Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Wasted heat, one of the country's largest potential sources of power, is pouring out of smokestacks every day.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

The Dirty Energy Solution

By Bill McKibben, Orion Magazine. Posted November 27, 2007.


Wasted heat, one of the country's largest potential sources of power, is pouring out of smokestacks every day.
Advertisement

From his desk in an office in Chicago, Jeff Smith has a bird's-eye view of the American landscape. Combing through a huge database of information compiled by the EPA, he can, almost literally, peer down every smokestack in the nation and figure out what's going on inside.

And what he sees is heat. Waste heat -- one of the country's largest potential sources of power, pouring up out of those smokestacks. If it could be recycled into electricity, that heat would generate immense amounts of power without our having to burn any new fossil fuels. By immense, I mean, speaking technically, humongous. Even after he's winnowed the nation's half a million smokestacks down to the most likely customers, that leaves twenty-five thousand stacks. "An astronomical number," Smith says.

His boss at Recycled Energy Development, Sean Casten, leafs through the reams of data Smith has compiled. The biggest sources of waste heat are some gas turbines used to generate power, but there are endless other examples. "Let's look at Florida," he says. "Here's a Maxwell House coffee roaster in Duval County. They're roasting beans, so all that heat has to go somewhere. About twelve megawatts' worth of potential electricity is going up the stack."

Casten could take the equipment he sells, a "waste-heat recovery boiler," and stick it on top of the stack. "Basically, there's a network of tubes with water in them. The heat would hit one side of it, produce steam, and we'd use that to turn a turbine and generate electricity. It's like any other boiler, just without a flame, because the heat is already there."

Reprint Notice:
This article appears in the September/October 2007 issue of Orion magazine, 187 Main Street, Great Barrington, MA 01230, 888/909-6568, ($40/year for 6 issues). Subscriptions are available online: www.orionmagazine.org.

Does that sound suspiciously pie-in-the-sky? Casten can drive a few miles from his Chicago office to an East Chicago plant run by Mittal Steel. A few years ago, a predecessor energy-recycling company installed this kind of equipment on the smokestacks of the plant's coke ovens. In 2004, this single steel plant generated roughly the same amount of clean energy as was produced by all of the grid-connected solar collectors throughout the world.

Casten's company estimates that recycling waste heat from factories alone could produce 14 percent of the electric power the U.S. now uses. If you took much the same approach to electric generating stations you could, says Casten, conceivably produce the same amount of energy we use now with half the fossil fuel.

Let's cut the numbers in half to account for corporate enthusiasm. Hell, let's cut them in half again. You're still talking about one of the most effective ways to cut carbon emissions that we've got, a mature technology ready to go. You're talking about a recycling project infinitely more important than all that paper we've been bundling and glass we've been rinsing for the last two decades.

Why isn't it happening everywhere? The first answer, says Casten, is that very few companies spend much time thinking about their waste heat. "How much time do you think about the useful things you could be doing with your urine?" asks Casten. "The guy at the coffee roaster is spending all day focused on roasting coffee beans so they taste good."

In a perfectly rational market, however, lots of players would see that heat disappearing up the stack, realize they're watching hundred-dollar bills spewing into the atmosphere, and set up businesses like Casten's to try and harvest it. It's not exactly simple -- you need to understand how much heat each plant generates, how it varies day by day, how corrosive the other gases in the stack are, and so forth, but it's no harder than a million other technical feats that a million other companies perform every day. No harder, for instance, than singeing a coffee bean to produce a robust and roasty blend. The obstacle lies in the phrase "perfectly rational market." Electricity is essentially the opposite, a heavily regulated semi-monopoly where many of the laws work to protect the profits of utilities, and where, if you deregulate carelessly, you end up with fiascos like Enron's calculated bludgeoning of California's ratepayers.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: environment, bill mckibben, global warming, climate change, alternative energy

Bill McKibben is the author of 10 books, most recently Deep Economy: The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future. He is a scholar in residence at Middlebury College in Vermont.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Good idea, BUT
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 27, 2007 3:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
See: http://www.marklynas.org/2007/4/23/
six-steps-to-hell-summary-of-six-degrees-
as-published-in-the-guardian

The book: "Six Degrees" by Mark Lynas says that our extinction
event is in ONE century. Of course civilization falls much
sooner. Waste heat recovery, wind power, solar power,
geothermal and hydro are all very good and need to be built, but
they all have the same problem. They can't drive coal fired
power plants out of business by selling electricity cheaper ALL
the time and to all places. There is still only one source of power
that can do that and that is nuclear power. Here are some prices
for 115400 BTU of energy according to the December 2007
issue of Discover magazine:
gasoline liquid $2.86
solar electricity $14.44
wind electricity $1.66
biofuel liquid $2.70
nuclear electricity $3.75
hydro electricity $0.91
geothermal electricity $1.69
natural gas $5.37
coal electricity not given

The price of nuclear could be cut in half if Americans could
understand that nuclear power is far safer than coal. People are
so paranoid of all things nuclear that they would rather go extinct
burning coal than survive using nuclear power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Bad news, AsteroidMiner Posted by: eddie torres
You are wrong about nuclear costs
Posted by: AndyF on Nov 27, 2007 4:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is never mentioned in the calculations you cite is the cost of handling and storing the waste produced by the nuclear plant. As soon as this cost, plus the insurance cost for insuring against nuclear accidents is factored into the cost equation, nuclear is uneconomic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Good point eddie Posted by: KeepsonTickn
» Stupid point, eddie Posted by: jsong123
America will NEVER EVER recover from the SEVERE DAMAGES of Big Oil/Coal/Chemical/Nuclear until
Posted by: maxpayne on Nov 27, 2007 7:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. The Drug War is SHUT DOWN.

2. The push to keep alternative renewables more affordable and rewarding such as solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, hemp and other plant oils which require no petroleum, etc ... are kept in play.

