In article , Gary Coffman says...

The fuel is however, taxpayer subsidised. It has to come from
somewhere.

Actually, it isn't. The enrichment plants are owned by the government,
but the government doesn't sell the enriched product to the fuel rod
packagers below cost.

This *sounds* good. But what's "cost?" My suspicion is
there's a pretty hefty taxpayer subsidy figured into this
deal. Just a guess.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Gary Coffman says...

Basically they all get together ever so often and
pass all kinds of resolutions and plans about how the
plant should be run. And Entergy gives them
the finger.

As well they should. The NRC has exclusive jurisdiction
for the regulation of nuclear plant operations.

Right. But there's all kinds of confusing issues, like
those plants heavily subsidised the local tax base. But
now that subsidy has run out, so now the plants are considered
to be local liabilities more so than the jewels in the
crown they used to be.

But as has been said before, it's the politicians *job*
to pander to the public, to show they _care_ about the
nuclear plant issues, and to show they're _doing_ something
to make the area better. Not their fault if they're not
allowed to.

At least they're *trying*.



Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 11:34:00 -0700, "Roger Shoaf"
wrote:


Then you still only get power when the wind blows.

First of all each wind turbine would require a concrete base and a steel
tower. then you would need to connect each of these with wire and have a
large bank of tra


And they kill birds by the thousands as they fly into the props.

Gunner

"In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
Liebmann

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 11:34:00 -0700, "Roger Shoaf"
wrote:


So who is doing the quoting?

Sorry, you'll have to do better than an anti-wind site if you want me
to take you seriously. I happen to own a couple of wind generators, so
a blogger's diatribe doesn't mean much to me.

We have not built any new plants in the US, but new plants have been built
overseas. As far as reality goes, politics is the reason we have not built
any nukes recently. Politics can and does change.

Yes, and when GW took office, the renewkables claimed that new plants
would be springing up like mushrooms. Yet even with complete GOP
control, here's the reality of new nukes
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/st...517234152.html

Now I know what you're thinking.... that if GW get's a second term,
he'll kick butt on the nuke thing. That might be true if he weren't
preoccupied with foreign adventures, tax cuts, and promising the moon
and Mars (literally). If you want him to deliver anything more than
empty promises on nukes, here's a plan - institute spiffy uniforms for
the nuke work force. Then GW can pose in one for a photo op.

Wayne

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 04:28:28 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 11:34:00 -0700, "Roger Shoaf"
wrote:


Then you still only get power when the wind blows.

First of all each wind turbine would require a concrete base and a steel
tower. then you would need to connect each of these with wire and have a
large bank of tra

Oh no! Not more concrete and wire!

And they kill birds by the thousands as they fly into the props.

Gunner

From most I'd figure that comment was meant to be sarcastic. But you
probably believe it.

Wayne

Oh no! Not more concrete and wire!

And they kill birds by the thousands as they fly into the props.


I see this argument against wind generators used often, usually by those with
zero experience with wind farms.

I worked for a couple of years on a wind farm in the Altamont Pass in
California. During all that time, I never saw a single bird that we could say
was killed by a windmill.

We did have our problems with hawks. They loved to build their nests in the
nacelles, becoming quite a nuiscense. We finally had to cover the openings with
screening to keep them out.

Because of the ground work, the ground squirrels and gophers multiplied, and
that caused an increase in the numbers of hawks and burrowing owls. After the
construction phase was completed, the cattle were returned and grazed as usual,
ignoring the windmills as they would any other piece of farm machinery.

Earle Rich
Mont Vernon, NH

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 04:28:28 GMT, Gunner
calmly ranted:

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 11:34:00 -0700, "Roger Shoaf"
wrote:

Then you still only get power when the wind blows.

First of all each wind turbine would require a concrete base and a steel
tower. then you would need to connect each of these with wire and have a
large bank of tra

And they kill birds by the thousands as they fly into the props.

