Splat <- Telling it like it is.

[PJ2001]

Either you are unimformed or belive the current propoganda......even powering electric cars from coal fired power stations is in the order of 95% more enviromentaly freindly that a Gas/electric hybrid

Yep... I'm buying into what those crazy right-wing Sierra Club guys are saying:
“The concern on plug-in hybrids is that we not substitute addiction to one polluting fuel for addiction to a more polluting fuel,” said Dan Becker, the head of the Sierra Club’s global warming and energy program. “Coal is more polluting than gasoline, and nearly 60 percent of U.S. electricity is generated by burning coal.”
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1040_22-5655009-2.html

[Samwich]

Splat's a ski man. ergo he can't speak on the subject of on snow sports?

I think that Splat was saying that because George W has derived some of his wealth from the oil industry, any remarks he makes regarding said topic would be biased, and should thus be taken with a grain of salt.

Correct me, Splat, if I'm wrong.

[splat]

I never respond to anything he has to say, sammy, as it is my belief his mumblings are heavily influenced by a mouthful of Bush. However, I'll just say that his analogy could not be any more typically off-base, as it would basically mean that I made trillion dollar policy decisions that benefitted my friends and financial supporters in ski industries and that those decisions would be 1) environmentally unsound, 2) to the detriment of the American people and, 3) complete bullshit that an unbelieveable number of people swallow.
He should try enrolling in Logic 101.


edit:Today the government announced that it is changing its emblem from an Eagle to a "condom" because it more accurately reflects the government's political stance. A condom allows for inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of pricks, and gives you a sense of security while you're actually being screwed.

[natty dread]

Nice work taking apart Mr. G's fallacious analogy splat. Mess with the bull...

[LaramieSkiBum]

Either you are unimformed or belive the current propoganda......even powering electric cars from coal fired power stations is in the order of 95% more enviromentaly freindly that a Gas/electric hybrid

I'm calling bullshit on your 95%, please give us your source.

Please elaborate on how making electrical energy from coal, transmitting it, and storing it in cars is more environmentally friendly than a gas hybrid.

Gasoline doesn't have the mercury, much less SOx and slightly less NOx, Particulate Matter, and CO2. You wouldn't get as much CO because combustion is more complete, but CO isn't the problem. There would be no hydrocarbon emissions, but again that’s not the main problem - CO2, SOx and NOx are.

You lose alot of efficiency burning coal, heating the steam, generating the power, and then transmitting it.

Refining gasoline in contrast takes even more energy, and battery powered cars ARE 10-30% more efficient when you consider the entire energy train.

But being more efficient doesn't necessarily mean more environmentally friendly. Only if you use natural gas to generate the power do the pollution numbers drop to levels of a internal combustion engine.

[Blurred]

I personally believe electric power from nuclear is the way to go. This along with electric cars. Electric can be produced in several different ways, it's the best pro-geo solution to date.
Electric golf carts have been around forever, proving the realistic solution to fossil fuels in our search for more economical and eco-friendly locomotion..

[splat]

After the Euros have been saving gas forever with clean diesel, America's leaders discover it exists......duh.



'Clean diesel technology' showcased
Group urges lawmakers to back White House plan for tax credits
From Paul Courson
CNN

Thursday, April 28, 2005 Posted: 5:38 PM EDT (2138 GMT)


President Bush Wednesday called for tax credits to encourage people to buy diesel-powered vehicles.


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Proponents of diesel-powered cars drove to Capitol Hill Thursday hoping to distance themselves from a questionable image that the engines and vehicles have had with consumers in the past.

During a fuel price crunch in the 1980s, Oldsmobile tried using a gasoline engine as the basis for a more thrifty diesel design. But the engine suffered a high failure rate, and consumers complained so loudly that General Motors offered a gasoline replacement engine.

Twenty years later, in the grips of another fuel price crunch, supporters of diesel technology hope consumers will consider developments in diesel engines for cars, minivans and sport utility vehicles.

"These engines are designed from the ground up" for diesel, said Allen Schaeffer, the head of the Diesel Technology Forum, noting the fuel is still the economical choice for long-haul trucks and heavy industrial equipment.

Allowing reporters to test-drive cars that ranged from a Jeep wagon to a Mercedes sedan, Schaeffer said the attraction is that "we don't see any exhaust emissions coming out the tailpipe, and we have a very quick start off the line."

