On Tuesday, March 29, 2011 10:41:54 PM UTC-7, Lew Hodgett wrote:
"dpb" wrote:

Look at the poor *******s who have the fly ash pits in their back
yards in TN and OK for starters.

It is simply indicative of the total arrogance of the utility
industry.
....
IMHO, based on 50+ years of on and off dealings with the utility
industry, their approach seems to be the bottom line at any price.

Well, yes, that is a natural consequence of electric utilities operating
as regulated monopolies; they are required by law not to spend
any 'extra' money and call it expenses, because their prices are
set as cost-plus-a-few-percent.

In many areas, fly ash isn't 'dumped', but becomes a component
of cement mix (where it doesn't hurt the final product, and
is a benefit to the cement plant because they don't have to
pay to get this part of their raw material shipped in).
Cinderblock used to be a way to recycle clinker from ironworks...

Looks like Germany is taking the lead.

http://tinyurl.com/3pcx2jh


Lew

In article om,
Lew Hodgett wrote:
Looks like Germany is taking the lead.

http://tinyurl.com/3pcx2jh


Lew



Yes, the lead in hysterical over-reaction. Well, sooner or later someone
had to surpass California in that respect.



--
There is always an easy solution to every human problem -- neat,
plausible, and wrong." (H L Mencken)

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

Larry W wrote:
In article om,
Lew Hodgett wrote:
Looks like Germany is taking the lead.

http://tinyurl.com/3pcx2jh


Lew



Yes, the lead in hysterical over-reaction. Well, sooner or later
someone had to surpass California in that respect.

So, what is Germany to use to power electrical generation plants?

I know! Oil and natural gas!

There goes the demand curve - and the price.

On May 31, 8:53*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Larry W wrote:
In article om,
Lew Hodgett wrote:
Looks like Germany is taking the lead.

http://tinyurl.com/3pcx2jh

Lew

Yes, the lead in hysterical over-reaction. Well, sooner or later
someone had to surpass California in that respect.

So, what is Germany to use to power electrical generation plants?

I know! Oil and natural gas!

There goes the demand curve - and the price.

And the Russkies operating many of the natural gas spigots.
..
..
..
....or COAL! (The ads say it is nice and clean.)

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Larry W wrote:
In article om,
Lew Hodgett wrote:
Looks like Germany is taking the lead.

http://tinyurl.com/3pcx2jh


Lew



Yes, the lead in hysterical over-reaction. Well, sooner or later
someone had to surpass California in that respect.

So, what is Germany to use to power electrical generation plants?

I know! Oil and natural gas!

There goes the demand curve - and the price.

Germany is actually pretty big on renewables. Often wind. It was stated
that the "emergency" shutdown of some 7 big nuclear plants hadn't caused
any problems with electricity supply, so they thought they could handle the
mothballing of the remaining plants fairly easily.

Of course the customer will pay for any costs ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 5/31/2011 5:52 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
....

As far as Germany being able to produce renewable energy at a
competitive price, they already do it.

A) yes, B) not so much...it's pretty heavily subsidized.

Much of it using equipment built by an in-house outfit by the name of
Siemens.

They (Siemens) also have a facility in KS building for the US market
(also quite heavily subsidized).

Problem still is that wind doesn't blow 100% of time either here or in
Germany. Baseload is still an issue.

--

dpb wrote in :

Problem still is that wind doesn't blow 100% of time either here or in
Germany. Baseload is still an issue.

Probably less of a problem in Germany than hereabouts.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 5/31/2011 6:13 PM, Han wrote:
wrote in :

Problem still is that wind doesn't blow 100% of time either here or in
Germany. Baseload is still an issue.

Probably less of a problem in Germany than hereabouts.

There's got to be _something_ generating baseload...as much as the wind
blows here in SW KS, the capacity factor of wind here is only about 40%
of installed capacity. Take that baseload away from the nukes where's
in coming from?

For the nearest of the large wind farms there's 80% correlation of
local wind speed to output over the 7 years' of operational data so far
so the limitation is real, not a decision to not operate.

--

On May 31, 7:27*pm, dpb wrote:
On 5/31/2011 6:13 PM, Han wrote:

*wrote :

Problem still is that wind doesn't blow 100% of time either here or in
Germany. *Baseload is still an issue.

Probably less of a problem in Germany than hereabouts.

There's got to be _something_ generating baseload...as much as the wind
blows here in SW KS, the capacity factor of wind here is only about 40%
of installed capacity. *Take that baseload away from the nukes where's
in coming from?