Thousands? Cites, please?

http://www.cleanpowernow.org/birdkills.php shows the WCS as
184 in a 2-year study of Altamont Pass, where 5,400 wind
turbines operate.

http://www.defenders.org/habitat/renew/wind.html Higher figures
here for some sites, but they suggest putting it into perspective.
--snip--
Bird mortality from wind turbines should be put into perspective. The
Cato Institute projects: "Ten thousand cumulative (emphasis added)
bird deaths from 1,731 MW of installed U.S. capacity [as of 1995] are
the equivalent of 4.4 million bird deaths across the entire capacity
of the U.S. electricity market (approximately 770 GW)" (Bradley 1997),
and uses this figure as argument against expansion of wind energy.
However, in reality, even if wind power supplied all of the country’s
electricity, bird fatalities would still be dwarfed by the mortality
figures for other types of structures: vehicles, 60 to 80 million;
buildings, 98 to 980 million; power lines, up to 174 million;
communication towers, 4 to 50 million (Erickson et al. 2001).
Furthermore, the American Bird Conservancy estimates that feral and
domestic outdoor cats probably kill on the order of hundreds of
millions of birds per year (Case 2000). One study estimated that in
Wisconsin alone, annual bird kill by rural cats might range from 7.8
to 217 million birds per year (Colemen & Temple 1995).
--snip--

Your kitties may kill more birds than a wind turbine, Gunner.


-------------------------------------------------
- Clinton never - * Wondrous Website Design
- EXhaled.- * http://www.diversify.com
-------------------------------------------------

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 11:34:00 -0700, "Roger Shoaf"
wrote:


Then you still only get power when the wind blows.

First of all each wind turbine would require a concrete base and a steel
tower. then you would need to connect each of these with wire and have a
large bank of tra


And they kill birds by the thousands as they fly into the props.

Urban legend. Take it up with Myth Busters.

Joel. phx


Gunner

"Joel Corwith" wrote in message
...
And they kill birds by the thousands as they fly into the props.

Urban legend. Take it up with Myth Busters.

Nah, I read in WNR (Wisc. Nat. Resources) that thousands of birds in this
state fly into antennas and such... when I read it I thought "God. Them's
some damned stupid birds." Darwin in action probably. :^)

Tim

--
"I've got more trophies than Wayne Gretsky and the Pope combined!"
- Homer Simpson
Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

"Tim Williams" wrote in message
...
"Joel Corwith" wrote in message
...
And they kill birds by the thousands as they fly into the props.

Urban legend. Take it up with Myth Busters.

Nah, I read in WNR (Wisc. Nat. Resources) that thousands of birds in this
state fly into antennas and such... when I read it I thought "God. Them's
some damned stupid birds." Darwin in action probably. :^)

Didn't Seinfeld do a bit about birds flying into mirrored windows?

"You'd at least think the bird would swerve to avoid hitting the other
bird!!"

Joel. phx


Tim

Didn't Seinfeld do a bit about birds flying into mirrored windows?

"You'd at least think the bird would swerve to avoid hitting the other
bird!!"

My theory is that when the bird flies into a window, what it is seeing is a
reflection of the sky or distance woods.

I had a bluejay and a hawk hit our full length glass doors about 1 second
apart, terminating the playful chase with a double splat!

Earle Rich
Mont Vernon, NH

"wmbjk" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 11:34:00 -0700, "Roger Shoaf"
wrote:


So who is doing the quoting?

Sorry, you'll have to do better than an anti-wind site if you want me
to take you seriously. I happen to own a couple of wind generators, so
a blogger's diatribe doesn't mean much to me.

So you do not like what the professor is saying because it disagrees with
your belief. Thank you for being frank.

Since you own two wind generators, how much does it generate and what did it
cost?


We have not built any new plants in the US, but new plants have been
built
overseas. As far as reality goes, politics is the reason we have not
built
any nukes recently. Politics can and does change.

Yes, and when GW took office, the renewkables claimed that new plants
would be springing up like mushrooms. Yet even with complete GOP
control, here's the reality of new nukes
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/st...517234152.html

I didn't say anything about presidential politics. My support for nuclear
power is that it is clean, cheap and abundant. Cheap power is a good
thing.

As to your assesment that Nevada's NIMBY suits are going to be a final
stumbling block to nuclear power I disagree. Fear was the tool that the
anti nuclear power lobby used to slow the progress of nuclear power, and a
rational discussion of the facts will be the tool that brings it back.