3. America realizes that based on #1 and #2, there is no such thing as free market/trade in America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Great Idea
Posted by: DrSuess on Nov 27, 2007 7:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am currently working on a variation of this- I am setting up a company that installs passive solar collectors. The sun’s heat is out there- but people never even think of using it. America could cut its heating expenses up to 50% in the winter by installing passive solar collectors on the southern side of their houses and businesses. It’s a huge impact- but try and find anyone who is even thinking of it. There are so many ways that America could become energy independent besides burning more coal and oil. I applaud this company for its wonderful efforts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Great Idea Posted by: jverner@earthlink.net
» RE: Great Idea Posted by: Pintado_Petrel
» RE: Another great energy waste Posted by: Edward George
Promising idea needs business foundation
Posted by: jverner@earthlink.net on Nov 27, 2007 7:22 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems to me that if the recycled-heat people could show business that they would save money doing this, then the idea would run wild. Whether we like it or not, good ideas must be delivered in an economic package if they are to have a chance of succeeding. You can change business behavior in one of three ways: (1) show how it makes financial sense (2) government regulation and (3) public opinion. No. 2 is opposed and often defeated by business, and No. 3 almost never happens.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Promising idea needs business foundation Posted by: tim_s_eb@yahoo.com
Wow, I thought i was the only one
Posted by: tim_s_eb@yahoo.com on Nov 27, 2007 7:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would like to congratulate the author/inventor of this very practical approach to global warming. As a home owner/individual I have always wanted to become totally independent of the utility companies and have come up with various schemes on heating one's home while utilizing the heat generator for multiple other purposes, i.e. heating the home and making warm water (actually an ancient idea).

Thank you

Tim

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» No, there are more of us out here. Posted by: Chickensh*tEagle
» Throw in a few non-commercial links Posted by: eddie torres
It's a question of capitalism vs environmentalism,
Posted by: Trazom on Nov 27, 2007 8:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and we all know who always wins out. What we should be doing is addressing the possibly catastrophic environmental impacts of global warming and pollution by instituting energy saving and reclamation/recycling machines and, developing a scientifically efficient model based on that, then forcing the completely disconnected economic model that enslaves us all to work (meaning produce profit) under this very same model. What we are doing instead is the same thing we've been doing since the beginning of the modern age - abandoning any efforts of energy reclamation/recycling if they do not fit within the rigid confines of the current economic model (thereby reducing profit). Thus, this pitting of capitalism vs. environmentalism, with the former being the master and the latter the slave, is what is ultimately responsible for our predicament and eventually our downfall.

I beg to differ that these utilities cannot make much profit on heat reclamation technology, and that it is not in the best interest of the smokestack owner to install such a device. If the aforementioned number of 14 Megawatts for the Maxwell House smokestack is accurate, then this translates to an enormous quantity of energy, and should therefore correlate to a large source of income. If, for example, we assume that the stack produces 14 Megawatt hours continuously (for simplicity sake and ignoring inefficiency of the wast heat recovery boiler), then it would produce 122,640 Megawatts per year. The utility company of course wants to make a profit, so they need to buy it from the owner for pennies on the dollar. If we assume a wholesale rate of 5 cents per KW hour (to be sold later to the customer for 10 cents per KW hour), then the smokestack owner makes $6.1 million over the course of the year. Now, I don't know what the original cost of the waste heat recovery boiler and install was, but I'll bet it isn't quite that high, which means the company starts making pure profit on this in less than 1 year. This is just good business sense to do, plain and simple. So what am I missing?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

one way to circumvent monopolistic energy rules: make hydrogen for fuel cells
Posted by: counterpoint on Nov 27, 2007 9:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
McKibben gives the impression that the regulations hurdles are tough to break at this point. But one way to circumvent it (for large factories, at least) would be to produce hydrogen for use in fuel cells, or to integrate another manufacturing process on the premises that uses the electricity.

The business park idea where several factories are grouped in order to use each other's waste products is tried and tested. There is a fascinating concept behind it: NATURAL CAPITALISM as pushed by Hunter and Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute Rocky Mountain Institute.
Check it out. I'm about to post a video on Youtube of a presentation Hunter Lovins gave recently at the Colorado School of Mines. These are very useful ideas: not to do business as usual but to plan things from the ground up with environmental benefits and profits in mind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nasookin
Posted by: Nasookin on Nov 27, 2007 9:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is much to be done to maximize access and develop environmental friendly sources of energy.

Unfortunately, nuclear power is in the cards whether one likes it or not. Proponents insist they have solved the waste storage problem and safety concerns have been address with improved fail safe technology.

Chernobyl in Ukraine is a nuclear accident that is still happening to the tens of thousands of square miles of territory that was contaminated by radioactive fallout. Not much is said, but those evacuees who have chosen to return to these contaminated areas are paying with poorer health and a higher rate of cancers and birth defects.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Do you understand the word "extinct"?
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 27, 2007 10:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nuclear power is NOT dangerous. Coal is the most dangerous and radioactive.
Nuclear power can save us from extinction. The comparison has to be with
extinction. Do you understand what the word "extinct" means? It means that, if
we keep burning FOSSIL fuels containing CARBON, EVERY PERSON will be
DEAD. THERE WILL BE ZERO SURVIVORS. EXTINCTION means NO
MORE HOMO SAPIENS, EVER. NOT EVEN the worst possible nuclear war,
a "general exchange" between the United States and the old Soviet Union could
achieve the extinction of Homo Sapiens. That would mean exploding 40,000 H
bombs all at once in the old days or maybe only 20,000 H bombs now.

The simultaneous deaths of 6,400,000,000 people would not even be noticeable in
the geologic record. Human population would rebound too fast for the dip to be
noticeable in the rocks. But extinction would clearly be noticed by some future
space alien or future intelligent earth species geologist. He would find no more
humans after the extinction event.

