"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...

Do you need something precise, with documentation, etc.? If so, there are
lots of studies, using different methods of measurement. Search on "wind
power embedded energy," wind power embodied energy," or "wind power life
cycle analysis."

I just need to get a rough idea if windmills are net energy plus and what
the span is.


I did this a few years ago. At that time photovoltaic was showing a
worst-case payback of around 24 years, while wind power showed a payback
in
6 months or even less.

Just grabbing one from a Google search, without checking it for accuracy,
here's something that shows how it's calculated and some specific numbers.
There are better studies that you can find, I'm su

www.rogerhelmer.com/sustainability.pdf

I googled a bit and didn't find something better yet. That one gave me a
good enough idea
of inputs and how long to recover them.

Near the end where they break down financial payback was an added plus,
saved me another
question. However, my googling shows estimated life of about 20 years
for these
machines. About the time the project recovers the expendature it needs
major renovation.

Of course getting longer life than estimates could happen and the designs
are going to
improve over time as a body of experience is collected.

At least now I have something in my head to detect if someone is trying to
run some bs on
me.


While googling I ran into this chart:
https://eed.llnl.gov/flow/images/LLN...y_Chart300.jpg showing energy
inputs and where
they go. Notice how much waste is in electrical distribution.

Yeah, it sounds like distribution is the problem that's holding up a lot of
possibilities. Somebody has to solve that (not to make big improvements in
efficiency, necessarily, but just to make it possible to transmit power over
long distances in the US -- politics and regulation are big impediments) or
wind and large-scale solar are going nowhere. Not that I ever expect them to
be a dominant source of power, but they could be significant.


https://eed.llnl.gov/flow/ The section of the site were this came from
looks like it has
some interesting reading material.

I notice that there assumptions for next few decades have coal as an
energy source. I
guess they didn't get the memo.

Wes

I'm looking forward to seeing if my prediction made 20 years ago comes to
pass. I predicted then that more nuclear fission was inevitable, that it
would eventually dominate our electricity generation, with wind and/or solar
being mostly of local application in a few areas. My heart sunk when Three
Mile Island put the final nail in fission's coffin for at least a
generation. I hope I live long enough to see something happen.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
My heart sunk when Three
Mile Island put the final nail in fission's coffin for at least a
generation. I hope I live long enough to see something happen.


There's some new designs proposed and actually being built, that are
failsafe in that the safety mechanism is built in and relies on the law
of physics, not human judgment to control a runaway. Hardly an
exhaustive search, but this was the first Google hit I looked at:
http://www.me.utexas.edu/~ans/info/reactor4.htm

One of the more interesting facts in the site above is that coal fired
plants routinely release more radioactive particles than any nuclear
facility.
I think when things get tight enough, attitudes are going to change.
I too hope to live long enough to see safe nuclear power live up to it's
promise.


Jon

"Jon Anderson" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
My heart sunk when Three Mile Island put the final nail in fission's
coffin for at least a generation. I hope I live long enough to see
something happen.


There's some new designs proposed and actually being built, that are
failsafe in that the safety mechanism is built in and relies on the law of
physics, not human judgment to control a runaway. Hardly an exhaustive
search, but this was the first Google hit I looked at:
http://www.me.utexas.edu/~ans/info/reactor4.htm

Yeah, but note that the article is 18 years old. A few things have happened
since. The French apparently are using a breeder technology now that
produces a non-weaponable reprocessed product, rather than plutonium. And my
very limited understanding is that the action now is in designing a
universal, modular power plant. It will be much easier to control, build,
train for, etc. And the red-tape approval stage should be slashed to a
fraction of its present, miserable state.

All in all, it sounds to me like we're ready for it. What we need is a whole
new national attitude.

One of the more interesting facts in the site above is that coal fired
plants routinely release more radioactive particles than any nuclear
facility.
I think when things get tight enough, attitudes are going to change.

I hope so, and I hope it doesn't require a depression or political coercion
from some tin-pot dictatorship to accomplish it.

I too hope to live long enough to see safe nuclear power live up to it's
promise.