P.S. I didn't vote for GW or his father.

--

Roger Shoaf

About the time I had mastered getting the toothpaste back in the tube, then
they come up with this striped stuff.

On 27 Jul 2004 19:42:00 -0700, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Gary Coffman says...
The fuel is however, taxpayer subsidised. It has to come from
somewhere.

Actually, it isn't. The enrichment plants are owned by the government,
but the government doesn't sell the enriched product to the fuel rod
packagers below cost.

This *sounds* good. But what's "cost?" My suspicion is
there's a pretty hefty taxpayer subsidy figured into this
deal. Just a guess.

You shouldn't guess. The current world commodity price for
yellow cake is $11 a pound. It costs $6 a pound to convert
yellow cake to UF6. Enrichment costs $108 a pound (3%
enrichment). Rod fab costs $125 a pound. That's a total
of $250 a pound, All but the actual enrichment is done in
commercial facilities.

The gas diffusion cascades are owned by the government.
The $108 is the operating cost of the cascades (power,
personnel, etc). The cascades were built in the 1940s for
bomb production so plant cost is fully sunk, but if you want,
you can look up that cost and amortize the portion of it
attributable to any given pound of enriched uranium,

(Even using straight line accounting, it comes to less
than 40 cents a pound. That's why no one has bothered
to build more efficient plant, though the technology to do
so is well understood.)

One pound of fuel can produce 17.888 MWhr of electricity in a
Westinghouse plant using the normal burn up schedule. (GE plant
efficiency is similar.) So that's a fuel cost of 1.4 cents per kWhr.
That's about 4 times less than the fuel cost of a coal fired plant,
7 times less than the cost of gas fired plant, and nearly 12 times
cheaper than the cost of oil fired plant at current oil prices.

Gary

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 22:21:13 -0700, "Roger Shoaf"
wrote:

"wmbjk" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 11:34:00 -0700, "Roger Shoaf"
wrote:

So who is doing the quoting?

Sorry, you'll have to do better than an anti-wind site if you want me
to take you seriously. I happen to own a couple of wind generators, so
a blogger's diatribe doesn't mean much to me.

So you do not like what the professor is saying because it disagrees with
your belief. Thank you for being frank.

Your cite was an opinion piece, well worth what we paid for it. Many
in the know accept that intermittent renewables (which would be mostly
wind due to economics) might contribute as much as 20% of our grid
needs without additional storage. Nobody can say for sure whether that
figure is attainable, and the amount of current wind capacity doesn't
have anything to do with it.

Since you own two wind generators, how much does it generate and what did it
cost?

We have 1300 Watts (nameplate) of wind power, and 2000 Watts of solar.
The system cost about $30k and generates all of our energy for a
modern, well equipped, all electric home in the southwest. The wind
generators cost about $2k, the tower about as much again, and they
supply about a quarter of our energy needs. That part varies from zero
to 100% daily depending on the weather.

We have not built any new plants in the US, but new plants have been
built
overseas. As far as reality goes, politics is the reason we have not
built
any nukes recently. Politics can and does change.

Yes, and when GW took office, the renewkables claimed that new plants
would be springing up like mushrooms. Yet even with complete GOP
control, here's the reality of new nukes
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/st...517234152.html

I didn't say anything about presidential politics. My support for nuclear
power is that it is clean, cheap and abundant.

It is neither clean, cheap or abundant.... except on Usenet.

Cheap power is a good thing.

Well sure, and that's exactly why wind farms are being built and nukes
aren't. Wind power is very nearly competitive with that of
conventional plants, except that wind power doesn't have the added
pollution costs or the need for cooling water.

As to your assesment that Nevada's NIMBY suits are going to be a final
stumbling block to nuclear power I disagree.

Disagree all you want, but the market has spoken. Renewkables were
pinning their hopes on Yucca, but the future of that is in grave doubt
due to Congressional unwillingness to fund it, and the court's
unwillingness to override scientific standards. Not to mention the 55%
chance that it'll be history come November. :-)

Fear was the tool that the
anti nuclear power lobby used to slow the progress of nuclear power, and a
rational discussion of the facts will be the tool that brings it back.