In the second place your paranoid fears of nuclear power are just that, paranoid,
irrational, crazy, the product of mental illness, ignorance and coal industry
propaganda. And yes, I know something about things nuclear. I am a physicist
with experience in the Army's lead lab for nuclear weapons effects. So, do I need
to post 10 more posts to prove it or will you read my posts on past articles before
making a fool of yourself?

Please also read my past posts on the subject of the extinction we are headed for in
something like 200 years if we don't stop burning carbon. And yes, I like wind,
solar, hydro and geothermal energy. Is there a need to repeat once again that they
are inadequate to meet our needs with current technology and current prices?

PS: To be a "fossil" fuel it has to contain fossils if it is a solid. Coal contains
many fossils, mostly of plants. Oil is a liquid, but oil shale should contain fossils.
Uranium is NOT a fossil fuel. There is no guarantee of finding fossils
anywhere near a uranium mine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

FAST reactors have already been invented.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 27, 2007 10:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
See the December 2005 issue of Scientific American.
FAST reactors use nuclear "waste" as fuel.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nuclear "waste" was stolen by Israel
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 27, 2007 10:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We don't recycle nuclear fuel because it is valuable and people steal it. The
place it went that it wasn't supposed to go to is Israel. This happened in a small
town near Pittsburgh, PA circa 1970. A company called Numec was in the
business of reprocessing nuclear fuel. I almost took a job there, designing a
nuclear battery for a heart pacemaker. [A nuclear battery would have the
advantage of lasting many times as long as any other battery, eliminating many
surgeries to replace batteries.] Numec did NOT have a reactor. Numec "lost"
half a ton of enriched uranium. It wound up in Israel. The Israelis have fueled
both their nuclear power plants and their nuclear weapons by stealing nuclear
"waste." It could work for any other country, such as Iran or the United States.
It is only when you don't have access to nuclear "waste" that you have to do the
difficult process of enriching uranium.
Numec is no longer in business. Terrorists can't compete with Mossad and
Israeli dual citizens who are CEOs of companies like Numec. Israeli nuclear
weapons are exact duplicates of American nuclear weapons. All persons who
were "born of Jewish mothers" are citizens of Israel regardless of any other fact.
Since the US can't and shouldn't discriminate, the reprocessing of nuclear fuel in
the US stopped. That was the only politically possible solution at that time,
given that private corporations did the reprocessing. My solution would be to
reprocess the fuel at a Government Owned Government Operated [GOGO]
facility. At a GOGO plant, bureaucracy and the multiplicity of ethnicity and
religion would disable the transportation of uranium to Israel or to any
unauthorized place. Nothing heavier than a secret would get out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Hey man I hear ya, but... Posted by: HistArch
» RE: Hey man I hear ya, but... Posted by: AsteroidMiner
Beck: I have children. How much coal company stock do you own?
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 27, 2007 11:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Coal is almost pure carbon, except for the URANIUM, ARSENIC, LEAD,
MERCURY, Antimony, Cobalt, Nickel, Copper, Selenium, Barium, Fluorine,
Silver, Beryllium, Iron, Sulfur, Boron, Titanium, Cadmium, Magnesium,
Calcium, Manganese, Vanadium, Chlorine, Aluminum, Chromium, Molybdenum
and Zinc that are coal's impurities. Coal smoke and cinders are commercially
viable ORE for the above elements.
Chinese industrial grade coal is sometimes stolen by peasants for cooking. The
result is that the whole family dies of arsenic poisoning because Chinese
industrial grade coal contains large amounts of arsenic. Coal varies a lot.
You have to analyze it not only mine by mine but even lump by lump.
Reference:
OUR NUCLEAR FUTURE:
THE PATH OF SELECTIVE IGNORANCE
by Alex Gabbard
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, TN
Selections from the 19th Annual Conference
SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY
March 14,15,16, 1996
Nashville, Tennessee

Published by the
SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY
1996
Edited by Jack D. Arters, Ed.D.
Conference Director
The truth is, all natural rocks contain most natural elements. Coal is a rock.
The average concentration of uranium in coal is 1 or 2 parts per million. Illinois
coal contains up to 103 parts per million uranium. A 1000 million watt coal
fired power plant burns 4 million tons of coal each year. If you multiply 4
million tons by 1 part per million, you get 4 tons of uranium. Most of that is
U238. About .7% is U235. 4 tons = 8000 pounds. 8000 pounds times .7% =
56 pounds of U235. An average 1000 million watt coal fired power plant puts
out 56 to 112 pounds of U235 every year. There are only 2 places the uranium
can go: Up the stack or into the cinders.
Since a reactor full fuel load is around 11 tons of 2% U235 and 98% U238, and
one load lasts about 10 years, and what one coal fired power plant puts into the
air and cinders fully fuels a nuclear power plant.
Compare 4 Million tons per year with 1.1 tons per year. 1.1 divided by 4 Million
= 2.75 E -7 = .000000275 =.0000275%. Remember that only 2% of that is
U235. The nuclear power plant needs ~44 pounds of U235 per year. The coal
fired power plant burns coal by the trainload. The nuclear power plant consumes
U235 in such small quantities yearly that you could carry that much weight in a
briefcase.
See: http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/coalmain.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is pretty old news.
Posted by: Ignatz deFyre on Nov 27, 2007 11:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://science.jrank.org/pages/1575/
Cogeneration.html

The only reason the technology is not more widely used in North america is because of relatively low alternative energy source costs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

bikesnbach@aol.com
Posted by: bikesnbach on Nov 27, 2007 11:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is incorrect. Cogen projects have been encouraged by regulation for about 20 years. There are
hundreds if not thousands of 1-10 megawatt installations in this country powered by waste combustion gas.
There is certainally room for more installations; I know engineers who do nothing but evaluate energy recovery from waste heat.
There is a practical limit at about 200-250 degrees F
due to water condensation.
Keith Campbell
Denver