For the nearest of the large wind farms there's 80% correlation of
local wind speed to output over the 7 years' of operational data so far
so the limitation is real, not a decision to not operate.

I spent some time talking with the operators of the Annapolis Royal
Tidal Power station.
Their studies run into the same cyclical issues as does wind, with the
odd exception that they can count on the moon coming around. Really
interesting design.

In article , says...

On 5/31/2011 6:13 PM, Han wrote:
wrote in :

Problem still is that wind doesn't blow 100% of time either here or in
Germany. Baseload is still an issue.

Probably less of a problem in Germany than hereabouts.

There's got to be _something_ generating baseload...as much as the wind
blows here in SW KS, the capacity factor of wind here is only about 40%
of installed capacity. Take that baseload away from the nukes where's
in coming from?

Looks like the Germans are going back to coal. No doubt they'll come up
with some overengineerd baroque monstrosity intended to be "clean".

For the nearest of the large wind farms there's 80% correlation of
local wind speed to output over the 7 years' of operational data so far
so the limitation is real, not a decision to not operate.

On 5/31/2011 6:53 PM, Robatoy wrote:
....

I spent some time talking with the operators of the Annapolis Royal
Tidal Power station.
Their studies run into the same cyclical issues as does wind, with the
odd exception that they can count on the moon coming around. Really
interesting design.

Indeed, altho it's much more predictable/repeatable than wind. I'd
think the random component from storms, etc., would be a very small
fraction for them. OTOH, the averages are fairly consistent over the
long term w/ wind, but the short term random variations are quite large.
Like last couple of days--we had 18 hours of 30+ mph sustained wind w/
50-60 mph gusts until roughly 8 PM last night. Within an hour sustained
winds dropped to under 10 and stayed there until just within the last
hour or so today they've come back up to near 20 after being 15 or under
the last 24. Of course, of the previous 12 hours prior to the time that
they exceed 30 mph at roughly 1 PM, roughly 9 hrs were under 10 mph
while the minimum generation level is 9 mph. That's hardly a consistent
fuel source even if it is cheap.

Yet this area has one of the highest annual average wind speeds in an
accessible location that makes building large scale wind farms as
economical as they're going to get from the physical side (unlike places
like, say, Mt Washington, etc., that have incredible winds but are a)
very isolated areas and b) highly impractical to get the power from even
if had the turbine.

Do you have any links that might have convenient data to look at for the
tidal generation output? I know where US EIA data links are; not sure
what there is up north.

--

On May 31, 8:57*pm, dpb wrote:
On 5/31/2011 6:53 PM, Robatoy wrote:
...

I spent some time talking with the operators of the Annapolis Royal
Tidal Power station.
Their studies run into the same cyclical issues as does wind, with the
odd exception that they can count on the moon coming around. Really
interesting design.

Indeed, altho it's much more predictable/repeatable than wind. *I'd
think the random component from storms, etc., would be a very small
fraction for them. *OTOH, the averages are fairly consistent over the
long term w/ wind, but the short term random variations are quite large.
* Like last couple of days--we had 18 hours of 30+ mph sustained wind w/
50-60 mph gusts until roughly 8 PM last night. *Within an hour sustained
winds dropped to under 10 and stayed there until just within the last
hour or so today they've come back up to near 20 after being 15 or under
the last 24. *Of course, of the previous 12 hours prior to the time that
they exceed 30 mph at roughly 1 PM, roughly 9 hrs were under 10 mph
while the minimum generation level is 9 mph. *That's hardly a consistent
fuel source even if it is cheap. *

Yet this area has one of the highest annual average wind speeds in an
accessible location that makes building large scale wind farms as
economical as they're going to get from the physical side (unlike places
like, say, Mt Washington, etc., that have incredible winds but are a)
very isolated areas and b) highly impractical to get the power from even
if had the turbine.

Do you have any links that might have convenient data to look at for the
tidal generation output? *I know where US EIA data links are; not sure
what there is up north.


A cursory look and I found this for you:
http://tinyurl.com/3rtyqqu

Hard data is out there somewhere.

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in news:4de59143$0$1711
:

The Germans seem to addressed the base load issue.

"The plan calls for more investment in natural gas plants as a backup
to prevent blackouts, the chancellor said."


When Holland runs out, the Germans are going to be totally dependent on
Russian gas. Doesn't sound really smart, but they'll know better ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 5/31/2011 9:00 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
....