What you mean by "rational discussion" is something more like
"willingness to accept increased risk". Ain't going to happen in our
lifetime. But just for fun, let's say that science, government,
investors and the public all had a change of heart. Let's allow ten
years for that, and another ten for permitting and construction.
You're still looking at two decades before the first new plant. A
*lot* of wind power could go up in the meantime, which is why everyone
should be pushing for it. Unfortunately most renewkables see wind and
solar as nails in nuke's coffin, so they actively argue against all
renewables every chance they get.

P.S. I didn't vote for GW or his father.

Congrats. GW plans for a renewable energy future to come about the
same time as his Mars mission.

Wayne

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 14:33:08 -0700, "Joel Corwith" wrote:


Didn't Seinfeld do a bit about birds flying into mirrored windows?

"You'd at least think the bird would swerve to avoid hitting the other
bird!!"


They do swerve. Trouble is that the bird in the mirror swerves in exactly the
same direction :-(


Mark Rand
RTFM

On 29 Jul 2004 19:17:46 -0700, (Dan Caster) wrote:
There was an article is the Wall Street Journal a while back about a
different design for nuclear power plants that use helium as the heat
transfer agent. It sounded pretty good. No melt down possibility.

Also you do know that China is building nuclear power plants?

You're talking about Generation IV reactors. There are two styles
of helium cooled reactors, the gas cooled fast reactor (GCFR), and
the very high temperature gas cooled reactor (VHTGCR). The former
is a breeder, the latter is not. General Atomics worked on the GCFR
in the 1970s, but none have actually been built.

The VHTGCR, developed by China as the HTR-10, operates at 1,000 C,
the highest operating temperature of any nuclear reactor yet built. This
is hot enough to thermally crack hydrogen from water, so this design
can produce electricity *and* directly produce hydrogen from water for
mobile power usage.

Japan's (HTTR), General Atomics' (GTMHR), and South Africa's
(PBMR) are variants on this design. There are daunting materials
issues with this style of reactor because of the high temperature
involved, and it is *not* a breeder, but working reactors of this style
have been built and successfully operated.

Other Gen IV designs include lead cooled, molten salt cooled,
sodium cooled, and supercritical high pressure water cooled
designs. The Clinch River plant, killed by Carter, was to have
been a sodium cooled breeder. France operates a number of
molten salt (lithium salts) cooled breeders. The Japanese are
working on a supercritical high pressure water cooled reactor.

The molten lead cooled design is of most interest for our present
discussion because of a number of desirable properties. It is
passively safe. It is a completely closed cycle breeder, with
a 20 year fuel cycle. In other words no off-site reprocessing
is required. Models have been built in modular sizes from
50 to 1200 megawatts. Candidate designs are the US STAR,
the Japanese LSPR, and Russia's BREST.

While the lead cooled reactor isn't quite as efficient as the
high temperature gas cooled reactor, I like it better because
of its closed breeder cycle, long unrefueled life, its inherent
safety properties, and the ease with which it can be scaled
to different modular sizes. You can essentially treat it as a
drop in long life primary battery available in a range of standard
sizes.

This design also has the simplest waste disposal method. Since
it is fully closed cycle, you can simply shut down and unplug the
reactor core, shielded by its own (now solid) lead coolant, and
store it at a long term disposal site, no disassembly or chemical
reprocessing steps are required. Since burn up is so complete,
there isn't much high level radioactivity left in the spent core.

Gary

On 29 Jul 2004 19:17:46 -0700, (Dan Caster) wrote:


Also you do know that China is building nuclear power plants?

Dan

Sure. The Chinese can probably also have neighborhood lead-acid
battery recycling plants. Whether any of that is a good idea or not
doesn't change the fact that there won't be any new nuclear power
plants in the US for a long time.

As an aside.... did anyone else catch the documentary "Yank Tanks"
about old cars in Cuba? Really interesting. One guy was even cranking
out brake linings from raw materials in his home workshop. Looked like
the film maker presented him with a filter mask at least.

Wayne

(ERich10983) wrote in message ...
Oh no! Not more concrete and wire!

And they kill birds by the thousands as they fly into the props.



bull frog

ALTAMONT PASS WINDMILL BIRDS DEATHS

the birds need to get glasses or stop flying drunk.