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: bikesnbach@aol.com Posted by: JERSEYDAN
You could save even more energy by sealing and insulating buildings
Posted by: NorskyBoy on Nov 27, 2007 4:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Plus, you would increase the comfort and health of those using the buildings. After all, about 40% of our energy goes into buildings (half of it into our homes) and most of that energy is used for heating and cooling. At present, almost all of our buildings and most of our appliances are very, very inefficient. Typically, about 2/3 of the energy for heating and cooling that could be put to good use is wasted because it leaks out of holes, cracks, and poorly insulated buildings and appliances. With a well trained building crew, tight buildings can be constructed or retrofitted such that furnaces and air conditioners can be downsized by 1/2 to 2/3, made to run less frequently and last much longer, and, again, the buildings stay evenly heated or cooled so they are more comfortable and less susceptible to mold as well as pollutant infiltration. This is a much bigger pay off than any smokestack heat recovery program can deliver. However, it has the same problem as what McKibben is promoting: it doesn't make big, sloppy profits for well connected corporations filling up the campaign coffers of elected officials who have been long since bought and paid for. And that is the real source of trouble we are dealing with.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Optimum-Energy Communities
Posted by: EDRO on Nov 27, 2007 6:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is possible to create intelligent, sustainable communities that run on 1/42 (286W instead of our current 12,202W).

In the most likely future scenario, about 20% the world’s cities with populations of more than 2-3 million could become uninhabitable by 2012 (caused by water, food, energy scarcity; civil war; disease pandemics; toxic pollutants; extreme climate events; failing ecosystems...).

Massive waves of human migration from the affected areas would create domino effect that would cause the collapse of the remaining habitable population centers shortly after. But, we have the option to change that scenario!

http://edro.wordpress.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There's waste heat in cars, too – a lot of it.
Posted by: monkeywrench on Nov 27, 2007 9:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Each automobile engine throws away an enormous amount of waste heat compared to the motive power it produces, as well. BMW is developing, for their future vehicles, steam generating systems to recapture some of that exhaust heat to increase engine power and mileage approximately 10%. Why can't these systems, simple steam generators using heat from exhaust pipes to drive auxilliary power units, be developed and retrofitted to existing vehicles? A 10% increase in fuel mileage from even a quarter of the cars in America would equal millions of barrels of oil per year saved – as well as less CO2 emissions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Chernobyl can't happen here
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 27, 2007 9:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
According to my friend from Oak Ridge National Lab: The reactor that had the
accident at Chernobyl was very out-of-date (1st generation) design that has to be
precisely controlled to prevent cooling water from boiling. Water carries away
heat and moderates far better than bubbles, and as bubbles form in water, the
reactor goes increasingly unstable. What caused Chernobyl to blow its top was
residual water in the core suddenly going to high pressure steam and erupting into
a steam explosion. Since the building top was simply resting by its weight on the
walls, not a containment vessel at all, the steam explosion burped the top off its
position allowing outside air in, subsequently igniting a carbon fire." The United
States and other Western countries DO NOT now build and do not now posses or
operate ANY reactors of such primitive design. Nor do we allow containment
buildings to have easily removable tops. Containment buildings in the Western
hemisphere are required to be pressure vessels.
The Chernobyl accident released only 200 tons of radioactive material, as
much as a coal-fired power plant would release in 7 years and 5 months. The
Chernobyl accident had a shorter "stack" than coal-fired power plants. The
radioactive material was released in a short time at ground level. That is why the
Chernobyl accident had impact. Only 52 people died at Chernobyl , mostly fire
fighters, a hazardous job in any case. The Three Mile Island incident did NOT
release a noticeable amount of radiation into its neighborhood, it was just
expensive to clean up the inside of the reactor. Nobody died and nobody was
injured at Three Mile Island.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why a Nuclear Powerplant CAN NOT Explode like a Nuclear Bomb
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 27, 2007 9:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bombs are completely different from reactors. There is nothing similar
about them except that they both need fissile materials. But they need
DIFFERENT fissile materials and they use them very differently.
A nuclear bomb "compresses" pure or nearly pure fissile material into a
small space. There is no other material in the volume containing the nuclear
explosive. The fissile material is either the uranium isotope 235 or plutonium.
If it is uranium, it is at least 90% uranium 235 and 10% or less uranium 238.
There is no isotope separation problem if the fissile material is plutonium. These
fissile materials are metals and very difficult to compress. Because they are
difficult to compress, a high explosive [high speed explosive] is required to
compress them. Pieces of the fissile material have to slam into each other hard
for the nuclear reactions to take place.
A nuclear reactor, such as the ones used for power generation, does not
have any pure fissile material. The fuel may be 2% uranium 235 mixed with
uranium 238. A mixture of 2% uranium 235 mixed with uranium 238 cannot be
made to explode no matter how hard you try. A small amount of plutonium
mixed in with the uranium can not change this. Reactor fuel still cannot be
made to explode like a nuclear bomb no matter how hard you try. There has
never been a nuclear explosion in a reactor and there never will be. [Uranium
and plutonium are flammable, but a fire isn't an explosion.] The fuel is further
diluted by being divided and sealed into many small steel capsules. The fuel is
further diluted by the need for coolant to flow around the capsules and through
the core so that heat can be transported to a place where heat energy can be
converted to electrical energy. A reactor does not contain any high speed [or
any other speed] chemical explosive as a bomb must have. A reactor does not
have any explosive materials at all.
As is obvious from the above descriptions, there is no possible way that a
reactor could ever explode like a nuclear bomb. Reactors and bombs are very
different. Reactors and bombs are really not even related to each other.
Reccomendation: Nuclear power is the safest kind and it just got safer.
Convert all coal-fired power plants to nuclear ASAP. See the December 2005
issue of Scientific American article on a new type of nuclear reactor that
consumes the nuclear "waste" as fuel.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'll say it again: Get it through your thick skulls. Nuclear is NOT Cheap, NOT safe and NOT Clean
Posted by: lrrysgl on Nov 27, 2007 10:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In 1986, the DOE analysed the original construction cost estimates and the actual final costs of 75 nuclear plants with construction starts between 1966 and 1977. The total original cost estimate for those reactors was $45 billion. The actual cost was $145 billion, not including interest for financial charges - a $100 billion cost overrun.