Same principle applies to windmills.

Design for 100% output from 10MPH-20MPH wind velocities.

From 20MPH and up, start feathering the blades.

Good grief, it's not the end of the world.

It is very old technology.
....

That would, indeed, be very old technology and would reduce the 40%
installed annual average capacity factor to something under 20% just
raising the cost/MWe _another_ factor of 2X (which is already 2X that of
conventional generation for us and 3X that of our nuclear)

--

On Tue, 31 May 2011 18:32:34 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:

On May 31, 8:57Â*pm, dpb wrote:
On 5/31/2011 6:53 PM, Robatoy wrote:
...

I spent some time talking with the operators of the Annapolis Royal
Tidal Power station.
Their studies run into the same cyclical issues as does wind, with the
odd exception that they can count on the moon coming around. Really
interesting design.

Indeed, altho it's much more predictable/repeatable than wind. Â*I'd
think the random component from storms, etc., would be a very small
fraction for them. Â*OTOH, the averages are fairly consistent over the
long term w/ wind, but the short term random variations are quite large.
Â* Like last couple of days--we had 18 hours of 30+ mph sustained wind w/
50-60 mph gusts until roughly 8 PM last night. Â*Within an hour sustained
winds dropped to under 10 and stayed there until just within the last
hour or so today they've come back up to near 20 after being 15 or under
the last 24. Â*Of course, of the previous 12 hours prior to the time that
they exceed 30 mph at roughly 1 PM, roughly 9 hrs were under 10 mph
while the minimum generation level is 9 mph. Â*That's hardly a consistent
fuel source even if it is cheap. Â*

Yet this area has one of the highest annual average wind speeds in an
accessible location that makes building large scale wind farms as
economical as they're going to get from the physical side (unlike places
like, say, Mt Washington, etc., that have incredible winds but are a)
very isolated areas and b) highly impractical to get the power from even
if had the turbine.

Do you have any links that might have convenient data to look at for the
tidal generation output? Â*I know where US EIA data links are; not sure
what there is up north.


A cursory look and I found this for you:
http://tinyurl.com/3rtyqqu

Hard data is out there somewhere.

Truth!

--
Education is when you read the fine print.
Experience is what you get if you don't.
-- Pete Seeger

On May 31, 10:08*pm, dpb wrote:

That is the stupidest use of natural gas that one can possibly make of
it...

And, they're trading near zero emissions and no C emissions for another
increase in fossil. *What happened to reducing C footprint????

All in all, I think they're making a kneejerk reaction in the totally
wrong direction for the wrong reasons.



I agree 100%

On 5/31/2011 10:49 PM, Robatoy wrote:
On May 31, 10:08 pm, wrote:

That is the stupidest use of natural gas that one can possibly make of
it...
....


I agree 100%

I guess I have to allow as there is at least one possibly worse use of
n-gas--one could flare it

--

In article om,
Lew Hodgett wrote:



The industry has had almost 50 years to reliably solve it's safety
issues and has failed miserably.

It's time to move on.

Lew



The oil industry has had 100 years and actually has failed miserably. Coal
has had at least 200 and as for safety, really needs no comment. Nuclear
power has had an extremely safe history, relative to fossil fuel, with
far fewer deaths, illness, and environmental impact. Think of all the
people who would be healthier or alive today, and the land and
enviromment that would not have been ruined for future generations, if
the USA produced electricity from nuclear power in the same proportion
that, say, France does.


--
There are no stupid questions, but there are lots of stupid answers.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

On 5/31/2011 9:13 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
....

GE had the smarts to walk away in the early 1970's.

That's news to them and Hitachi, I'm sure...

Westinghouse stayed in the nuclear business for a while.

Indeed they did...

Where are they today?

Same place they've always been, Westinghouse Energy Center, Monroeville,
PA (amongst a zillion other facilities worldwide)

....

It's time to move on.
....

And we are.

At present there are 20 applications for 24 units submitted and docketed
for licensing before the US NRC.

Of these 6 are GE/Hitachi ABWR or ESBWR, 12 are W AP1000 and the
remaining 6 are Areva EPR designs.

B&W has just recently formed a new NPGD headquartered in Charlotte, NC

--

Han wrote:
dpb wrote in :

Problem still is that wind doesn't blow 100% of time either here or
in Germany. Baseload is still an issue.