Well, have a drink for me if you make it and I don't. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
Yeah, but note that the article is 18 years old. A few things have happened
since.
I was lazy and only cited the first relevant article I came across. I've
read several articles in recent years on newer
reactor designs. TMI was just a glorified and scaled up version of the
first reactor. In typical human fashion,
since the concept worked, nobody invested a whole lot of time and money
trying to come up with something better.

All in all, it sounds to me like we're ready for it. What we need is a whole
new national attitude.

When electricity bills start climbing like gas did (and will again),
maybe some lights will come on.
Well, have a drink for me if you make it and I don't. d8-)
I surely will! But I hope you make it.

Jon

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 22:35:19 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Yeah, but note that the article is 18 years old. A few things have happened
since. The French apparently are using a breeder technology now that
produces a non-weaponable reprocessed product, rather than plutonium. And my
very limited understanding is that the action now is in designing a
universal, modular power plant. It will be much easier to control, build,
train for, etc. And the red-tape approval stage should be slashed to a
fraction of its present, miserable state.

All in all, it sounds to me like we're ready for it. What we need is a whole
new national attitude.
=============
Unfortunately, as long as we have the mindset where the cheapest
bidder gets the contracts and the lowest cost operator runs the
reactors we will have problems.

An analog is airline safety. An airline can be safe or they can
be cheap but not both.

Because of the cheap-cheap-cheap mindset, practices such as
rotating and 12 hour shifts are common that guarantee operator
sleep deprivation, fatigue and inattention. FWIW -- this also
statistically reduces the operators lifespan by several years [c.
5-20%], even if no radiation is involved.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3463801
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/224105.pdf
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/224105.pdf
http://www.ttuhsc.edu/amarillo/som/e...resenation.ppt
http://www.ttuhsc.edu/amarillo/som/e...Guide_2006.doc


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Jon Anderson" wrote in message
...

Ed Huntress wrote:

My heart sunk when Three Mile Island put the final nail in fission's
coffin for at least a generation. I hope I live long enough to see
something happen.



There's some new designs proposed and actually being built, that are
failsafe in that the safety mechanism is built in and relies on the law of
physics, not human judgment to control a runaway. Hardly an exhaustive
search, but this was the first Google hit I looked at:
http://www.me.utexas.edu/~ans/info/reactor4.htm


Yeah, but note that the article is 18 years old. A few things have happened
since. The French apparently are using a breeder technology now that
produces a non-weaponable reprocessed product, rather than plutonium. And my
very limited understanding is that the action now is in designing a
universal, modular power plant. It will be much easier to control, build,
train for, etc. And the red-tape approval stage should be slashed to a
fraction of its present, miserable state.

All in all, it sounds to me like we're ready for it. What we need is a whole
new national attitude.


One of the more interesting facts in the site above is that coal fired
plants routinely release more radioactive particles than any nuclear
facility.
I think when things get tight enough, attitudes are going to change.


I hope so, and I hope it doesn't require a depression or political coercion
from some tin-pot dictatorship to accomplish it.


I too hope to live long enough to see safe nuclear power live up to it's
promise.


Well, have a drink for me if you make it and I don't. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress



The Salem Nuke is one of the best run plants in the country. Several
other companies have tried to take it over but so far PPL has held on.

As far as getting rid of nuclear waste, France has come to terms with
it. In the US they worry too much about what will happen in the far
future and don't address the present problem of not enough reliable and
inexpensive energy under domestic control, not relying on foreign oil.

Since there is no more gold in FT Knox put all the waste there.

John

"Ed Huntress" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...


While googling I ran into this chart:
https://eed.llnl.gov/flow/images/LLN...y_Chart300.jpg showing energy
inputs and where
they go. Notice how much waste is in electrical distribution.

Yeah, it sounds like distribution is the problem that's holding up a lot of
possibilities. Somebody has to solve that (not to make big improvements in
efficiency, necessarily, but just to make it possible to transmit power over
long distances in the US -- politics and regulation are big impediments) or
wind and large-scale solar are going nowhere. Not that I ever expect them to
be a dominant source of power, but they could be significant.

