Subject:
|
Re: Unexplained power outages in New York, Toronto, and other cities
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 15 Aug 2003 15:33:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
275 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
> [snip]
> > > 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.
>
> Not the ones that are illegal for me to purchase. They are based on the same
> technology NASA uses for its satellites.
Which are conveniently located outside the Earth's atmosphere, and therefore not
subject to weather. Besides, they are designed for many charge/discharge cycles
a day, since most satelites orbit the Earth more than once daily - the "night"
discharge, in their case, is less worrying, as it represents less time and can
be backed by smaller batteries.
> [snip]
> > > 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?
>
> Wish I knew. I do know that where I live the power company is required to buy
> back any power you generate but do not use. However pretty much all practical
> ways of generating power are illegal. (I think water wheels are allowed if you
> happen to have a river handy. Talk about unreliable.)
You contradict yourself: you say you can generate power, and then that you
can't. Am I misreading you?
> [snip]
> > > 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.
>
> They tested this on the prototype. They evacutated the small town that the
> reactor was powering and shut off all the coolant and backup coolant. The
> reactor through the simple process of obeying the laws of physics shut itself
> down.
The first time Fermi watched a chain reaction he was unsure of the outcome,
whether it would slow down or blow up on his face. It slowed down; years later
the same kind of reaction gave us Chernobyl, when external factors concurred for
the disruption of safety measures. So, it's one thing to understand the laws of
physics, but an entirely different matter to pretend you control all factors
(like in a drill).
And as you can see, the reactor had to stop under the lack of cooling -
transpose to times of drought, and you'll see how unreliable nuclear also is.
Like all energy sources, btw, have their own flaws.
> > 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
>
> Sodium is actually fairly easy to neutralize. As opposed to the conventional
> nuclear plants, they are building a huge vault to contain the waste for 10,000
> years.
Sodium is easy to neutralize *when it is not realeased* to the open. And please
don't get me started on other toxic/radioactive byproducts that can be
accidentally released. Granted, accidents are just accidents, unless you happen
to live nearby... get it?
> > > 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.
>
> Uh... You mean quite a bit more efficent and they eliminate the main undesirable
> features of a conventional plant.
They do not. They mask them better, they perhaps produce less of them. And yet
the waste IS there, and I'm sure as hell don't want it reaching me in aerosol
particles when an inevitable accident ocurrs.
> > > 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.
>
> I didn't vote for Clinton.
I don't care whom you voted, Mike. I meant you, plural - your fellow citizens. I
am perfectly aware any other politician would play the oil interests as well
(Bush being particularly obvious, but it's not his fault he was born in the
business).
Is there any person of principles left in your country that can ever be elected
for office? One that is altruist (or charitable? Hmm..) instead of self serving?
:-)
Pedro
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
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
|
|
|
|