Probably less of a problem in Germany than hereabouts.

but it's much windier elsewhere in europe than germany. without a
european-wide energy producer, they're going to have to buy power from
elsewhere. that elsewhere is going to have to use nuclear, so they're just
exporting their problem to another country.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/schum.../german-energy

On 6/1/2011 1:02 PM, chaniarts wrote:
....

but it's much windier elsewhere in europe than germany. without a
european-wide energy producer, they're going to have to buy power from
elsewhere. that elsewhere is going to have to use nuclear, so they're just
exporting their problem to another country.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/schum.../german-energy
....

Hmmm....where have I heard that model before? Oh, California and
Colorado come to mind.

--

On 6/1/2011 1:02 PM, chaniarts wrote:
Han wrote:
wrote in :

Problem still is that wind doesn't blow 100% of time either here or
in Germany. Baseload is still an issue.

Probably less of a problem in Germany than hereabouts.

but it's much windier elsewhere in europe than germany. without a
european-wide energy producer, they're going to have to buy power from
elsewhere. that elsewhere is going to have to use nuclear, so they're just
exporting their problem to another country.

This whole is issue is purely political and based on neither science,
nor 40 years of statistical evidence with regard to the risk versus
reward of nuclear electrical generation.

I listen to "Democracy Now" on the local Pacific radio daily, simply as
a constant reminder as to just how much these people who produce it hate
the thought of a sucessful democracy ... it is exactly the same mindset
with regard to nuclear energy.

The absolutely stupidity exhibited by at least half of the ****heads
populating this planet is truly amazing ... may they get what they
deserve by dying in the dark.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On 6/1/2011 12:50 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 6/1/2011 1:02 PM, chaniarts wrote:
Han wrote:
wrote in :

Problem still is that wind doesn't blow 100% of time either here or
in Germany. Baseload is still an issue.

Probably less of a problem in Germany than hereabouts.

but it's much windier elsewhere in europe than germany. without a
european-wide energy producer, they're going to have to buy power from
elsewhere. that elsewhere is going to have to use nuclear, so they're
just
exporting their problem to another country.

This whole is issue is purely political and based on neither science,
nor 40 years of statistical evidence with regard to the risk versus
reward of nuclear electrical generation.

I listen to "Democracy Now" on the local Pacific radio daily, simply as
a constant reminder as to just how much these people who produce it hate
the thought of a sucessful democracy ... it is exactly the same mindset
with regard to nuclear energy.

In the entire history of the world, has there ever been a single
instance of a successful democracy?

I'm curious.
In the last 50 years, how much electrical energy has been produced,
worldwide, by plants powered by (a) coal, (b) other fossil fuels, (c)
nuclear energy, and (d) all other energy sources combined?
During the same 50 years, how many people have been killed, and how many
injured, as the result of the use of (a) coal, (b) other fossil fuels,
(c) nuclear energy, and (d) all other energy sources combined?
The mortality/injury rates should include the processes of extracting
the energy source and transporting it to point-of-use.
I don't know, but I rather suspect that the death/injury rate per
megawatt for nuclear power is lower than the other categories.

On 5/31/11 10:13 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
GE had the smarts to walk away in the early 1970's.

Not quite. Alive and well here in Wilmington, NC. Half my neighbors work
there, and I have done some work in their fuel rod production as well.

On 6/1/2011 4:17 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 6/1/2011 12:50 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 6/1/2011 1:02 PM, chaniarts wrote:
Han wrote:
wrote in :

Problem still is that wind doesn't blow 100% of time either here or
in Germany. Baseload is still an issue.

Probably less of a problem in Germany than hereabouts.

but it's much windier elsewhere in europe than germany. without a
european-wide energy producer, they're going to have to buy power from
elsewhere. that elsewhere is going to have to use nuclear, so they're
just
exporting their problem to another country.

This whole is issue is purely political and based on neither science,
nor 40 years of statistical evidence with regard to the risk versus
reward of nuclear electrical generation.

I listen to "Democracy Now" on the local Pacific radio daily, simply as
a constant reminder as to just how much these people who produce it hate
the thought of a sucessful democracy ... it is exactly the same mindset
with regard to nuclear energy.

In the entire history of the world, has there ever been a single
instance of a successful democracy?

If you equate success with longevity, the jury is still out. (and this
one won't last much longer at the current rate)

I'm curious.
In the last 50 years, how much electrical energy has been produced,
worldwide, by plants powered by (a) coal, (b) other fossil fuels, (c)
nuclear energy, and (d) all other energy sources combined?
During the same 50 years, how many people have been killed, and how many
injured, as the result of the use of (a) coal, (b) other fossil fuels,
(c) nuclear energy, and (d) all other energy sources combined?
The mortality/injury rates should include the processes of extracting
the energy source and transporting it to point-of-use.
I don't know, but I rather suspect that the death/injury rate per
megawatt for nuclear power is lower than the other categories.