Operating Costs

Reactor operating costs include the fuel, labor and maintenace expenses. They also involve post-construction capital expenditures, major maintenance to keep the plants operating and retrofit additions to correct safety problems.

According to DOE economist James Hewlett, the original theoretical economic justification for nuclear power that low and and predictable operating costs would offset high construction costs. However, Hewlett points out that the theory collapsed under the weight of three decades of empirical evidence. For example, between 1974 and 1993, non-fuel operating costs escalated from an average of $37 million to $126 million per reactor per year.

Decomissioning costs

These numbers keep going up. Utilities must collect enough money during the reactor's operating life to cover the cost of decommissioning. Many utilities, however, are failing to accrue sufficient decommissioning funds. For instance, Portland General Electric accrued only 8 percent of the latest estimate of $488 million for decomissioning its Trojan reactor when it decided to permanently close that plant in 1993. As of December 31, 1989, utilities has collected only 13.8 percent fo the projected decommissioning costs for the nation's nuclear reactors, but the plants had already completed 33.6 percent of their projected 40 year life cycles.

Waste Storage Costs

Approximately $11 billion has been paid into a a fund for reasearching solutions and dealing with waste storage costs. It is anticipated that about $22 billion will be accrued throughout the life of the fund. However, a draft report under review by DOE concludes that the total life cycle cost of commercial waste disposal will be at least $34.6 billion, which leaves a $12.6 billion shortfall.

Impact on Rate Payers

The average cost of nuclear power to ratepaters, including construction, operation, decommissioning and waste disposal is the highest of all of the major types of electricity generation.

According to the DOE's Energy Information Administration (EIA) and the national Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, residential ratepayers of non-nuclear dependent utilities pay an average of 7.25 cents per kWh, while the average cost at nuclear dependent utilities is 9.38 cents. The impact of the 2.13 difference on a ratepayer's monthly electric bill can be startling. Assuming an average household's electric consumption rate of 788 kWh per month (based on assumptions from the EIA), the cost to ratepayers is $57.13 per month for the non-nuclear consumer versus $73.91 per month for the nuclear dependent consumer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'll say it AGAIN: Nuclear Power Is NOT safe and can't be trusted
Posted by: lrrysgl on Nov 27, 2007 10:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are, in fact, accidents of various severity occuring at nuclear power plants on a regular basis. Here are some examples to make the point:

1961 - SL-1, Falls, ID - Partial core-melt
1966 - Fermi Monroe, MI - Partial core-melt
1975 - Browns Ferry - Decatur, Al - Fire/loss of reactor controls
1982 - Ginna, Ontario, N.Y. - Steam Generator rupture
1982 - Salem, Salem, N.J. - Emergency shutdown system failure
1985 - San Onofre, San Clemente, CA - Feedwater system failure.

If the nuclear industry were so safe and they are so confident that nuclear power is safe, then they don't need the Price-Anderson Act which not only caps nuclear industry liability but shoves liability above a certain amount onto the public.

PRICE - ANDERSON AND THE COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY

The insurance industry makes fortunes by "thinking the unthinkable:" calculating a price for betting that catastrophic events will not happen, but just in case providing means for financial recovery. Realizing that the potential risks and damages from a nuclear power accident were beyond the ability of the private insurance industry to cover, Congress in 1957 created the Price-Anderson Act as an amendment to the Atomic Energy Act, to provide liability coverage. Amended several times, most recently in 1988, the statue covers both military contractors and civilian nuclear power and provides the basis for exclusionary clauses in other US property and liability policies, which preclude recovery for damages from nuclear releases, accidents, and nuclear war.

THE 2-PART FORMULA

The provisions that create liability coverage for nuclear power are interesting: essentially the industry is yoked at the neck--all will pay if any one has a major accident. First, reactor owners pay into a self-insurance pool of $200 million, designed to cover events that fall short of a Chernobyl-style disaster. A second pool of about $8 billion would be composed of fees levied to every operating reactor in the US, to be triggered by an accident that exceeds the first pool. Each reactor–there are 103 operating today–would pay a share prorated from the total, up to $79 million each ($75 million plus a 5% insurance surcharge), paid over a 7-year period--or $10+ million per reactor, per year. The liability of the nuclear industry for that accident is then capped.Thus ~ $8 billion is the maximum financial "contribution" that the commercial nuclear industry would make in the event of nuclear catastrophe. Beyond the cap, taxpayers would pick up the tab in the form of disaster relief funds, and /or affected individuals–victims– would absorb the real costs.

YARDSTICK

Eight billion dollars is a "fine chunk of change," however some estimates have placed the costs of Chernobyl above $350 billion to date. Sandia National Lab in 1982 projected that a major accident at the Indian Point reactors on the Hudson River near Manhattan would exceed $300 billion (in 1982 dollars). Taxpayer exposure to nuclear liability under Price Anderson is significant, and shows $8 billion to be what it is: a small contribution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nuclear Industry LIES
Posted by: lrrysgl on Nov 27, 2007 10:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. "Nuclear power plants emit no CO2" CO2 is emitted in all phases of the nuclear cycle,
particularly in uranium mining, milling and power plant construction. If the whole fuel cycle is taken into account,nuclear power emits 4-5 times as much CO2 as renewable energy
sources.

