Subject:
|
Re: Unexplained power outages in New York, Toronto, and other cities
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 15 Aug 2003 04:39:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
230 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva wrote:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
> > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva wrote:
> > > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
> > > > > > Kind of odd.
> > > > >
> > > > > It reminded me of "ALF": the cause for him being stranded on Earth was everyone
> > > > > turning on their hairdriers simultaneously - I wonder what too many air
> > > > > conditioning devices could do?
> > > > > ;-)
> > > >
> > > > Yet I can't help but wonder why the government covertly prevents the
> > > > de-centralization of power generation. They have to maintain their control over
> > > > the people I guess.
> > >
> > > Would you care to ellaborate on that? I thought it was a liberalized market
> > > already. What exactly is the role of the Feds in the electrical business? And
> > > what/why should it happen different, in your POV?
> > >
> > > TIA,
> >
> > About half way through this post:
> > http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=19864
> > the subject of the centralized power grid comes up. (In the middle of the usual
> > lunacy)
>
> Solar Panels? Domestic generators? (in abstract, "self-generated power"?)
>
> Back in the early days of electricity there was a powerplant in every block, at
> least in NYC; I believe that can be considered similar to what you advocate?
> Well, that system was later abandoned due to its utter inneficiency and high
> operative costs. What has changed since?
>
> I don't dismiss the concept of SGP completely, but do you have *any* idea of the
> implications regarding its use in a megalopolis such as NY? Take the case of the
> Empire State Building, for instance: alone, it needs a small powerplant. Now
> multiply by hundreds of similar facilities... a powerplant in every single
> skyscraper would be absurd, just think of the cost, space, pollution,
> what-have-you.
>
> The advantage of a powergrid is obvious,
Whoa. I don't have a problem with the powergrid I have a problem with the
centralized generation. The solar panels that are illegal for me to use on my
house, if used by everyone, would produce enough excess energy to power the
cites. However with no central generation point to get disrupted by whatever,
you would not have mass blackouts. Most of the buildings in the cites have
backup generators anyway. Yes the inital cost would be substantial as well as
the occasional replacement and recycling of solar panels but the long term
savings and advantages would more than make up for that. My main problem is that
I can not legally do this on my own nor can anyone else on a voluntary basis.
WTF!?
> allowing for remote generation of
> energy; its implementation may or may not be well conceived, and that is IMO
> much easier to solve. So, instead of eliminating something that has advantages,
> why not expurge the "narrowings" in the grid, ie, bypass critical points?
> BTW, whatever happened to the concept of "reserve-powerplant"? Has consumption
> become so close to production, that New Yorkers must live on the edge of
> blackout?
Now if we wanted to use centralized power generation we should be building
Breeder Nuclear Reactors. They are impossible to meltdown, leave no nuclear
waste, and we could power the entire planet for 500 years on just the urainium
we have mined now (let alone the exsisiting nuclear waste from conventional
nuclear plants that will burn in breeder reactors.) It was tested and all of the
above proven in the midwest by a Prototype power plant according to a PBS
special I watched. The offical reason that the project was discontinued was that
one of the breakdown stages of the fuel is plutonium that could be used in
weapons. Of course I can read between the lines and see that the real reason is
that 40 percent of domestic oil consuption is used for power generation (which
is also one of the largest sources of pollution in the US) and that would screw
over the oil corporations that make campain contributions.
-Mike Petrucelli
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
27 Messages in This Thread:
   
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