"wmbjk" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 22:21:13 -0700, "Roger Shoaf"
wrote:

"wmbjk" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 11:34:00 -0700, "Roger Shoaf"
wrote:

So who is doing the quoting?

Sorry, you'll have to do better than an anti-wind site if you want me
to take you seriously. I happen to own a couple of wind generators, so
a blogger's diatribe doesn't mean much to me.

So you do not like what the professor is saying because it disagrees with
your belief. Thank you for being frank.

Your cite was an opinion piece, well worth what we paid for it.

This sounds like the source of a well informed opinion.

Dr. Howard C. Hayden
Emeritus Professor of Physics
University of Connecticut
(32 years at UConn)



Many
in the know

This is just another way of saying "they".


accept that intermittent renewables (which would be mostly
wind due to economics) might contribute as much as 20% of our grid
needs without additional storage. Nobody can say for sure whether that
figure is attainable, and the amount of current wind capacity doesn't
have anything to do with it.

Since you own two wind generators, how much does it generate and what did
it
cost?

We have 1300 Watts (nameplate) of wind power, and 2000 Watts of solar.
The system cost about $30k and generates all of our energy for a
modern, well equipped, all electric home in the southwest. The wind
generators cost about $2k, the tower about as much again, and they
supply about a quarter of our energy needs. That part varies from zero
to 100% daily depending on the weather.

So do you have a meter on this system or are you just estimating how much
you generate?

Seems to me that your 1,300 watt wind turbines would only produce power when
the wind is blowing at a pretty good clip. Are you in an area that the wind
blows hard and steady?

As to your solar system, if that produces 2,000 watts of power how is that
attained? When I was looking into this it seemed to produce peak power only
for several hours on a sunny day as the angle of the sun had something to do
with it. Also even if you are getting 2,000 watts of power you get that as
a DC voltage that then has to be rectified to AC and regulated to line
voltage. To do this it also costs yopu some of the energy you captured.
What does this net to you?

At Professor Haden's website he says the following:

North Carolina State University gives an estimate of the day-by-day power
outut from a 50 Watt Panel in Raleigh N.C. The panel faces south and is
tipped at 35º from the horizontal.
During July, there are 5.41 hours of peak sun, and some sort of (thermal?)
degradation factor applies (8%). The result is 249 watt-hours per day.

In December, the panel will produce 161 watt-hours per day.

These figures for the "50-watt" panel amount to day-long averages of 10.4
watts in July and 6.7 watts in December.

Go Solar! Yeah!

data from: http://www.ncsc.ncsu.edu/
(North Carolina State University)

=============== end quote========================

So if all factors were the same between NCSU and you, your 2,000 watt solar
system would net you 9960 watts per day in July and 268 watts per day in
December.

It might be a little more at your location, but not that much more and you
still are going to have losses converting that power into line voltage so
your air conditioner can use it.

Seems to me that you dropped $30k to make some very expensive electricity.

We have not built any new plants in the US, but new plants have been
built
overseas. As far as reality goes, politics is the reason we have not
built
any nukes recently. Politics can and does change.

Yes, and when GW took office, the renewkables claimed that new plants
would be springing up like mushrooms. Yet even with complete GOP
control, here's the reality of new nukes

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/st...517234152.html

I didn't say anything about presidential politics. My support for
nuclear
power is that it is clean, cheap and abundant.

It is neither clean, cheap or abundant.... except on Usenet.

Clean, it produces no emissions like hydrocarbons do.

Cheap, fuel costs are low, and even when you factor in capitol investment
and labor to run the place for 50 years and decommission it it still makes
economic sense.

Abundent, uranium is so common we could generate power for thousands of
years without any trouble.



Cheap power is a good thing.

Well sure, and that's exactly why wind farms are being built and nukes
aren't. Wind power is very nearly competitive with that of
conventional plants, except that wind power doesn't have the added
pollution costs or the need for cooling water.


Nucular plants are being built, just not in this country. Coolling water?
2/3 of the earth is covered with water.


As to your assesment that Nevada's NIMBY suits are going to be a final
stumbling block to nuclear power I disagree.

Disagree all you want, but the market has spoken.