Sources: CNN, 8 May 2001; FoE Scotland climate change briefing
(web site www.nirs.org/factsheets/KYOTONUC.html
http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/KYOTONUC.html> )
2. ,b>"Nuclear power is cheap." The NEI claim that the "production
costs" for nuclear power are cheaper than for all other major power sources. However, production costs include only the costs
for fuel, operations and maintenance. The large capital costs involved in nuclear power are not included. These costs were so high that the nuclear utilities were considered unable to compete after deregulation, and so were bailed out by consumers for their "stranded costs". That these same utilities now claim nuclear
power is cheap seems beyond belief.

Sources: web site www.nei.org ; WISE News
Communique 483/4.4795, "Stranded costs: California is not a sunny example", web site www.rmi.org

3. "Energy conservation isn't enough." The Rocky Mountain Institute, which back in 1988
calculated that every US$100 invested in energy conservation
saves one tonne more CO2 than if it were invested in nuclear
power, has shown that there is still plenty of scope for energy
conservation measures, both in California and elsewhere.
Sources: CNN, 8 May 2001; web site www.rmi.org

At present there are 441 nuclear reactors in operation around the world. If, as the nuclear industry suggests, nuclear power were to replace fossil fuels on a large scale, it would be necessary to build 2,000 1,000-megawatt reactors. Considering that no new nuclear plant has been ordered in the United States since 1978, this proposal is less than practical. Furthermore, even if we decided today to replace all fossil-fuel-generated electricity with nuclear power, there would only be enough economically viable uranium to fuel the reactors for three to four years.The true economies of the nuclear industry are never fully accounted for. The cost of uranium enrichment is subsidized by the U.S. government. The true cost of the industry's liability in the case of an accident in the United States is estimated to be $560 billion, but the industry pays $9.1 billion -- 98 percent of the insurance liability is covered by the federal government. The cost of decommissioning all the existing U.S. nuclear reactors is estimated to be $33 billion. These costs -- plus the enormous expense involved in the storage of radioactive waste for a quarter of a million years -- are not included in the economic assessments of nuclear electricity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

PLEASE GAMMA-RAY MY RASPBERRIES and lettuce and spinach
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 27, 2007 11:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gamma rays would kill the germs in spinach and lettuce as well as the mold in
raspberries.. The down side is that the corporations would use the gamma rays
as a panacea and leave the bird poop and deer manure on the spinach, unless
strictly regulated. Gamma rays are like the microwaves in your microwave oven
but shorter in wavelength. X-rays are in between light and gamma rays.
Nuclear "waste" is a good cheap source of gamma rays. X-rays would work, but
are needlessly expensive, requiring new tubes often and a lot of electricity.
Corporations would not replace the X-ray tubes often enough because they are
expensive.

I am so tired of all the "fresh" red raspberries in the grocery store being dark from
mold. Red raspberries are supposed to be light, bright red, not quite pink.
Neither the shoppers nor the grocers know what raspberries are supposed to look
like and taste like. They buy the moldy ones, thinking that darker means riper.
The dark ones lack the tartness and taste that raspberries are supposed to have.
Raspberries are very high priced because they spoil very quickly if not frozen.
So Please, seal the raspberries in air tight transparent containers and gamma ray
them within 1/2 hour of picking them. I picked and ate wild raspberries as a
child.

Likewise for strawberries.

A really bad taste thing happens to milk. A lot of the store-bought milk tastes of
the detergent the farmers use to wash the bulk tank. The detergent is very harsh
and intentionally toxic to kill germs. Detergent is a pseudo-estrogen. The fact
that the detergent is pseudo-estrogen means that it is a gender bender. It makes
boys into girls. All of the milk that comes in plastic bottles tastes like plastic. I
will not drink it. I have the advantage of knowing what milk is supposed to taste
like, having tasted milk that was still warm from the cow.

Your meat is also spiced with manure. The meat packers will slow down the
process line enough to keep the manure off of the meat when they are required to
hire legal workers. Instead, they steam treat the meat to kill the germs in the
manure.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Background radiation
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 27, 2007 11:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation

Background radiation is the ionizing radiation from several natural radiation
sources: sources in the Earth and from those sources that are incorporated in our
food and water, which are incorporated in our body, and in building materials and
other products that incorporate those radioactive sources; radiation sources from
space (in the form of cosmic rays); and sources in the atmosphere which primarily
come from both the radon gas that is released from the earth's surface and
subsequently decays to radioactive atoms that become attached to airborne dust
and particulates, and the production of radioactive atoms from the bombardment
of atoms in the upper atmosphere by high-energy cosmic rays. Since 1945 it also
comes from low levels of global radioactive contamination due to nuclear testing.

............shortened.............

Natural background radiation

Natural background radiation comes from three primary sources: cosmic radiation,
terrestrial sources, and radon. The worldwide average background dose for a
human being is about 2.4 mSv per year. This exposure is mostly from cosmic
radiation and natural isotopes in the Earth.

Cosmic radiation

The Earth, and all living things on it, are constantly bombarded by radiation from
outside our solar system of positively charged ions from protons to iron nuclei.
This radiation interacts in the atmosphere to create secondary radiation that rains
down, including X-rays, muons, protons, alpha particles, pions, electrons, and
neutrons. The dose from cosmic radiation is largely from muons, neutrons, and
electrons.

The dose rate from cosmic radiation varies in different parts of the world based
largely on the geomagnetic field and altitude.

Terrestrial sources

Radioactive material is found throughout nature. It occurs naturally in the soil,
rocks, water, air, and vegetation. The major radionuclides of concern for terrestrial
radiation are potassium, uranium and thorium. Each of these sources has been
decreasing in activity since the birth of the Earth so that our present dose from
potassium-40 is about 1⁄2 what it would have been at the dawn of life on Earth.
Some of the elements that make up the human body have radioactive isotopes,
such as potassium-40, so there is also a very small amount of internal radiation.

