Subject:
|
Re: Unexplained power outages in New York, Toronto, and other cities
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 17 Aug 2003 14:20:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
498 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > 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.
>
> Well I have done the math it would save my household about $10,000 over the
> course of the solar panels lifetime versus the current electric bill.
I'm curious of what conditions you considered in your maths.
> > 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.
>
> Well my house has a gas generator for back-up power already. It is slightly more
> expensive to use than the power company but it would suffice in an unlikely
> abnormal consumption period untill the next morning. (Course I don't really
> think we would need all that much power at night. Our power goes out for several
> hours at night once every 2 or 3 months anyway.)
It is true that the consumption is greatly reduced at night time, which is not
to say electricity is not produced or used at all. In fact, much of the
electricity generated at night by nuclear/thermal plants is used to pump back
water for upstream reservoirs, so that it can be turbined again in peak hours.
had this process not been adopted, the choice would be between agriculture &
nuclear or desert & hydropower :-)
Key line of thinking: do not confuse your domestic consumption (or even
production) with the global consumption of energy, they follow different
patterns.
> > 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!
>
> Well that is exactly what they did. It was government aproved, they evacutated
> the only small town that would have been in the blast radius if the plant was a
> conventional reactor. They wanted to prove the theory that a breeder reactor can
> not meltdown and succeded.
What they proven is that they can evacuate a city. They have not proven that
accident will not happen - only that they can "not happen", which is not much
for proof.
> > 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?
>
> No they would simply be dead. If an oil power plant were hit by an airplane or
> earthquake or something as you suggest for a reason against breeder reactors, it
> would cause a comparable explosion.
Oil is flammable, not explosive! I live near a refinery that once had a fire,
and it did not blow - the smoke was visible for miles, though.
> Heck a simple propane storage facility about
> 16 miles from my house would level everything in 20 miles if it were somehow
> accidentally detonated.
Gas is a different matter. Call it the cost of cleanliness, when compared to oil
:-/
BTW, how come the gas tanks aren't underground? Natural caves are often used to
minimize the damage in case an explosion takes place.
> The odds of that happing are about the same as a breeder
> reactor suffering an extraordinary accident, which is to say the odds are better
> that I will be struck by lightning and survive.
You should perhaps compare the odds of people in a 50 (?) mile radius from the
plant all being struck by lightning simultaneously.
> [snip]
> > 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?
>
> Highly doubtful which is why I respectful don't trust anyone in the government.
Then take hold of an offshore platform and start your own state!
http://www.sealandgov.com/
;-)
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
|
|
|
|