None of the vehicles had the telltale dirty rear panel -- soiled with an oily, sooty film from diesel exhaust -- yet all had the characteristic rattling sound of a diesel engine.

"If you put a diesel beside a gasoline, it's really not that much difference," Schaeffer said. "The consumer is only going to notice the difference where it counts -- and that's at the pump. They're going to be spending less on fuel, about 30 percent less, with a diesel as compared to a gasoline model."

The group hopes to persuade congressional lawmakers to support White House plans for tax incentives to encourage people to buy diesel-powered vehicles.

President Bush told a business group Wednesday that anti-pollution measures for diesel "will remove more than 90 percent of the sulfur in diesel fuel by 2010."

The president called for expanding his existing tax credit proposal, which currently applies to hybrid and fuel-cell vehicles, to include those using new clean diesel technology.

"Clean diesel technology will allow consumers to travel much farther on each gallon of fuel, without the smoke and pollution of past diesel engines," he said.

While typical gasoline engines ignite fuel using spark plugs, diesel engines -- patented in 1893 by German engineer Rudolf Diesel -- do so with compression, according to the forum.

[13]

I personally believe electric power from nuclear is the way to go. This along with electric cars. Electric can be produced in several different ways, it's the best pro-geo solution to date.

No thanks.

Do you mind if we build a reactor or three in your backyard and subsidize them with gov't dollars, which still isn't enough to safely maintain the plant? They require constant maintenance & repair due to atomic nature of nuclear power.

This one is upwind of several major metropolitan areas: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operatin...gradation.html

Also, where shall we put the waste? Find me a geologically stable location to put it underground that is far, far away from any aquifers.

And then there's the risk of terrorism, the least of my worries as far as nuclear power goes -- a family friend of mine who works at a nearby plant caught a guard napping last year.

IMO, wind power is the best pro-geo solution. I'd rather see millions and millions of wind turbines than another nuke plant.

[splat]

Answer to zoo's power needs may be right under their nose
Tuesday, May 3, 2005 Posted: 12:03 PM EDT (1603 GMT)


Mali, an 8-year-old Asian elephant, is a potential power source for the Rosamond Gifford Zoo.

SYRACUSE, New York (AP) -- The Rosamond Gifford Zoo is looking to become the first zoo in the nation to be powered by its own animal waste -- particularly the prodigious piles produced by its pachyderms.

The zoo -- world prominent for its Asian elephant breeding program -- is studying how feasible it would be to switch to animal waste as an alternative energy source to reduce its $400,000 annual heating and electricity bill.

The zoo's six elephants produce more than 1,000 pounds of dung per day, said Zoo Director Anne Baker.

"Zoos are about conservation and stemming the loss of animals and habitat," Baker said. "But conservation also is about how people use natural resources. This is an opportunity to give visitors the whole picture."

The zoo sends most of its animal waste to a local farm, where it is composted. The zoo spends about $10,000 a year on animal-waste disposal, but Baker noted it also requires the use of additional fossil fuels for transportation.

"This would be just such a good idea on so many levels," she said.

Although other zoos have come up with creative ways to reuse their elephant manure -- including using it to make stationery -- Rosamond Gifford appears to be the first to propose using it for power, according to Jane Ballentine, a spokeswoman for the American Zoo and Aquarium Association.

Baker said the idea of using animal waste for energy first arose several years ago when she was talking to local officials about the potential for creating a more environmentally friendly and self-sustaining zoo.

Because the elephants eat mostly hay, they are the ideal waste producers for the project, Baker said. Additionally, they are inefficient digesters, which makes their feces higher in energy content, she said.

The zoo also will look at using the manure from its domestic farm animals, its other hoof stock, such as its bison and caribou, and even its lions and tigers, she said. Depending on the process, the zoo animal waste could be used to produce methane or hydrogen for powering a fuel cell or generator.

In the United States, a number of farms have used animal waste to produce power, so the technology is available to apply at the zoo, said John Fox of Homeland Energy Resources Development, a New York City-based renewable energy developer assisting with the study.

But there are questions to be answered to know whether it can be worthwhile, he said.

The study will start by evaluating the energy-producing potential of all the animals' dung. Another important question, said Fox, is determining just how much animal waste the zoo produces.

[slim]

IMO, wind power is the best pro-geo solution. I'd rather see millions and millions of wind turbines than another nuke plant.