Radon

Radon gas seeps out of uranium-containing soils found across most of the world
and may concentrate in well-sealed homes. It is often the single largest contributor
to an individual's background radiation dose and is certainly the most variable in
the United States. Many areas of the world, including Cornwall and Aberdeenshire
in the United Kingdom have high enough natural radiation levels that nuclear
licensed sites cannot be built there—the sites would already exceed legal radiation
limits before they opened, and the natural topsoil and rock would all have to be
disposed of as low-level nuclear waste.

............shortened.............

The exposure for an average person is about 360 millirems/year, 80 percent of
which comes from natural sources of radiation. The remaining 20 percent results
from exposure to artificial radiation sources, such as medical X-rays and a small
fraction from nuclear weapons tests.

............shortened.............

Reference:
http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/2000_1.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nuclear power is NOT emission free or clean
Posted by: lrrysgl on Nov 27, 2007 11:11 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is said that nuclear power is emission-free. The truth is very different.In the United States, where much of the world's uranium is enriched, including Australia's, the enrichment facility at Paducah, Ky., requires the electrical output of two 1,000-megawatt coal-fired plants, which emit large quantities of carbon dioxide, the gas responsible for 50 percent of global warming. Also, this enrichment facility and another at Portsmouth, Ohio, release from leaky pipes 93 percent of the chlorofluorocarbon gas emitted yearly in the United States. The production and release of CFC gas is banned internationally by the Montreal Protocol because it is the main culprit responsible for stratospheric ozone depletion. But CFC is also a global warmer, 10,000 to 20,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide.In fact, the nuclear fuel cycle utilizes large quantities of fossil fuel at all of its stages -- the mining and milling of uranium, the construction of the nuclear reactor and cooling towers, robotic decommissioning of the intensely radioactive reactor at the end of its 20- to 40-year operating lifetime, and transportation and long-term storage of massive quantities of radioactive waste.Contrary to the nuclear industry's propaganda, nuclear power is therefore not green and it is certainly not clean. Nuclear reactors consistently release millions of curies of radioactive isotopes into the air and water each year. These releases are unregulated because the nuclear industry considers these particular radioactive elements to be biologically inconsequential. This is not so.These unregulated isotopes include the noble gases krypton, xenon and argon, which are fat-soluble and if inhaled by persons living near a nuclear reactor, are absorbed through the lungs, migrating to the fatty tissues of the body, including the abdominal fat pad and upper thighs, near the reproductive organs. These radioactive elements, which emit high-energy gamma radiation, can mutate the genes in the eggs and sperm and cause genetic disease.Tritium, another biologically significant gas, which is also routinely emitted from nuclear reactors is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen composed of two neutrons and one proton with an atomic weight of 3. The chemical symbol for tritium is H3. When one or both of the hydrogen atoms in water is displaced by tritium the water molecule is then called tritiated water. Tritium is a soft energy beta emitter, more mutagenic than gamma radiation, which incorporates directly into the DNA molecule of the gene. Its half-life is 12.3 years, giving it a biologically active life of 246 years. It passes readily through the skin, lungs and digestive system and is distributed throughout the body.The dire subject of massive quantities of radioactive waste accruing at the 442 nuclear reactors across the world is also rarely, if ever, addressed by the nuclear industry. Each typical 1,000-megawatt nuclear reactor manufactures 33 metric ton of thermally hot, intensely radioactive waste per year.Already more than 80,000 metric tons of highly radioactive waste sits in cooling pools next to the 103 U.S. nuclear power plants, awaiting transportation to a storage facility yet to be found. This dangerous material will be an attractive target for terrorist sabotage as it travels through 39 states on roads and railway lines for the next 25 years.

AND WHEN YOU GET DONE WITH ALL OF THIS, OH YEAH, nuclear produces only electricity, but electricity amounts to only one third of America's total energy use (and less of the world's). Nuclear power thus addresses only a small fraction of the global warming problem, and has no effect whatsoever on two of the largest sources of carbon emissions: driving vehicles and heating buildings.
The upshot is that nuclear power is seven times less cost-effective at displacing carbon than the cheapest, fastest alternative - energy efficiency, according to studies by the Rocky Mountain Institute.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Get it through your thick skull, lrrysgl
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 27, 2007 11:42 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
lrrysgl and people like him are driving up the cost of electricity AND THEY ARE
BEING PAID BY COAL COMPANIES TO DO SO. COAL COMPANY
PROPAGANDA AIMS AT DRIVING PEOPLE INTO UNNECESSARY PANIC.
Measuer the radiation. 100 times as much comes from COAL.

Safety is guaranteed by laws of physics including to but not limited to the laws of
thermodynamics. There are two types of 21st century reactors that cannot melt
down no matter how badly they are operated.
In the pebble bed reactors, stopping coolant flow removes the space between
fuel pellets. The space between fuel pellets must be filled with moving water.
The water is the moderator to slow down the neutrons so that the reaction can take
place. No coolant flow, no reaction. These pebble bed reactors will never
experience a meltdown. It just can't happen because of laws of nature.
In the recommended and newly invented helium cooled reactor, the core is
made of high temperature materials that simply will not melt if coolant flow
ceases. The core is cooled from a higher temperature by heating the containment
building, which also does not melt. The containment building heats its
surroundings in the case of coolant flow loss. The helium cooled reactor uses
helium as the working fluid to turn a turbine. Helium gas is the ideal fluid to turn
a turbine because it can be made very pure so that the turbine blades will last a
very long time.
Safety is assured in all US built reactors by the containment building, which is a
pressure vessel and which, as in the case of the now obsolete 3 mile island reactor,
can and did contain the overheated core.

As I said, American reactors are now too safe. Nuclear power is overpriced
because of the excessive safety. 20,000 to 30,000 Americans die each year
because of those poisons I listed below that come out of coal fired power plants.
It is C O A L fired power plants that kill 20,000 to 30,000 Americans each year.
Nuclear power plants kill ZERO Americans each year. It is COAL burning that
will make us go extinct in about 200 years if we keep doing it.

