Subject:
|
Re: Unexplained power outages in New York, Toronto, and other cities
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 16 Aug 2003 11:43:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
365 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva wrote:
> > 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.
>
> The solar panels I am referring to are BASED on technology NASA created for
> solar panel use and construction. A typical home shingled in solar panels would
> generate enough power to operate lights and small appliances in overcast and
> light rainy conditions, let alone sunny days. Also keep in mind that anything
> left over would go to charge the battery backups. 'Power cell' technology has
> made battery storage far more efficent.
And extremely costly. Consider that by the time the solar panels would require
replacement, they still wouldn't have paid off their initial cost. Why else do
you think non-oil producing countries have not implemented the system? It's not
as if they'd gain anything from buying oil, other than paying less for the same
outcome.
But I can tell you with a very reasonable degree of certainty that even if oil
were not used at all for electrical generation, you still would not want to rely
in solar panels + power cells for electricity: bear in mind that it would
suffice for one abnormal consumption during one night for blackouts to ocurr,
which would represent ZERO benefit regarding the subjects of the debate.
> > > [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?
>
> It is illegal or very difficult (due to government regulations) for me to
> generate power in any real practical way for myself. This is ironic because the
> power company is legally required to purchase any excess power that someone
> generates but does not use. (after battery backup charging is complete) This is
> my main problem with the current power generation system. I can not even
> 'voluntarily' do something better.
Then I guess I'm better off in that regard.
> > > [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.
>
> That was a conventional reactor, NOT a breeder reactor.
Which is irrelevant to what I tried to establish, ie, it's absurd to pretend you
control all factors.
> > 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).
>
> So evacuating 100 mile raduis around the plant and turning all the coolant off
> (which would result in a explosive meltdown in a conventional reactor) and
> watching the thing shut itself down due to the laws of physics is a controlled
> drill result?
Do you have doubts in your mind that they were NOT going to risk a meltdown that
would surely toss their sorry @$$e$ in jail? It would be EXTREMELY stupid to
play "meltdown" in real life - it's obvious it was not an experiment designed
for observation of the phenomena, rather one designed for advertisement
purposes.
Either that, or those folks should be tried for risking a nuclear accident!
> Anyone that did not understand the differnce between a breeder
> reactor and a conventional reactor would have called that stupid.
And someone who does understand the non-differences call it?
> > 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?
>
> Again your describing a conventional reactor not a breeder reactor.
Mike, breeder reactors are not a miracle of nature where you get exempt of
accident. And the kind of materail they deal with is quite annoying to have
around during an accident.
> > > > > 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.
>
> There is no radioactive waste created from a breeder reactor to become aerosol
> particles.
How can I put it politely?
Think airplane crashing plant. Think earthquake. Think flood. I am not concerned
with what ocurrs as consequence of ordinary exploration of such reactor, rather
of what is consequence of extraordinary events. That DO happen.
> Now the current oil buring generators create a lot of air borne
> pollution that actually is a health risk.
Yes, they are doing such. But if a coal plant (or oil, for that matter) suffers
a catastrophic accident, you're not increasing the risk of having your children
born with deformities, are you?
> > > > > 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?
> > :-)
>
> So long as the person actually wants to be on the ballot I doubt it, regardless
> of country.
Not only that: even if such person made it into the ballot, could he/she
advertise itself? And even if elected, could that person maintain the
convictions during the whole term in office and actually pass any legislation?
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
|
|
|
|