That is exactly my point, and just a much longer winded way of saying
the same thing. For those who prefer wordy illumination:

Reward versus risk is a tradeoff in all basic human endeabors from
hunter gathering to fishing for dinner, and nuclear energy is provably,
and statistically, far less riskier than your choice of geographic
location, from Joplin MO to Japan.

Nuclear energy may not be the winner in the long run, some new
technology will eventually come along, but currently it is far and above
the best possible "risk versus reward" choice, except to the fuzzy
thinking bunch.

But you have to consider that most of the anti-nuclear bunch are of the
EXACT same political mindset as those who want to outlaw male
circumcision in San Francisco, a special breed of progressive dickheads
who would apparently benefit greatly from the act themselves ...


www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 17:46:15 -0500, Swingman wrote:

On 6/1/2011 4:17 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 6/1/2011 12:50 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 6/1/2011 1:02 PM, chaniarts wrote:
Han wrote:
wrote in :

Problem still is that wind doesn't blow 100% of time either here or
in Germany. Baseload is still an issue.

Probably less of a problem in Germany than hereabouts.

but it's much windier elsewhere in europe than germany. without a
european-wide energy producer, they're going to have to buy power from
elsewhere. that elsewhere is going to have to use nuclear, so they're
just
exporting their problem to another country.

This whole is issue is purely political and based on neither science,
nor 40 years of statistical evidence with regard to the risk versus
reward of nuclear electrical generation.

I listen to "Democracy Now" on the local Pacific radio daily, simply as
a constant reminder as to just how much these people who produce it hate
the thought of a sucessful democracy ... it is exactly the same mindset
with regard to nuclear energy.

In the entire history of the world, has there ever been a single
instance of a successful democracy?

If you equate success with longevity, the jury is still out. (and this
one won't last much longer at the current rate)

I'm curious.
In the last 50 years, how much electrical energy has been produced,
worldwide, by plants powered by (a) coal, (b) other fossil fuels, (c)
nuclear energy, and (d) all other energy sources combined?
During the same 50 years, how many people have been killed, and how many
injured, as the result of the use of (a) coal, (b) other fossil fuels,
(c) nuclear energy, and (d) all other energy sources combined?
The mortality/injury rates should include the processes of extracting
the energy source and transporting it to point-of-use.
I don't know, but I rather suspect that the death/injury rate per
megawatt for nuclear power is lower than the other categories.

That is exactly my point, and just a much longer winded way of saying
the same thing. For those who prefer wordy illumination:

Reward versus risk is a tradeoff in all basic human endeabors from
hunter gathering to fishing for dinner, and nuclear energy is provably,
and statistically, far less riskier than your choice of geographic
location, from Joplin MO to Japan.

Tell 'em "Get with it, folks. LIFE is a risk."


Nuclear energy may not be the winner in the long run, some new
technology will eventually come along, but currently it is far and above
the best possible "risk versus reward" choice, except to the fuzzy
thinking bunch.

I'd prefer safe fusion to safe fission, but it's not here yet.
Soon, though.


But you have to consider that most of the anti-nuclear bunch are of the
EXACT same political mindset as those who want to outlaw male
circumcision in San Francisco, a special breed of progressive dickheads
who would apparently benefit greatly from the act themselves ...

No, the world would benefit greatly from their complete testicular
excision, not just a bit of skin. They'd be even more eunuch after
that, huh? Oops, I meant "unique".



--
Education is when you read the fine print.
Experience is what you get if you don't.
-- Pete Seeger

On 6/1/2011 4:46 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 6/1/2011 4:17 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 6/1/2011 12:50 PM, Swingman wrote:

I listen to "Democracy Now" on the local Pacific radio daily, simply as
a constant reminder as to just how much these people who produce it hate
the thought of a sucessful democracy ... it is exactly the same mindset
with regard to nuclear energy.

In the entire history of the world, has there ever been a single
instance of a successful democracy?

If you equate success with longevity, the jury is still out. (and this
one won't last much longer at the current rate)

I think you miss my point. To the best of my knowledge the last
democracy was in ancient Athens, and lasted only a relatively short
time. Although people in the USA sometimes say we live in a democracy,
that is not true and has never been true. I'm not aware of a single
modern nation whose government is a democracy. Can you point to any
presently existing democracy? Is there one? If so, where?