The market? Like I pointed out before other countries are going nuclear in
a big way and they aren't going broke doing it either.




Renewkables were
pinning their hopes on Yucca, but the future of that is in grave doubt
due to Congressional unwillingness to fund it, and the court's
unwillingness to override scientific standards. Not to mention the 55%
chance that it'll be history come November. :-)

Well as long as we continue to burn coal we dump tons of radioactive crud
into our air and have to deal with the tons of the radioactive material left
in the slag heaps. There is also murcury and lots of other nasties dumped
from the coal plants stacks that will continue until they are replaced.
That problem is real and the polution is killing and injuring thousands each
year. The longer we delay the worse of a problem it will be.

You also must have been not paying too much attention to the facts already
presented, the Yucca Facility has been bought and paid for already. All
thats left is the NIMBY's.





Fear was the tool that the
anti nuclear power lobby used to slow the progress of nuclear power, and
a
rational discussion of the facts will be the tool that brings it back.

What you mean by "rational discussion" is something more like
"willingness to accept increased risk". Ain't going to happen in our
lifetime. But just for fun, let's say that science, government,
investors and the public all had a change of heart. Let's allow ten
years for that, and another ten for permitting and construction.
You're still looking at two decades before the first new plant. A
*lot* of wind power could go up in the meantime, which is why everyone
should be pushing for it. Unfortunately most renewkables see wind and
solar as nails in nuke's coffin, so they actively argue against all
renewables every chance they get.


Solar or wind are not the end of nuclear power. They are just technology
that has a hard time competing.

By rational discussion I mean one that the participants are willing to weigh
the different points of view and let the strongest arguments prevail over
the weaker ones.

--

Roger Shoaf

About the time I had mastered getting the toothpaste back in the tube, then
they come up with this striped stuff.

(ERich10983) wrote in message ...
Didn't Seinfeld do a bit about birds flying into mirrored windows?

"You'd at least think the bird would swerve to avoid hitting the other
bird!!"

My theory is that when the bird flies into a window, what it is seeing is a
reflection of the sky or distance woods.



I think they sometimes see their reflection and try to chase it away;
many birds are territorial around their nesting sites. For two summers
in a row, there was a small bird that kept smashing into our
living-room window over and over again for hours when light conditions
were such that it could clearly see its reflection. Eventually the
window got plastered with little feathers and blood, but the stupid
little bird kept attacking its reflection every time it woke up from
the last attempt. I'm not sure if it finally died of natural causes or
from the repeated concussions, but one day we noticed that the window
was no longer going "boink" all the time.

BTW, power lines kill so many birds that foxes have pretty much
stopped hunting for food around here. They simply patrol along the
power lines, and eat what they find. What I think happens is that the
birds' eyesight is focused so far away when flying in open terrain
that nearby powerlines become a misty blur. At least, I can't think of
any other explanation for why sharp-sighted eagles and hawks manage to
hit such obvious obstacles; a sea eagle can spot a dead fish from
miles away, but I've found dead eagles beneath power lines.

--
Aamund Breivik

On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 12:59:26 -0700, "Roger Shoaf"
wrote:

"wmbjk" wrote in message
.. .

Your cite was an opinion piece, well worth what we paid for it.

This sounds like the source of a well informed opinion.

Dr. Howard C. Hayden
Emeritus Professor of Physics
University of Connecticut
(32 years at UConn)

Well heck, 32 years of academia, case closed. :-)

So do you have a meter on this system or are you just estimating how much
you generate?

We have three meters, two of which read in Ahrs (or kWhrs). But both
of those are primarily designed to indicate the storage battery's
state of charge. So my estimates of consumption (and production) are
just that - estimates. More important to us is what we can do with the
energy - how many hours a day we run the AC, how many loads of dishes
or clothes per week, etc.

Seems to me that your 1,300 watt wind turbines would only produce power when
the wind is blowing at a pretty good clip.

Output begins at about 10 mph. Serious power at about 20. Serious
energy with long hours of low wind, or fewer hours of heavy wind.

Are you in an area that the wind
blows hard and steady?

Sometimes it blows 24-7, other times it's calm for days in a row. As I
said, we get about a quarter of our total production from wind.