Yes, you got it. Distribution has a lot of waste and a lot of the wind potential is not
where the loads are. At least wind farms are not a total waste of time and money.

Here is a picture of the grid:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Un...sPowerGrid.jpg

There isn't much capacity where the wind is currently if you look at the above and then
the you provided earlier.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.r...nds/fig13.html






https://eed.llnl.gov/flow/ The section of the site were this came from
looks like it has
some interesting reading material.

I notice that there assumptions for next few decades have coal as an
energy source. I
guess they didn't get the memo.

Wes

I'm looking forward to seeing if my prediction made 20 years ago comes to
pass. I predicted then that more nuclear fission was inevitable, that it
would eventually dominate our electricity generation, with wind and/or solar
being mostly of local application in a few areas. My heart sunk when Three
Mile Island put the final nail in fission's coffin for at least a
generation. I hope I live long enough to see something happen.

TMI and that damn movie did a huge amount of damage. Chernobyl, a reactor that would
never be built in the US or any western country did a fine job of shoving the corpse back
into the coffin when some of the hysteria wore off.

I believe in nuclear generation, we have learned so much now that current technology so
much safer than what was at TMI. I've said before and I'll say it again, give me decent
rates and you can put it next door.

You can put a nuclear plant near where the loads are. Likely easier than moving loads to
where the wind is.

Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...


While googling I ran into this chart:
https://eed.llnl.gov/flow/images/LLN...y_Chart300.jpg showing energy
inputs and where
they go. Notice how much waste is in electrical distribution.

Yeah, it sounds like distribution is the problem that's holding up a lot
of
possibilities. Somebody has to solve that (not to make big improvements in
efficiency, necessarily, but just to make it possible to transmit power
over
long distances in the US -- politics and regulation are big impediments)
or
wind and large-scale solar are going nowhere. Not that I ever expect them
to
be a dominant source of power, but they could be significant.

Yes, you got it. Distribution has a lot of waste and a lot of the wind
potential is not
where the loads are. At least wind farms are not a total waste of time
and money.

Here is a picture of the grid:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Un...sPowerGrid.jpg

There isn't much capacity where the wind is currently if you look at the
above and then
the you provided earlier.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.r...nds/fig13.html

It looks like the patient is suffering from a degenerative circulatory
disease.



https://eed.llnl.gov/flow/ The section of the site were this came from
looks like it has
some interesting reading material.

I notice that there assumptions for next few decades have coal as an
energy source. I
guess they didn't get the memo.

Wes

I'm looking forward to seeing if my prediction made 20 years ago comes to
pass. I predicted then that more nuclear fission was inevitable, that it
would eventually dominate our electricity generation, with wind and/or
solar
being mostly of local application in a few areas. My heart sunk when Three
Mile Island put the final nail in fission's coffin for at least a
generation. I hope I live long enough to see something happen.

TMI and that damn movie did a huge amount of damage. Chernobyl, a reactor
that would
never be built in the US or any western country did a fine job of shoving
the corpse back
into the coffin when some of the hysteria wore off.

Yes, but there's another side to the story. A nuclear expert says the movie
may have contributed to making nuclear power safer. Unless I'm mistaken,
Larry currently is reading a book written by this guy:

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.co...-a-guest-post/


I believe in nuclear generation, we have learned so much now that current
technology so
much safer than what was at TMI. I've said before and I'll say it again,
give me decent
rates and you can put it next door.

You can put a nuclear plant near where the loads are. Likely easier than
moving loads to
where the wind is.

Wes

Yup. I see no way around a vast increase in our use of nuclear power, at
least within 30 years or so.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 23:23:30 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...


While googling I ran into this chart:
https://eed.llnl.gov/flow/images/LLN...y_Chart300.jpg showing energy
inputs and where
they go. Notice how much waste is in electrical distribution.

Yeah, it sounds like distribution is the problem that's holding up a lot
of
possibilities. Somebody has to solve that (not to make big improvements in
efficiency, necessarily, but just to make it possible to transmit power
over
long distances in the US -- politics and regulation are big impediments)
or
wind and large-scale solar are going nowhere. Not that I ever expect them
to
be a dominant source of power, but they could be significant.