The problem is that we OVERSHOT on safety design because of people like
lrrysgl. American reactors are TOO safe. It is C O A L fired power plants that
give you 100 times as much radiation. Coal is almost pure carbon, except for
the URANIUM, ARSENIC, LEAD, MERCURY, Antimony, Cobalt, Nickel,
Copper, Selenium, Barium, Fluorine, Silver, Beryllium, Iron, Sulfur, Boron,
Titanium, Cadmium, Magnesium, Calcium, Manganese, Vanadium, Chlorine,
Aluminum, Chromium, Molybdenum and Zinc that are coal's impurities. As I told
you several times, we could fuel our nuclear plants from the uranium and thorium
in the smoke and cinders from coal fired power plants. Did you forget already?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

lrrysgl lies
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 28, 2007 12:00 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
lrrysgl, would the extinction of Homo Sapiens have an economic impact? It is
C O A L that will make us extinct. I suspect that every word of lrrysgl's is a lie.
As I have told you before, the #1 carbon dioxide emitter is coal fired power
plants. And, the emitters of the most toxins are: coal fired power plants. Coal
fired power plants produce 34% of our total CO2 output, the biggest single slice.
Each 1000 Megawatts of coal fired electricity puts 14.7 MILLION TONS MORE
carbon dioxide into the air every year than a nuclear power plant of the same
capacity.

How do coal fired power plants get ahead of transportation [cars and other
vehicles] in carbon emissions? Gasoline, diesel fuel, etc. are half hydrogen. For
example, octane is C8H18. To figure out what fraction of the energy is from
burning the carbon, you have to look up the heat of formation of carbon dioxide
and the heat of formation of water. It takes 1 carbon to make one CO2, but it
takes 2 hydrogens to make 1 H2O. You can do the arithmetic and apportion the
energy between the carbon and the hydrogen. You have to subtract the energy
required to break down the octane into atoms. It is easier to remove the
hydrogens than it is to separate the carbons, so the energy subtracted gets
apportioned too.

Transportation isn't even the second largest CO2 emitter. Industrial processes
are. The largest CO2 emitter of the industrial processes is concrete making even
though the energy used is less. The first step in concrete making is heating
limestone [calcium carbonate] to drive off the carbon dioxide to make calcium
oxide. Coal is burned to make the heat, but the limestone is the greater source of
CO2. Other industrial processes include steel making, metal casting, etc.

The easiest way to make the biggest reduction in CO2 emissions is to convert
all coal fired power plants to nuclear. So get over your paranoid fears of all
things nuclear and get it done.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

another way of looking at HRSG'S...
Posted by: eosrk on Nov 28, 2007 7:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the power companies can use that same heat to run most of their equipment inside the plant, so THEY CAN SEND ALL THEIR MW OUT TO THE GRID!!

It makes sense to me cause I ran three of them for four years!

remember, power companies, it's about $$$, just use some sense with it, you're blowing money away into the atmosphere. Use it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

To AsteroidMiner & UKmale and others
Posted by: Squarehead on Dec 1, 2007 6:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The proponents of nuclear energy continue, in I am sure, complete good faith, to promote its virtues.

I could agree, if there were no other course to our energy needs. I could reluctantly accept that nuclear power works brilliantly, from a pollution point of view, until something goes wrong. If there were no alternative, that might be an acceptable risk and therefore be the correct course.

But there are alternatives; the problem is one of imagination rather than science.

The solar derived energy resources (solar heat, solar light, wind power, wave power) are scorned as being unreliable, not available all the time, etc. However, the need to use these resources is therefore the need to consider the question of energy storage. These storage solutions are scientifically and technically simple problems; their only difficulty is their cost, since they are typically 6 – 12 times more expensive (as infrastructural cost) than an equivalent generation capacity from oil, gas, or coal.

They do however have the great virtues of Zero fuel cost and near zero pollution output. The approximate costs of electricity generation, per KW/hr are: Nuclear, $0.10; Fossil fuel, $0.05 (& rising); Solar (thermal), $0.06 to $0.15; Solar (photovoltaic), $0.15 (& falling).

Any reasonable logical person can see that 20 – 30 years (the project life) of NO cost for fuel eventually adds up to “a very good deal”.

The consequence of nuclear generation, if that were the total energy supply planet wide, would eventually include an enormous surplus heat problem. To use either fission or fusion energy is to release energy from the creation of the universe; acceptable in a (relatively) small scale; potentially disastrous at the levels that nuclear enthusiasts envisage. Current levels are already significantly damaging to local ecologies (plant & animal life).

The sun provides over the entire planet approx 84 Terrawatt/hours per 24 hours; our current worldwide consumption is about 12 Terrawatt/hours per 24 hours. Does not the cost of human extinction suggest that ANY money cost is an acceptable alternative?

I would not, however, expect too much of that scientific or technical expertise from this government or indeed from most throughout the world.

In the event that we do actually get angry enough to achieve change (it only needs 10% of us), the systematic renewal of this nation’s energy infrastructure can provide a wonderful opportunity, especially in the context of a slowing economy.

This infrastructural development could solve a raft of economic and political problems for the world of the very near future.

I don't agree that 'renewables' are non-viable at present, or can only provide 20% of our energy requirement. The belief in nuclear (seems to me) to be a constant desire for an easy solution. Bad idea. The building of suitable infrastructure (for solar thermal) could be an amazing opportunity for constructive economic growth. The energy, CO2 & money costs of construction are justifiable in terms of subsequent (10 years) reduced costs in all fields.

The nuclear 'hype' of the present, about equally from the well intentioned enthusiasts and from the opportunist business interests, does not address the lack of sufficient supply of Uranium and the obvious effect that interest is having on its marketplace price; nor does it address the ecological problems mentioned.


I say again: