Subject:
|
Re: Unexplained power outages in New York, Toronto, and other cities
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 15 Aug 2003 11:36:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
271 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
> > > 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.
Sorry, misunderstood that in your post.
> 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.
No they wouldn't, since all solar powered systems are pretty much unreliable.
It's not that they do not work in cloudy conditions, only they work at a very
unneficient pace (so to speak). And then there is night - to store whatever
amount of power for night use would be a nightmare, just think of the waste
represented by worn-out batteries.
> However with no central generation point to get disrupted by whatever,
> you would not have mass blackouts.
That's probably true, however you'd have massive amounts of "mini-blackouts"
that would require a large specialized repair personnel. Every individual system
has a risk of failure as well, so its only natural that at any given point a
non-negligible amount of folks would be in blackout.
Now, if you overlap two systems (SGP and conventional central generation), you
might end up with a very reliable system, but still imperfect, since the risk of
total failure would merely be minimized. And then there is the problem of
duplicating systems: due to its cost, it's only done when the regular system is
highly unreliable - when was the last time a catastrophic blackout ocurred in
NYC? 1977?
That's pretty much why only hospitals and the likes have full backup systems,
the cost for failure in their case can't be measured in bucks.
> 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.
I can't say I disagree with you entirely, only in the philosophy for using SGP.
For what understand you'd use it primarily, I'd use as backup.
> My main problem is that
> I can not legally do this on my own nor can anyone else on a voluntary basis.
> WTF!?
Any official explanation?
> > 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,
Not really, no. They are unlikely to melt down... which is not the same.
Now think of something: they require more cooling-water than conventional
reactors. Look at what's happening in France, Germany, Italy now, and risk
saying breeder reactors could operate under those conditions.
> leave no nuclear
> waste,
They do leave toxic waste, in this case sodium:
http://www.fpcj.jp/e/shiryo/jb/0308.html
> and we could power the entire planet for 500 years on just the urainium
> we have mined now
You're of course overlooking the fact that other countries have chosen to reduce
consumption instead of going nuclear. Think Sweeden, Germany, Netherlands... the
list goes on. In your own country there are people who aren't too fond of
nuclear, plus there is Three Mile Island.
> 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.
Honest Mike, these powerplants aren't that much different from what we have now.
Just a tad bit more efficient.
> 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.
What can I say? You've voted the man in, now deal with it.
Pedro
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