On 6/1/2011 11:43 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

If you look at the cost of ownership equation, wind power has a very
high front end cost, but after that operating costs drops drastically.


There aren't enough locations with reliable wind sources to make wind
power a viable option for ore than a small fraction of existing energy
needs.

As every sailor knows, the wind is free, but putting it to use gets
expensive.

Wind power is actually solar power, one or two steps removed. If money
isn't a major consideration, solar heat is more viable. The sun shines
everywhere. Build a massive solar heat powered steam turbine generator.
Give it enough excess capacity to convert water to hydrogen during the
day. Store the hydrogen and burn it when the sun isn't shining. Repeat
as needed.

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

But what are the consequences of interrupting surface wind flow? Will
it affect the weather? Crop pollination? A dog's sense of direction?

I'd guess that is minimal. Possibly the biggest drawback is hitting and
killing flying creatures.

It's said that in some parts of Texas, one can't have more than one
windmill per acre or all the wind will get used up!

Given the size of the propeller, I would suggest the same, if indeed an
acre is ~208 feet squared. Since the biggest rotors have a diameter of 400
feet, more than 4 acres seems better
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQxp6QTjgJg

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 6/2/2011 2:30 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 6/1/2011 4:46 PM, Swingman wrote:


I listen to "Democracy Now" on the local Pacific radio daily, simply as
a constant reminder as to just how much these people who produce it
hate
the thought of a successful democracy ... it is exactly the same mindset
with regard to nuclear energy.

In the entire history of the world, has there ever been a single
instance of a successful democracy?

If you equate success with longevity, the jury is still out. (and this
one won't last much longer at the current rate)

I think you miss my point.

Nope, you missed mine and took off down a rabbit trail ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Jun 2, 9:05*am, dpb wrote:


There is still gas but it is far more valuable in the long run for
chemical feedstock and other uses instead of wasting it for central
station generation while have other fuels far more suited for the
purpose that aren't so much suited for the other.

That's a mouthful. Like that christmas story about the girl who lights
matches to keep warm as opposed to her selling them to buy coal?

The more I read, search and talk to my small circle of friends at OPG
(Ontario Power Generation) the more pro nuclear I get. My two oldest
daughters and their husbands all work in either Pickering or
Darlington nuclear power stations. One of them works in the legal
department and pushes 'safety papers'. Another is so green in life-
style, he ****es me off. But all are educated and informed. No knee-
jerk responses from any of them. Japan was a combination of flukes
that all added up to an accident of major proportions.
In no way did that incident reflect on the concept and sense of
nuclear power. That particular event should be no more than a lesson
to be more careful where we build those units.

The oil, gas and coal industries all have their agendas and it will be
a cold day in hell if any of them ever become proponents of a solution
that takes money out of their pockets.
Who makes money off the windmill business? The sales people?...
because that's about it. Here in Ontario the Windpower barely makes up
for line-losses and that is one helluva expensive way to make up for
those.

On 6/2/2011 5:59 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 6/2/2011 2:30 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 6/1/2011 4:46 PM, Swingman wrote:


I listen to "Democracy Now" on the local Pacific radio daily,
simply as
a constant reminder as to just how much these people who produce it
hate
the thought of a successful democracy ... it is exactly the same
mindset
with regard to nuclear energy.

In the entire history of the world, has there ever been a single
instance of a successful democracy?

If you equate success with longevity, the jury is still out. (and this
one won't last much longer at the current rate)

I think you miss my point.

Nope, you missed mine and took off down a rabbit trail ...


Then let's go back to your original point. You referred to people who
"hate the thought of a successful democracy." A true democracy (as
distinguished from a representative government" is a government where
the people rule directly by majority vote. There is no form of
government that has more potential for tyrannical rule over a minority
population. Count me in as one who hates such a prospect. Fortunately,
there is no true democracy in existence today. I much prefer the form
of representative republican government established by the U.S.
Constitution. I'll take that over democracy any day.

Your original point then compared people who hate the thought of
democracy to those who hate the thought of nuclear energy. I disagree.
Those who hate the thought of nuclear energy are frightened by
something they don't understand. Those who hate the thought of a true
democracy are frightened by something they understand perfectly well.
The two groups do not have the same mindset at all.

On 6/2/2011 12:54 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
....

Yep, renewable energy gets the job done, IF we develop it.