You mean bird killing machines? Thelonious would not be happy with you.

The reality is there is no truely clean power source... they all have downsides. It's a matter of determining which downside carries the biggest/smallest impact to society, the environment, and, yes, economics.

[mr_gyptian]

hybrids don't appear to be the answer either.

http://www.baysense.com/2005/04/how_much_extra_.html

[truth]

There is no oil crisis, only an oil price crisis. We should cease the freeing of Iraq and simply take it over, then we can move on to Iran and Saudi Arabia. There should be a no prisoners policy. Either you're in or you're dead. Sure there might be an intial rise in terrorism, but that would quickly susbside in direct proportion to the arab populace.

France and Germany might object but we've conquered those lands before, I'm confident we can do it again. Besides, it's about time the eifel tower got some drywall and siding. I'm thinking cedar. Once we control the worlds oil supply resistance will be futile.

[summit]

Laramie Ski Bum, Blurred Elevens, and slim all have posts that are right on the money. Idris it blows my mind you think that coal is a good idea).

No thanks.

Do you mind if we build a reactor or three in your backyard and subsidize them with gov't dollars, which still isn't enough to safely maintain the plant? They require constant maintenance & repair due to atomic nature of nuclear power.

This one is upwind of several major metropolitan areas: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operatin...gradation.html

Also, where shall we put the waste? Find me a geologically stable location to put it underground that is far, far away from any aquifers.

And then there's the risk of terrorism, the least of my worries as far as nuclear power goes -- a family friend of mine who works at a nearby plant caught a guard napping last year.

IMO, wind power is the best pro-geo solution. I'd rather see millions and millions of wind turbines than another nuke plant.

Wind is nice, but it chops up birds, is an eyesore, (and the eyesore would be EVERYEWHERE if you wanted it to provide a large percentage of this nations electrical power) and production isn't always predictable (gotta depend on the weather). I personally don't want to have all of the mountains around here covered with wind turbines and powerlines.

Did you completely miss this thread or what? http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...hlight=nuclear

The solutions to waste are easy. There are massive amounts of usable fuel that is currently classified as "nuclear waste." All you have to do is reprocess it and you can cut your long life high level waste down greatly, take whats left and put it in a breeder reactor and make more fuel out of it, waste wil lbe reduced to almost nil. What little is left can either be stored, shot into the sun (solar orbit capable maglev launcher be reality in decades), or best yet, make the waste produce energy: RTG radioisotope thermoelectric generator, basically a thermocouple that gets the heat energy from radioactive material. We've been using those for decades. That makes the tiny amount of waste pay for itself. As long as the RTG generates power, maintainence will not be a problem either. Another way to get rid of the waste is to make it into a solid and drop it into a deep sea subduction zone where it will be pushed into the earth's mantle.

Further, coal plants belch radioactive material into the atmosphere at rates that would see any nuclear power facility shut down.

Security at reactors is generally extremely good. Plants usually have yearly drills where military special forces types make mock attacks against plant security to train, find security weaknesses, then fix them. In learning about the construction of reactors, it's amazing the amount of damage an American power reactor can withstand and still release zero radiation. The containment dome, reactor building, and pressure vessel all combine to make an extremely hardened target. I'm much more worried about the terrorists stealing an industrial or medical radiation source. Power plant attacks worry be because of infrastructure disruption, not threat or release.

As far as your link, do you even have any clue what that means? Do you know what the funcitons of the mechanisms listed? Well I'll spare you all that and just summarize: during routine inspection, a potential problem was spotted and fixed so that it wouldn't develop into a real problem in the future. Seems to me like the system is working and you are freaking out about it just because of the word "nuclear."

Newer reactor designs are even safer and cheaper to build and maintain. Current reactors already the best rate of production capacity and downtime of all power generation methods besides hydro. The current US nuclear power generation safety record is pretty impressive already: 0 deaths.

NIMBY attitude is BS. I'd feel safe with a plant in my backyard. Your irrational fear based on ignorance would be amusing if it weren't so sad.

Get rid of the coal, get rid of the fuel oil, get rid of the foriegn oil, get rid of the greenhouse gasses. Give me fission and give me fuel cells.

[Lone Star]

NIMBY attitude is BS. I'd feel safe with a plant in my backyard. Your irrational fear based on ignorance would be amusing if it weren't so sad.

