reaching the end of their lifespan. Constant neutron bombardment of the materials that compose the reactor vessel takes it toll and the very
large primary to secondary coolant heat exchangers are highly radioactive. When San Onofre is finally shut down because of age (the first reactor is
already permanently off-line) the whole facility is going to be off limits and will sit there for decades. It's the same fate for other power
reactors.
Mill tailings from uranium mines are radioactive because radium and other radioactive elements are co-located where there is uranium. Utah and
Colorado are dealing with this.
There are a lot of radioactive problems and waste materials when you consider the whole fuel cycle from mining, fabrication, reprocessing to disposal.
Navy reactors are small, and use highly enriched weapons grade fuel. Therefore the Navy spends a fortune building them. Building a power reactor the
same way the Navy builds a propulsion reactor would be cost prohibitive. Also, Navy reactors have an unlimited, easily tapped supply of emergency
coolant if they need it, the ocean. The Russian Navy has experience with that.
There are all types of fission machines, from the small, pulsed, research reactors built by General Atomic to fisson fuses that trigger fusion bombs
to large fission bombs.
Just like with fire, there are matches to light your oven and there are firestorms that consume cities and forests.
Careful about the comparisons you draw.
[Edited on 5-26-2010 by k-rico]
|
|
|
MrBillM
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21656
Registered: 8-20-2003
Location: Out and About
Member Is Offline
Mood: It's a Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah Day
|
|
Blah, Blah, Blah ............
More of the same anti-nuke Nutcase Nattering.
I'm not advocating ANY particular approach, but the technology is available to produce the energy and control the risks.
AND, it is inevitable. Perhaps, later than we'd like, but eventually it will be the ONLY way we can produce enough energy without
degrading our lifestyle choices. Those who think we can live in Green Caves WILL be, at some point, outvoted.
Probably too late, though.
In the meantime, we've got plenty of Natural Gas, Coal and even Oil.
Mine, Drill and keep that A/C running.
|
|
|
Bajahowodd
Elite Nomad
Posts: 9274
Registered: 12-15-2008
Location: Disneyland Adjacent and anywhere in Baja
Member Is Offline
|
|
k-rico said:
Plus decommissioned reactors can't simply be taken apart and disposed of like other types of power stations. There are many old reactors in the US
that are reaching the end of their lifespan. Constant neutron bombardment of the materials that compose the reactor vessel takes it toll and the very
large primary to secondary coolant heat exchangers are highly radioactive. When San Onofre is finally shut down because of age (the first reactor is
already permanently off-line) the whole facility is going to be off limits and will sit there for decades. It's the same fate for other power
reactors."
Just reminds me of the "legacy" people are complaining about with respect to debt and deficit for future generations. In a big picture context, is
there much difference?
|
|
|
MrBillM
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21656
Registered: 8-20-2003
Location: Out and About
Member Is Offline
Mood: It's a Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah Day
|
|
Irrelevent Even If True.
What happens with the OLD Nuclear Plants such as San Onofre means NOTHING to the argument. Their circumstance remains the same whatever we do with
NEW technology.
Given the LONG History of the San Onofre plant, even without any more advanced Technology, we could expect a service life from any NEW plants to have
a productive life that would outlast our children.
|
|
|
MrBillM
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21656
Registered: 8-20-2003
Location: Out and About
Member Is Offline
Mood: It's a Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah Day
|
|
AND, So ?
The ANSWER is to ASSUME that some revolutionary and UNKNOWN technology is going to appear at some point ?
That is, of course, Absurd, but it's not an argument I haven't seen before from the Blue-Tilters. Reading scientific articles in popular
publications, the "Break-through just around the corner" thinking appears now and then.
As far as "Nuke Makes Steam" being a primitive way of doing things, the theory of Electrical production itself goes a long way back, too, but it
works. Economics, resources and (relative) safety should ALWAYS dictate the best approach.
Until the great "Unknown" Blessing arrives, that is.
I read today where they're trying to build (with an 80 percent subsidy from the taxpayers) a series of Mirrors covering TEN SQUARE
MILES to harness the sun and drive Stirling engines to generate Electricity in the SoCal Desert. Pretty "Primitive", don't
you think ?
[Edited on 5-26-2010 by MrBillM]
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
..
4
5
6
7 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