Yes, you got it. Distribution has a lot of waste and a lot of the wind
potential is not
where the loads are. At least wind farms are not a total waste of time
and money.

Here is a picture of the grid:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Un...sPowerGrid.jpg

There isn't much capacity where the wind is currently if you look at the
above and then
the you provided earlier.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.r...nds/fig13.html

It looks like the patient is suffering from a degenerative circulatory
disease.

Heh heh heh. Say, look at the South. Isn't there some way we could
design an energy source which utilizes stiflingly hot, muggy weather
to produce electricity, for use down there?


https://eed.llnl.gov/flow/ The section of the site were this came from
looks like it has
some interesting reading material.

I notice that there assumptions for next few decades have coal as an
energy source. I
guess they didn't get the memo.

Wes

I'm looking forward to seeing if my prediction made 20 years ago comes to
pass. I predicted then that more nuclear fission was inevitable, that it
would eventually dominate our electricity generation, with wind and/or
solar
being mostly of local application in a few areas. My heart sunk when Three
Mile Island put the final nail in fission's coffin for at least a
generation. I hope I live long enough to see something happen.

TMI and that damn movie did a huge amount of damage. Chernobyl, a reactor
that would
never be built in the US or any western country did a fine job of shoving
the corpse back
into the coffin when some of the hysteria wore off.

Verily.


Yes, but there's another side to the story. A nuclear expert says the movie
may have contributed to making nuclear power safer. Unless I'm mistaken,
Larry currently is reading a book written by this guy:

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.co...-a-guest-post/

Yes, and the book they mention is the one I'm reading. It'll be a good
reference book and I'm sure I'll reread it many times in order to suck
all the marrow out.


I believe in nuclear generation, we have learned so much now that current
technology so
much safer than what was at TMI. I've said before and I'll say it again,
give me decent
rates and you can put it next door.

You can put a nuclear plant near where the loads are. Likely easier than
moving loads to
where the wind is.

Wes, I just read the chapter on wind and it doesn't look good. Grid
operators HATE wind power because it's not a source of steady power.
In Denmark, the world leader in windmill usage, one fifth of the
annual power is developed by windmills, but power usage is only 4%.
They have to export the rest to other countries. Wind is more steady
at night and the need is low. Other operators have found that they
have to limit the mix of windpower to 20% or they can't balance the
grid.

Right now, gov't tax breaks are making the use of wind power sweet so
people like Boone Pickins can offer his investors a 25% return on
their investments, straight out of the federal tax credits. Also from
Tucker's book:

"A study of a wind farm proposed for Blairsburg, Iowa by Warren
Buffet's MidAmerican Energy found that, with all the federal and state
subsidkes, the $323 million project could breakeven after only six
years without even producing a kilowatt of electricity."

Tucker sees wind as a backup power source which needs a backup itself,
since wind isn't steady. I wouldn't go investing money in wind
technology.


Yup. I see no way around a vast increase in our use of nuclear power, at
least within 30 years or so.

Nor do I, and that's good. I just hope the greenies jump ship far
enough to embrace it and phase out that nastyass coal stuff. Talk
about a lose/lose relationship...

Speaking of coal, did anyone else know that over 60% of coal burning
facilities are still not using sulfur scrubbers due to grandfathering
clauses in the 1970 Clean Air Act? And those which do are putting out
vast amounts of coal sludge, tarry calcium goo. I didn't read about
this spill in my paper. Did any of you?
http://www.env-econ.net/2009/01/vide...dge-spill.html
This is called coal sludge but all I see is ash, which is bad enough.
The sludge is a form of gypsum which can't be used in construction.

Check out this leading sentence on their "learn about nuclear plants"
page (boo!) but then look at the next to last paragraph, where the NRC
says that 34 new nuke plants will have apps in by 2010! That's good
news. (Caution: this is a heavily biased, alarmist site)
http://www.cleanenergy.org/index.php...3&Item id=296

--
Even with the best of maps and instruments,
we can never fully chart our journeys.
-- Gail Pool

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 23:23:30 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...