The cool thing about a plant being in your backyard is if there's an accident, you're so close you'll never know what hit ya. How many people have had to permanently relocate their homes because of nuclear accidents?

[summit]

Just went over that. I'd say you didn't read the last thread, but I know you're baiting me. Next time you wanna troll try a topic I didn't alreay write about last week

Chernobyl is nothing but an example of what happens when an inherently unsafe reactor design (RBMK) is crewed by undertrained Soviet lackeys who chose to disable all safeguards and then run a dangerous test that went against all their protocols.

You could not repeat that with an American power reactor. It's physcially impossible because of the design starting with the US having containment domes and using the coolant (light water) as the moderator instead of what the Soviets used: graphite.

Simply put, when Chernobyl #4 lost it's coolant, dropped the rods with the moderators, the reaction increased, no safeties, boom. US reactors are incapable of maintaining a chain reaction without the presence of coolant.

Incidently, you get a higher dose of radiation from living near a coal plant than you would living near a US nuclear power plant (bet you didn't know coal plants spew radiation as well as CO2 and other nasties). Really interesting article on it http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/...t/colmain.html
Any nuclear plant releasing a fraction of the radiation a coal plant does would be shut down by the government!

US foreign energy dependence is affecting 300 million people (not to mention those people living in supplier countries we mess with and screw over). Fossil Fuel burning and Global warming are affecting 6 billion people and every creature and plant on the planet. That's a lot more worrysome to me than those who had to relocate because of flawed and dead empire's dreadfull incompetence 20 years ago. That tragedy should be remembered, but it should not stop us from progress!

US government oversight of virtually anything nuclear, corporate or not, is the realm of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The NRC is headed by a 5 person committee. Currently, 3 of those 5 (including the chairman) are Clinton appointees, two of them are Bush appointees (and one of those two is a democrat.)

www.nrc.gov

NRC's primary mission is to protect the public health and safety, and the environment from the effects of radiation from nuclear reactors, materials, and waste facilities.

The only agencies stricter than the NRC that I can think of are the Secret Service and the National Security Agency. Believe me, these people are nitpicker extrordoinaires. I've seen someone get reamed for an hour, written up, suspended, and fined for accidently leaving a blank line inbetween entries in a log book at a tiny research facility. The NRC does that and worse.

The US nuclear commercial power industry has the best health safety record of any power industry in the US: 0 deaths.

Why? The public does not tolerate any mistakes at all by the nuclear industry. The tiniest flaw will result in a feeding frenzy... then you never hear about all the people killed and maimed every year at coal plants in steam explosions.

Is it perfect? No. Can it be improved? Sure and it should. But it is extremely safe. Safe enough for me. I'd rather live near a nuke plant than suck coal fumes. I'd be fine with a reactor in my backyard.

[13]

It's easy to accuse others of NIMBY when there's nothing similar in your backyard, Summit. FYI - Fermi 2 is closer to my home than Davis-Besse.

It's easy to call someone ignorant when you know far more than others on the subject, Summit. I don't pretend to know about nuclear safeguards, but I do know that the material is heavily safeguarded for a reason.

Summit, it's easy to defend nuclear power when all your argument focuses on is unproven technology, safety records, and safety features, instead of the "what-ifs," of which there literally thousands of possibilities when it comes to nuclear material.

Your vehement, one-sided defense of the nuclear option scares and dissapoints me. You're a smart kid, you know better than that.

[Mcwop]

Wind does not kill enough birds to stop its use. The wind turbine farm in Altamont Pass, CA has killed approximately 22,000 birds over its 20 year lifetime.

22,000 birds over 7000 turbines is just over 3 birds / turbine, and 0.157… birds/turbine/year.

In comparison the Exxon Valdez disaster killed an estimated 250,000 birds, including 250 bald eagles.

Many more birds are killed annually in collisions with vehicles (60 million).

None of this takes into account the birds that would have been killed by the pollution generated by coal. Coal mining is a huge water polluter - been to West Virginia lately? There are no fish left in many streams for some birds to eat.

Overall, wind is a far cleaner and less damaging (no source is 100% without waste) source of electricity than coal, nuclear or hydro.

[Lone Star]

I know you're baiting me

darn tootin'! thanks for the long response--- I didn't read it, because, like you said, I was baiting you.

[DJSapp]

Japan?