Nope. It can help in niche markets and supplement but it's always going
to be expensive compared to alternatives for baseload generation at
least for the foreseeable future. When and if there's a quantum leap in
storage technology at reasonable cost, _then_ you can begin to think in
new paradigms. Until then, not so much....

BTW, natural gas doesn't get the job done, but it can serve as an
intermediate fuel to transition away from fossil based fuels.

Such shortsighted thinking is absolutely asinine -- and you're the one
trying to pretend you're looking ahead.

Think Pickens calls it a "Bridge".

Pickens really calls it his "cash cow" and gives a rat's patootie about
anything else other than short term profit (after all, he's only a
limited portion of his allotted seven-score left to go; what's he care?).

--

On 6/2/2011 7:10 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
....

BTW, other than power, what else did your $750K buy or better yet the
$3M your REC group kicked in?.

????

That was our expense for the power we distributed for 2010; nothing
else. We're distribution, not generation; that's the bill to the
generation bunch.

--

On 6/2/2011 10:54 AM, Just Wondering wrote:


Then let's go back to your original point.

You won't get the point until you broaden your scope ... listen to the
program, then look up the concept of "progressivm".


You referred to people who
"hate the thought of a successful democracy." A true democracy (as
distinguished from a representative government" is a government where
the people rule directly by majority vote.

Rabbit trail ... watch the droppings.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On 6/2/2011 7:10 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
....

$750K is a sixeable nut where ever you are but it still pales when
compared to the oil industry subsidy that is North of $24 BILLION with
a "B".

OK, so first you compare the full nationwide petroleumto a single,
relatively small group of rural electric co-ops on a one-to-one basis of
absolute dollars...

The $24 Billion subsidy is one of the primary reasons for a renewable
energy subsidy you want to keep bringing to the table.

Then, you claim that the oil depletion allowance (the bulk of the
"subsidy" folks are ranting about these days) somehow has something
central to do w/ central station coal and nuclear generation rates.(1)

Lastly, the subsidies for green energy have virtually nothing to do w/
the comparative balance between oil and gas but almost everything to do
w/ a mostly political agenda couched in "save the planet" terms.


What does the average retail customer pay for power ($/KWH) on an
annual basis including the 25% increase?
I see rates that vary from $0.10/KWH to as much as $0.17/KWH ...

Despite the combined efforts of the cooperating co-ops that form the
pool of which we are one of 29 local RECs to acquire cost-effective
generation our retail rates are still towards the upper end of the range
you have outlined above. This is primarily owing to the fact we are
very rural and therefore the transmission costs are quite high owing to
the large number of miles of line we have installed and maintain.
Rather than an urban utility of many loads(meters)/mile, we measure in
miles/meter.

This is yet another example of the hidden tax of the cost of rural
services that is generally unrecognized by the folks who eat the food
and wear the fiber and other products we produce for them.

(1) As a sidebar on depletion credit...

Depletion, like depreciation, allows for the recovery of
capital investment over time. Percentage depletion is used
for most mineral resources including oil and natural gas. It
is a tax deduction calculated by applying the allowable
percentage to the gross income from a property. For oil
and natural gas the allowable percentage is 15 percent.

A part of the tax code since 1926, percentage depletion has
changed over time. Current tax law limits the use of percentage
depletion of oil and gas in several ways.

First, the percentage depletion allowance may only be taken by
independent producers and royalty owners and not by integrated oil
companies.

Second, depletion may only be claimed up to specific daily American
production levels of 1,000 barrels of oil or 6,000 mcf of natural
gas.

Third, the deduction is limited to 65% of net taxable income.

Fourth, the net income limitation requires percentage depletion to be
calculated on a property-by-property basis.

Over 85 percent of America’s oil wells are marginal wells –
producing less than 15 barrels per day. About 75 percent of American
natural gas wells are marginal wells.

Marginal wells are unique to the United States; other countries shut
down these small operations. Once shut down, they will never be
opened again – it is too costly. Even keeping them operating is
expensive – they must be periodically reworked, their produced water
(around 9 of every 10 barrels produced) must be disposed properly,
the electricity costs to run their pumps must be paid. The depletion
credit is instrumental in providing sufficient ROI to continue to
produce from these wells and for continued exploration and wildcatting.

Even at current high prices during the period between the previous peak
and the recent resurgence it was very apparent in how much local "oil
patch" activity followed those swings. It didn't take long for the
rework rigs to get parked again when prices went back to the $80 range.
The folks in DC (and to a lesser extent even in Topeka) simply don't
seem to follow that significant economic activity occurs only when there
is a better return in any given area than there would be by doing
something different.