While googling I ran into this chart:
https://eed.llnl.gov/flow/images/LLN...y_Chart300.jpg showing
energy
inputs and where
they go. Notice how much waste is in electrical distribution.

Yeah, it sounds like distribution is the problem that's holding up a lot
of
possibilities. Somebody has to solve that (not to make big improvements
in
efficiency, necessarily, but just to make it possible to transmit power
over
long distances in the US -- politics and regulation are big impediments)
or
wind and large-scale solar are going nowhere. Not that I ever expect
them
to
be a dominant source of power, but they could be significant.

Yes, you got it. Distribution has a lot of waste and a lot of the wind
potential is not
where the loads are. At least wind farms are not a total waste of time
and money.

Here is a picture of the grid:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Un...sPowerGrid.jpg

There isn't much capacity where the wind is currently if you look at the
above and then
the you provided earlier.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.r...nds/fig13.html

It looks like the patient is suffering from a degenerative circulatory
disease.

Heh heh heh. Say, look at the South. Isn't there some way we could
design an energy source which utilizes stiflingly hot, muggy weather
to produce electricity, for use down there?

Pipe it up here. We could use some of it just as it is.



https://eed.llnl.gov/flow/ The section of the site were this came
from
looks like it has
some interesting reading material.

I notice that there assumptions for next few decades have coal as an
energy source. I
guess they didn't get the memo.

Wes

I'm looking forward to seeing if my prediction made 20 years ago comes
to
pass. I predicted then that more nuclear fission was inevitable, that it
would eventually dominate our electricity generation, with wind and/or
solar
being mostly of local application in a few areas. My heart sunk when
Three
Mile Island put the final nail in fission's coffin for at least a
generation. I hope I live long enough to see something happen.

TMI and that damn movie did a huge amount of damage. Chernobyl, a
reactor
that would
never be built in the US or any western country did a fine job of
shoving
the corpse back
into the coffin when some of the hysteria wore off.

Verily.


Yes, but there's another side to the story. A nuclear expert says the
movie
may have contributed to making nuclear power safer. Unless I'm mistaken,
Larry currently is reading a book written by this guy:

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.co...-a-guest-post/

Yes, and the book they mention is the one I'm reading. It'll be a good
reference book and I'm sure I'll reread it many times in order to suck
all the marrow out.


I believe in nuclear generation, we have learned so much now that
current
technology so
much safer than what was at TMI. I've said before and I'll say it
again,
give me decent
rates and you can put it next door.

You can put a nuclear plant near where the loads are. Likely easier
than
moving loads to
where the wind is.

Wes, I just read the chapter on wind and it doesn't look good. Grid
operators HATE wind power because it's not a source of steady power.
In Denmark, the world leader in windmill usage, one fifth of the
annual power is developed by windmills, but power usage is only 4%.
They have to export the rest to other countries. Wind is more steady
at night and the need is low. Other operators have found that they
have to limit the mix of windpower to 20% or they can't balance the
grid.

Yeah, 20% seems to be the target number. However, a long-distance
distribution network helps by distributing the source geographically. It's
difficult to predict how such a network would behave.


Right now, gov't tax breaks are making the use of wind power sweet so
people like Boone Pickins can offer his investors a 25% return on
their investments, straight out of the federal tax credits. Also from
Tucker's book:

"A study of a wind farm proposed for Blairsburg, Iowa by Warren
Buffet's MidAmerican Energy found that, with all the federal and state
subsidkes, the $323 million project could breakeven after only six
years without even producing a kilowatt of electricity."

Tucker sees wind as a backup power source which needs a backup itself,
since wind isn't steady. I wouldn't go investing money in wind
technology.


Yup. I see no way around a vast increase in our use of nuclear power, at
least within 30 years or so.

Nor do I, and that's good. I just hope the greenies jump ship far
enough to embrace it and phase out that nastyass coal stuff. Talk
about a lose/lose relationship...

Speaking of coal, did anyone else know that over 60% of coal burning
facilities are still not using sulfur scrubbers due to grandfathering
clauses in the 1970 Clean Air Act?