8910

We helped to rebuild Japan's infrastructure and economy after WWII, not send them a bill for attacking like we did to Germany after WWI. Two very different results.

[Ski Monkey]

Summit, it's easy to defend nuclear power when all your argument focuses on is unproven technology, safety records, and safety features, instead of the "what-ifs," of which there literally thousands of possibilities when it comes to nuclear material.

I actually thought that Summit's posts where pretty spot on. I would prolly consider the maglev sun launcher and the thermocouple more in the experimental/theoretical phase though.

13, if you're concerned about the safety of a technology, then doesn't it make sense to focus on safety records and safety features that are designed and implemented to combat what-ifs? I mean, why can you sustain a 727 crash into a reactor core without breaching it?

While I don't want a plant in my backyard, I live on a steep mountain hillside, I'm the least opposed to it given the choice of of the other large scale powerplants.

[13]

13, if you're concerned about the safety of a technology, then doesn't it make sense to focus on safety records and safety features that are designed and implemented to combat what-ifs? I mean, why can you sustain a 727 crash into a reactor core without breaching it?

Good question.

In my opinion, highlighting the safety records/features of nuclear plants as a reason to advocate nuclear power is similar to picking a backcountry partner based on the number of days they've spent in the backcountry without incident.

What's funny is, I actually advocate both nuclear and wind power.

[Ski Monkey]

Good question.

In my opinion, highlighting the safety records/features of nuclear plants as a reason to advocate nuclear power is similar to picking a backcountry partner based on the number of days they've spent in the backcountry without incident.

What's funny is, I actually advocate both nuclear and wind power.

I see your point, kind of the same thinking regarding fund managers and mutual funds. Past performance does not guarantee future returns. My feeling is that as a Nuke Plant you have much more control over your environment and therefore those theories may not be as apt.

[Arty50]

In my opinion, highlighting the safety records/features of nuclear plants as a reason to advocate nuclear power is similar to picking a backcountry partner based on the number of days they've spent in the backcountry without incident.

Yes, but that track record could very well be a result of their knowledge of avy safety and consequent ability to mitigate risk. Just like nuclear safety is the result of the highly detailed design, monitoring, and vigilant government oversight of reactors. Your analogy assumes that there isn't a calculated process behind the safety record. That's not true.

My only reservation regarding nuclear power is the waste generated by the process. Until a proper system is established to deal with the waste (Yucca Mtn is a joke), I don't think we should go down that road.

As for launching it into space, I don't think that's the solution we should necessarily be looking at. I used to work in the missile industry. The program I worked on had a 100% launch record. To this day, it is the only rocket program to have such a record. Every other rocket design has fallen from the sky in an official (not development/test) launch. Can you imagine a rocket carrying nuclear waste blowing up during its launch phase and showering nuclear material into the sky? With the track record of every single missile program to date (except one, which isn't designed for the heavy payloads were talking about), it's a guarantee.

[splat]

I'm fairly certain that as a prime 'downwinder' from Hanford's National Plutonium Processing Facility, I might be the only one here who has actually been significantly radiated by a nuclear facility with hot radioactive particles containing plutonium, ruthenium, strontium and cesium. It fucked a lot of people up. There's a trial going on right now in Federal Court in Spokane to get the government to cop to the damage done.

Hanford was established during the Second World War to produce plutonium and other bomb material for America's nuclear weapons. Peak production years were reached in the 1960s. All weapons material production was halted in the late 1980s and the site is now engaged in the world's largest environmental cleanup project. Hanford is operated by the US Dept. of Energy (successor to the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and the Manhattan Project).

edit:/sp

[char]

shot into the sun (solar orbit capable maglev launcher be reality in decades)

We can't even get people into and out of space without accidents, why would we launch nuclear waste into the atmosphere? I know it's not coming back, but if you fuck up with that sort of thing the consequences are enormous. Better to keep it on the ground.


I've heard rumblings about the potential for wind turbine to pull enough energy out of the air that they effect the local weather. It will be interesting to see what comes of that.

Shit, a basic first step would be to require that new homes in areas that get "x" days of sun per year have "x" sq. footage of solar panel incorporated into the roof.


Summit,

I'm still not with you on nuc's being the end all be all of our power problems. They certainly will serve as a transition fuel, but the supply is still finite, causing the same problems we will have/are having with fossil fuels.