Or, as my side of the argument would suggest, if you live where it’s windy, try using it. The other side says that’s a hippy conspiracy to bring down civilization and the only answer is to get your power from a nuke plant 1,000 miles away.
OK, never mind. I’ll plant a new thread in GD on plasma gasification.
Okay, it was cute at first, but now you’re just fucking trolling. NOBODY SAID YOU CAN’T USE WIND POWER. You interpret any comment about how wind can’t provide all of our power as some sort of claim that wind power should be banned.
However, your reading comprehension difficulties are your problem, not ours.
Okay, it was cute at first, but now you’re just fucking trolling. NOBODY SAID YOU CAN’T USE NUCLEAR POWER. You interpret any comment about how nuclear can’t provide all of our power as some sort of claim that nuclear power should be banned.
However, your reading comprehension difficulties are your problem, not mine.
It looks like Una gave up on explaining this to you. Why I’m taking a stab at it is possibly a blemish on my judgment, but what the hell.
Una correctly called you on your statement. Improving the output of a power plant has always, within the industry at least, been considered as NEW CAPACITY. There’s actually some downside to doing that as it can cause a flood of “new capacity” regulations for the operators. But that’s too complicated to address here. You are correct in stating that no new nuclear power plants have been built. Una was correct in refuting your claim that no additional MWH were produced by new nuke capacity. Saying that she lied in her claim is downright stupid.
Your “this year/next year” comparisons have one minor flaw. Any new coal, hydro, or nuke plant has a 7- 10 year concept-to-output critical path. So even if one could reach in their pocket, pull out a few billion dollars and say, "build me a nuke or coal " it would take years of planning, design, construction, and testing before it would happen. Being smaller and modular no one would argue that a wind turbine can’t be built faster. But I don’t really see what that proves. You can put up a thousand tents in the time it takes to build a house but that would only be a proper argument if you valued housing capacity over housing reliability.
I’ve tried taking with wind proponents a few times (my nephew and I discuss this often) and I can tell that they always think that I’m on “the other side”. I never understand this.
Again, as a planner, anytime I can stick it to the coal or oil interests I’m all for it. I want to make renewables work. I want wind. But I also have to put the power to the customer **when he wants it **. The bolding is a key reason that one side looks like “big business” and the other side looks like “hippies”.
I also have financial pressure from regulators who won’t tell if I can get a return on my investment until after I built it. If I build wind, transmission and storage and its lifetime delivery of power costs more than coal, the regulators can disallow all or part of my investment. They’re pushing for renewables too but they get to change their minds at the last minute and claim it was too costly leaving me to hold the bag.
So, while I’m slowly integrating renewable energy into my supply mix 'm also building other fossil fuel plants that can produce when I need them to. And then every time I build a fossil plant I have a multitude of critics berating me for not building renewable.
Some people can’t see the big picture. To them the world is all wind or all smog and radioactivity.
For those interested, here is my GD thread on plasma arc waste disposal/power generation.
Sorry Ogre. Una decided that the problem of arguing with a fool (Second Stone) is that pretty soon nobody can tell the difference.
And I can’t help you with your question. I’ll be watching your GD thread.
This whole thread contains some of the stupidest arguments against nuclear power that I’ve ever seen. It completely encapsulates why the nuclear industry is where it is today. Anti-nuclear zealots do everything in their power to delay or kill nuclear generating projects (not to mention waste storage at Yucca Mountain), then try to argue that the reason there are no new nuclear projects is because nuclear power is not economically competitive. :rolleyes:
Senor Beef actually summarized the situation quite well, IMHO.
FWIW, I’m both an environmental engineer and an environmentalist, and I think that nuclear power would do a lot to wean us off of burning fossil fuels for electricity production. Which is not say that we can’t also encourage new wind, solar, and other “green” energy sources.
The U.S. Navy has never had a nuclear accident.
However, trying to use a submarine as a power plant is not particularly efficient–only about 10% of the reactor power goes to the on-board turbogenerators. The rest goes to drive the main shaft and propeller. Also, compared to a large civilian nuclear power plant, submarine plants are both small and manpower-intensive.
Right on. This probably wasn’t the place to ask it anyway.
That’s not what’s going on here. Try reading this.
To the nuke nuts here things like this mean: hippy conspiracy to bring down civilization, remove regulations! Remove all this obstructionism!
It was amusing at first, now it’s just sad.
It seems pretty ridiculous to require a literal act of both houses of the Vermont state legislature just to renew a license.
And permanent revocation of the operating license of the plant that supplies something like 75% of the state’s electrical generating capacity, with no plans to replace this capacity, seems pretty short-sighted and stupid, too.
IMHO, the correct response for violations of environmental laws is to enforce the laws, not by revoking a plant’s license to operate. That’s cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face.
And finally, if the standard for putting a company out of business is alleged misstatements by company officials, then you’re looking at a pretty loose standard that would apply to most of the corporate world, including companies like Toyota and the tobacco executives who testified before the U.S. Congress. I don’t mean to condone such actions, though–the officials and the company should be punished and/or fined for any misstatements, if proven.
That’s not just the extreme ends; that’s punching opposing holes in the space-time fabric and zooming off into new dimensions.
Sure, but knee-jerk reactions to what is most likely a public slap in the face to the plant officials who lied under testimony is ridiculous too. The officials are going to have to jump through some hoops to get their license back and I"m not losing any sleep over it. If Vermont needs the electricity and they can’t get it elsewhere the plant will keep right on running, and maybe they’ll even be able to do it without [del]towers falling down[/del] hippy sabotage.
If I’m reading this right, that plant alone produces nearly half of the annual energy output of the 5700 new wind generators cited in the OP. So…where is Vermont going to put 2000+ wind towers to replace it? And, where are they going to get the billions it will cost to do so? Just curious as to how they will do this by 2012…
-XT
I don’t know why you’re waving your strawman at me, I didn’t say anything about Vermont and wind power. But, if they decide to harness hot air, they could ask you to move there.
I apologize, but I do not have any real experience with this at all - in fact, I found that Wiki page you linked to to be quite interesting, and I e-mailed my librarian to get some articles on it tomorrow when he comes in. Although I am somewhat ignorant of the process, I am proud that I guessed halogens released in the plasma (especially chlorine from plastics) would be a potential design problem before I read that far on the Wiki page.
Ah…I was under the impression you actually had a point, and weren’t just talking out of your ass for the pleasure of hearing yourself speak. My apologies. Go back to whatever it was you were doing…
-XT
Why don’t you use those two or three remaining brain cells you have to read and think instead of just typing random bullshit. I said if they need the electricity they’d keep the plant running but as usual you demonstrate your complete lack of comprehension of even the most basic English words.
You’ve amply shown you can’t read, but if any literate non-nuke nuts are interested, Utilities weigh bids from new power sources.
Take care, sir, you are dangerously close to angering the Gay Avenger!