Yes. They're still getting acid rain in the Adirondacks -- and I still
haven't gone back there to fish, as a consequence.

And those which do are putting out
vast amounts of coal sludge, tarry calcium goo. I didn't read about
this spill in my paper. Did any of you?
http://www.env-econ.net/2009/01/vide...dge-spill.html

Heck, yes. It was all over the front pages here. And it was on TV -- which
is why you missed it. d8-)

This is called coal sludge but all I see is ash, which is bad enough.
The sludge is a form of gypsum which can't be used in construction.

Check out this leading sentence on their "learn about nuclear plants"
page (boo!) but then look at the next to last paragraph, where the NRC
says that 34 new nuke plants will have apps in by 2010! That's good
news. (Caution: this is a heavily biased, alarmist site)
http://www.cleanenergy.org/index.php...3&Item id=296

--
Even with the best of maps and instruments,
we can never fully chart our journeys.
-- Gail Pool

On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 05:24:18 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

Check out this leading sentence on their "learn about nuclear plants"
page (boo!) but then look at the next to last paragraph, where the NRC
says that 34 new nuke plants will have apps in by 2010! That's good
news. (Caution: this is a heavily biased, alarmist site)
http://www.cleanenergy.org/index.php...3&Item id=296

They have not announced what they propose to replace coal & nuclear
energy, so how can they be credible ?. Maybe if all the nuts do not
use any electricity or coal/oil derived products, then they could be
believed as being sincere. Even then, they still have not announced
any practical power replacement method.

We also have the idiots here in Oz, nuclear power is outlawed by the
Federal Govt. and all the nuts are whinging about pollution from coal
fired power plants and they also have no practical solution to the
problem.

Oz is the driest continent, yet millions of cubic metres of water
are going to waste in the north but a pipeline has been rejected and a
desalination plant built, using heaps of coal & gas fired energy to
produce water, with a second plant proposed.
Western Oz is so flat that a pipeline from the Ord river or similar
would be downhill just about all the way to Perth.

Alan

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 22:36:36 +0900, the infamous
scrawled the following:

On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 05:24:18 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

Check out this leading sentence on their "learn about nuclear plants"
page (boo!) but then look at the next to last paragraph, where the NRC
says that 34 new nuke plants will have apps in by 2010! That's good
news. (Caution: this is a heavily biased, alarmist site)
http://www.cleanenergy.org/index.php...3&Item id=296

They have not announced what they propose to replace coal & nuclear
energy, so how can they be credible ?. Maybe if all the nuts do not
use any electricity or coal/oil derived products, then they could be
believed as being sincere. Even then, they still have not announced
any practical power replacement method.

Unfortunately, these idiots don't have to be credible to abuse our
system.


We also have the idiots here in Oz, nuclear power is outlawed by the
Federal Govt. and all the nuts are whinging about pollution from coal
fired power plants and they also have no practical solution to the
problem.

Ah, your system, too? Condolences.


Oz is the driest continent, yet millions of cubic metres of water
are going to waste in the north but a pipeline has been rejected and a
desalination plant built, using heaps of coal & gas fired energy to
produce water, with a second plant proposed.

It's amazing how stupid civilizations can be, isn't it? sigh


Western Oz is so flat that a pipeline from the Ord river or similar
would be downhill just about all the way to Perth.

There are limits as to how much water you can safely suck out of the
rivers, but that discussion is for someone who knows WTF they're
talking about. I've merely heard of some bad news on the Colorado.

--
Even with the best of maps and instruments,
we can never fully chart our journeys.
-- Gail Pool

wrote:

On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 05:24:18 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

Check out this leading sentence on their "learn about nuclear plants"
page (boo!) but then look at the next to last paragraph, where the NRC
says that 34 new nuke plants will have apps in by 2010! That's good
news. (Caution: this is a heavily biased, alarmist site)
http://www.cleanenergy.org/index.php...3&Item id=296


They have not announced what they propose to replace coal & nuclear
energy, so how can they be credible ?. Maybe if all the nuts do not
use any electricity or coal/oil derived products, then they could be
believed as being sincere. Even then, they still have not announced
any practical power replacement method.