--

On 6/2/2011 12:43 AM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
....

If you look at the cost of ownership equation, wind power has a very
high front end cost, but after that operating costs drops drastically.

As every sailor knows, the wind is free, but putting it to use gets
expensive.
....

Again, if it weren't for the alternative sources req'd to be around
because it isn't reliable, that would be basically true.

In reality, it is nuclear that is expensive initial capital cost but for
which fuel costs are near minimal over time--which is what makes our REC
shared ownership of a fraction of Wolf Creek Nuclear by far the cheapest
power we have.

OK, I found the annual meeting minutes program I was looking for--we're
in process of trying to build a new coal-fired plant in W KS for future
demand for us and secondarily as an exporter to CO in return for the
revenue the extra power will bring to the local economies.

In there the current estimated construction costs are--

Coal $2500-$2600 /MWe
Nuke $5000-$5200 /MWe
Wind $2400-$2500 /MWe (including tax credits)

The kicker is that w/ wind we can only expect roughly 40% of that
installed capacity to be available (on annual capacity of 112 MWe
installed observed over nine years of actual production) so the actual
average installed cost is roughly 2.5X the above or $6000 /MWe-ongrid.

So, when one factors that into the overall operating cost of the
facility to satisfy a given load demand, the cost for wind is well above
any of the alternatives and this doesn't account for the capital cost
needed to ensure reliable backup from conventional or imported purchased
from an alternate-source to ensure the necessary reliability.

One has to consider what it actually requires to run a utility grid in
toto and simply the fact that one has X number of installed wind
generators of Y MWe rated capacity really has surprisingly little to do
with the Z number of MWe one can count on putting onto the grid at any
given instant. And, the bottom line is that one has to be able to do
the last 24/7 come wind or no.

--

On 6/3/2011 1:46 PM, dpb wrote:
....

OK, I found the annual meeting minutes program I was looking for--
....
In there the current estimated construction costs are--

Coal $2500-$2600 /MWe
Nuke $5000-$5200 /MWe
Wind $2400-$2500 /MWe (including tax credits)

The kicker is that w/ wind we can only expect roughly 40% of that
installed capacity to be available (on annual capacity of 112 MWe
installed observed over nine years of actual production) so the actual
average installed cost is roughly 2.5X the above or $6000 /MWe-ongrid.
....

BTW, just for comparison--for the time period the overall average
capacity factor for Wolf Creek Nuclear Station was 87.1% w/ a peak
annual capacity of 95.8% in '07; the _lowest_ being 81.5% in '05 owing
to an extra week (roughly) longer outage duration costing roughly 2% on
annual output.

--

On Jun 3, 4:03*pm, dpb wrote:
On 6/3/2011 1:46 PM, dpb wrote:
...

OK, I found the annual meeting minutes program I was looking for--
...
In there the current estimated construction costs are--

Coal $2500-$2600 /MWe
Nuke $5000-$5200 /MWe
Wind $2400-$2500 /MWe (including tax credits)

The kicker is that w/ wind we can only expect roughly 40% of that
installed capacity to be available (on annual capacity of 112 MWe
installed observed over nine years of actual production) so the actual
average installed cost is roughly 2.5X the above or $6000 /MWe-ongrid.

...

BTW, just for comparison--for the time period the overall average
capacity factor for Wolf Creek Nuclear Station was 87.1% w/ a peak
annual capacity of 95.8% in '07; the _lowest_ being 81.5% in '05 owing
to an extra week (roughly) longer outage duration costing roughly 2% on
annual output.

--

Can we zoom back and look at the big picture, rather than get buried
under copious amounts of detail?
When I played waterpolo, varsity level, we had a play called "******'s
Washup". I would make so much froth, that the refs could not see that
I was elbowing some poor opponent in the chops.
In politics it's called obfuscation.
Everybody is so busy looking at some tracks, going: Mmm doesn't look
like bear tracks, mmm doesn't look like moose tracks.... could it be
deer tracks??? then the train hits them.

YES, YES, YES, we KNOW about all the fog, we KNOW about the insane
amounts of details.
WHERE is the solution?
Too many engineers vying for perpetual employment by clouding issues
with bull**** details. I know. I was one.

Instead of pummeling each other with lofty 'educated' crap, why not
stop this bull**** train and look at what makes sense?

Goddammit!!!!!