As to your solar system, if that produces 2,000 watts of power how is that
attained? When I was looking into this it seemed to produce peak power only
for several hours on a sunny day as the angle of the sun had something to do
with it. Also even if you are getting 2,000 watts of power you get that as
a DC voltage that then has to be rectified to AC and regulated to line
voltage. To do this it also costs yopu some of the energy you captured.
What does this net to you?

2000 Watts is the nameplate rating. Losses vary depending on many
things, including whether the energy makes a trip through the
batteries. Call the total about 15 kWhrs per day net.

At Professor Haden's website he says the following:

North Carolina State University gives an estimate of the day-by-day power
outut from a 50 Watt Panel in Raleigh N.C. The panel faces south and is
tipped at 35º from the horizontal.

That's one of the problems with academia.... some of those guys don't
get out much. Our arrays are on automatic trackers, making for more
charging hours, maximum output, and less stress on the batteries.
Since the professor neglected to mention trackers, you might seek a
more complete source of information.....

Go Solar! Yeah!

Exactly!

=============== end quote========================

So if all factors were the same between NCSU and you, your 2,000 watt solar
system would net you 9960 watts per day in July and 268 watts per day in
December.

I hope the professor wasn't the one who started you on that "watts per
day" stuff. Here's something for you to ponder... the idle energy use
of our satellite receiver, radio telephone, cordless phones, microwave
ovens, a seemingly couple dozen wall warts etc., is several times the
professor's December production figure. The fridge alone uses 1200
"watts per day" for crying out loud. ;-)

Seems to me that you dropped $30k to make some very expensive electricity.

The electricity *is* very expensive if you measure it only by dollars
per kWhr. But if you look at the big picture - the lower cost of
off-grid land, decreased taxes, no utility bills, no power poles,
etc., the result is that we were able to sell our grid connected
place, use some of the money to build a better home (including the
power system), and retire on the difference.

Clean, it produces no emissions like hydrocarbons do.

Cheap, fuel costs are low, and even when you factor in capitol investment
and labor to run the place for 50 years and decommission it it still makes
economic sense.

Abundent, uranium is so common we could generate power for thousands of
years without any trouble.

This is the second time today I've been reminded of how easy things
are on Usenet. Amazing.

Nucular plants are being built, just not in this country.

Can you run extension cords to the Chinese nukes? If not, they're
irrelevant.

Coolling water?
2/3 of the earth is covered with water.

Yet another problem solved on Usenet.

You also must have been not paying too much attention to the facts already
presented, the Yucca Facility has been bought and paid for already. All
thats left is the NIMBY's.

sigh Money collected so far for Yucca has already been spent.
Congress doesn't seem willing to come up with fresh cash. Besides, the
cost is already estimated at nearly $60B, a number which will surely
grow if the project continues. The money collected from ratepayers
would never have come close to that amount, even if it hadn't been
spent.

Solar or wind are not the end of nuclear power. They are just technology
that has a hard time competing.

Whatever the problems with solar and wind, you can have those sources
today, on grid or off. In contrast, new nukes are something people
just talk and dream about. Much like weight loss pills and time
travel.

By rational discussion I mean one that the participants are willing to weigh
the different points of view and let the strongest arguments prevail over
the weaker ones.

Argue whatever you like, but even if there were a million people
singing nuke praises on Usenet, you still aren't going to see any new
ones here for at least twenty years, and perhaps never.

Wayne

On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 13:31:44 GMT, wmbjk
wrote:

On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 12:59:26 -0700, "Roger Shoaf"
wrote:

"wmbjk" wrote in message
. ..

Your cite was an opinion piece, well worth what we paid for it.

This sounds like the source of a well informed opinion.

Dr. Howard C. Hayden
Emeritus Professor of Physics
University of Connecticut
(32 years at UConn)

Well heck, 32 years of academia, case closed. :-)

Giv'em hell.

I come back here and hear this static .
Yeah, he kinda missed the tracking idea.

Just for fun I should get a cheap wind indicator and put it on my 60'
tower while I'm not using it. I've always liked the wind stuff , but
lost on what you could do with the load during 75 mph wind storms.
At least it would stop the people dropping by to see if I want to sell
it cause it doesn't have an antenna .