We also have the idiots here in Oz, nuclear power is outlawed by the
Federal Govt. and all the nuts are whinging about pollution from coal
fired power plants and they also have no practical solution to the
problem.

Oz is the driest continent, yet millions of cubic metres of water
are going to waste in the north but a pipeline has been rejected and a
desalination plant built, using heaps of coal & gas fired energy to
produce water, with a second plant proposed.
Western Oz is so flat that a pipeline from the Ord river or similar
would be downhill just about all the way to Perth.

Alan


Thats what you get for hanging upside down on the bottom of the earth.

John

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 14:16:40 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:

I'm looking forward to seeing if my prediction made 20 years ago comes to
pass. I predicted then that more nuclear fission was inevitable, that it
would eventually dominate our electricity generation, with wind and/or solar
being mostly of local application in a few areas. My heart sunk when Three
Mile Island put the final nail in fission's coffin for at least a
generation. I hope I live long enough to see something happen.

TMI was the next to last nail. Chernobyl was the last.

Of the 4,000 children who developed thyroid cancer in the USSR after
Chernobyl, only 10 died, and they died only because Russian medical
people weren't prepared for it. Adding the soldiers and firefighters
who went into the known extremely radioactive areas to put out fires,
the total number of dead is still benign compared to the global
reaction to the accident: generational paranoia. But both of these
proved that the China Syndrome could never happen. The meltdowns were
self-limiting.

--
Even with the best of maps and instruments,
we can never fully chart our journeys.
-- Gail Pool

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 14:16:40 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:

I'm looking forward to seeing if my prediction made 20 years ago comes to
pass. I predicted then that more nuclear fission was inevitable, that it
would eventually dominate our electricity generation, with wind and/or
solar
being mostly of local application in a few areas. My heart sunk when Three
Mile Island put the final nail in fission's coffin for at least a
generation. I hope I live long enough to see something happen.

TMI was the next to last nail. Chernobyl was the last.

Of the 4,000 children who developed thyroid cancer in the USSR after
Chernobyl, only 10 died, and they died only because Russian medical
people weren't prepared for it. Adding the soldiers and firefighters
who went into the known extremely radioactive areas to put out fires,
the total number of dead is still benign compared to the global
reaction to the accident: generational paranoia. But both of these
proved that the China Syndrome could never happen. The meltdowns were
self-limiting.

Well, there are several arguments implicit in that paragraph, and they
aren't necessarily compatible.

They boil down to this: You know as well as anyone that there are bad ways
to die, and there are scary ways to die. Dying because you hit a garbage
truck in your car is a bad way to die. Dying because of something you can't
see, that you know is penetrating your body and that you can't escape it,
that you don't know IF or WHEN it's penetrating your body, and whether it's
triggering a cancer or just passing through on its way to the center of the
Earth, is a scary way to die. Rather, I should say it's a scary way to
*think* about dying.

It's something like the gun-control argument. You aren't going to settle
that argument by means of rational statistics. You're dealing with a scary,
mysterious and evil thing that comes right out of a horror movie -- while
you're celebrating Christmas dinner with your family.

I don't know what it will take to change attitudes. Dismissive arguments,
though, aren't it.

--
Ed Huntress

"We should have a recession. People who spend their lives pounding nails in
Nevada need something else to do." John Cochrane, Univ. of Chicago professor
of economics, Nov. 2008

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 23:39:24 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 14:16:40 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:

I'm looking forward to seeing if my prediction made 20 years ago comes to
pass. I predicted then that more nuclear fission was inevitable, that it
would eventually dominate our electricity generation, with wind and/or
solar
being mostly of local application in a few areas. My heart sunk when Three
Mile Island put the final nail in fission's coffin for at least a
generation. I hope I live long enough to see something happen.

TMI was the next to last nail. Chernobyl was the last.

Of the 4,000 children who developed thyroid cancer in the USSR after
Chernobyl, only 10 died, and they died only because Russian medical
people weren't prepared for it. Adding the soldiers and firefighters
who went into the known extremely radioactive areas to put out fires,
the total number of dead is still benign compared to the global
reaction to the accident: generational paranoia. But both of these
proved that the China Syndrome could never happen. The meltdowns were
self-limiting.

Well, there are several arguments implicit in that paragraph, and they
aren't necessarily compatible.

They boil down to this: You know as well as anyone that there are bad ways
to die, and there are scary ways to die. Dying because you hit a garbage
truck in your car is a bad way to die. Dying because of something you can't
see, that you know is penetrating your body and that you can't escape it,
that you don't know IF or WHEN it's penetrating your body, and whether it's
triggering a cancer or just passing through on its way to the center of the
Earth, is a scary way to die. Rather, I should say it's a scary way to
*think* about dying.

Like that cosmic radiation which only gets flight attendants?

Oh, I'm sure that nobody -downwind- in the Ukraine was happy for years
afterwards, even if they weren't evacuated. That's a bad way to live,
whether you die or not. _But_, the -very- vast majority didn't even
get sick, let alone die.

But you're right. There are some folks over here who retain their
aluminum or tinfoil beanies, just in case. Some folks just gotta worry
or they aren't "complete." That's _their_ problem, right?


It's something like the gun-control argument. You aren't going to settle
that argument by means of rational statistics. You're dealing with a scary,
mysterious and evil thing that comes right out of a horror movie -- while
you're celebrating Christmas dinner with your family.

Right. Why spoil a good argument by injecting facts into it? g
Then again, some folks still aren't worried about their homes:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...412954,00.html


I don't know what it will take to change attitudes. Dismissive arguments,
though, aren't it.

Who's trying to change attitudes? I was having a happy rant. shrug


--
Even with the best of maps and instruments,
we can never fully chart our journeys.
-- Gail Pool

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 23:39:24 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 14:16:40 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:

I'm looking forward to seeing if my prediction made 20 years ago comes
to
pass. I predicted then that more nuclear fission was inevitable, that it
would eventually dominate our electricity generation, with wind and/or
solar
being mostly of local application in a few areas. My heart sunk when
Three
Mile Island put the final nail in fission's coffin for at least a
generation. I hope I live long enough to see something happen.

TMI was the next to last nail. Chernobyl was the last.

Of the 4,000 children who developed thyroid cancer in the USSR after
Chernobyl, only 10 died, and they died only because Russian medical
people weren't prepared for it. Adding the soldiers and firefighters
who went into the known extremely radioactive areas to put out fires,
the total number of dead is still benign compared to the global
reaction to the accident: generational paranoia. But both of these
proved that the China Syndrome could never happen. The meltdowns were
self-limiting.

Well, there are several arguments implicit in that paragraph, and they
aren't necessarily compatible.

They boil down to this: You know as well as anyone that there are bad ways
to die, and there are scary ways to die. Dying because you hit a garbage
truck in your car is a bad way to die. Dying because of something you
can't
see, that you know is penetrating your body and that you can't escape it,
that you don't know IF or WHEN it's penetrating your body, and whether
it's
triggering a cancer or just passing through on its way to the center of
the
Earth, is a scary way to die. Rather, I should say it's a scary way to
*think* about dying.

Like that cosmic radiation which only gets flight attendants?

Oh, I'm sure that nobody -downwind- in the Ukraine was happy for years
afterwards, even if they weren't evacuated. That's a bad way to live,
whether you die or not. _But_, the -very- vast majority didn't even
get sick, let alone die.

But you're right. There are some folks over here who retain their
aluminum or tinfoil beanies, just in case. Some folks just gotta worry
or they aren't "complete." That's _their_ problem, right?

It's their problem until they vote. Then it's our problem. And that's the
big problem.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 13:09:33 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


But you're right. There are some folks over here who retain their
aluminum or tinfoil beanies, just in case. Some folks just gotta worry
or they aren't "complete." That's _their_ problem, right?

It's their problem until they vote. Then it's our problem. And that's the
big problem.

Hopefully, most of the beanie wearers don't vote. I mean, they'd have
to go out into the unprotected bombardment zone to do so. But, yeah,
that could be a problem.

--
Even with the best of maps and instruments,
we can never fully chart our journeys.
-- Gail Pool