Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 27 to 39 of 57
  1. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Cedar Grove, Wi-Sheboygan
    Posts
    1,582
    If when you read this story your blood doesn't start to boil I don't know what will, The base lineof this story is ismple this, since the Conserivtive moment has gain alot of steam in the past several years, and all have been encouraged to conserve energy both at home and at work the Utilites companies are now losing money due to people using less and less energy therefore the bottom lines of alot of Utiliy company's are getting smaller and smaller and now are starting to access a fee for none usage or not should I say using your fair share !!!! enjoy the read and brace yourself because there's no telling when your local utility company will be charging you for none use or using less than you use to use.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...r_nothing.html

  2. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Keokuk, IA
    Posts
    5,520
    Quote Originally Posted by jerryd_2008 View Post
    Lost me on this one, CF. What CO2 does a nuclear plant emit? Why isn't nuclear 90-100% just like hydro? You talking some birth-to-death scenario or ??????
    I think he was talking efficiency. Meaning the avilable energy in the fuel vs. the electrical energy genrated. Nuclear has lower efficiency because it needs multiple isolated cooling loops and I think for safety reasons, they use cooler feedwater than is ideal for energy efficency.

    also, utilities are sometimes limited in using all of the potential energy in their ful source. A uranium degrades, I think some of it become enriched or turns into a isotope that is ideal for making weapons grade material... os the governemnt forces them to take that the fuel out of service, even though it has a lot of life left in it.. ot prevent the risk of weapons grade material falling into the wrong hands.

    that's at least how my BIL explained it... he's an engineer at a nuclear plant. I think either a shfit supervisor or engineer.

  3. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    SW Wisconsin
    Posts
    4,471
    Quote Originally Posted by larrytbm View Post
    And the money will come from where?? Your pocket thru higher taxes, either income taxes, sales taxes or some small hidden fees on your utility bills, etc. No such thing as a free lunch is still very much true.
    That is singularly a picture of the negative while ignoring the positive side of the Energy Conservation equation. The overall comprehensive picture can or could be, by a wide-margin a positive picture.

    A lot of the wasteful usage of energy is our big-time promoted lifestyle.

    I have a web page explaining how anyone can greatly reduce their home energy use without spending a penny while saving a lot on monthly utility bills. The content is only subordinately about the A/C.
    http://www.udarrell.com/check_ac.html

    Always consider that when you cut energy usage while stimulating jobs & incomes the gross income tax revenues go up while the average tax per capita goes down.

    Our main mission is to leverage the ratio of increased GDP to taxes & real per capita income purchasing power. In the past we have ignored the real per capita net income purchasing power.

    Therefore, NO or insufficient Demand-Side, whereby there is too much Supply-Side is a negative wasteful cost factor, resulting in excess building of inefficient vehicles, homes, offices, etc., is a huge negative.

    We will have to bit the bullet big-time in the short-term - to get to a non-inflated sustainable & balanced plateaued economy. - Darrell
    Last edited by udarrell; 07-09-2009 at 12:43 PM. Reason: Reworsding for meaning...

  4. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Northwest Arkansas via Chicago Area via Straight Up from There on Lake Superior
    Posts
    1,411

    Long, But I Believe ...

    Forgive this one post says all approach. You’re on my topic now and have lots to say.

    Quote Originally Posted by DanW13 View Post


    Besides all of that Mr. T Boone Pickens who decide during the Presidential Campaign to buy up some 700 wind turbines to hopefully make alot of money on the deal, well he's now wanting to sell out of the idea and switchhis ideas all over to NG exploration in hopes of gaining some huge profits there, will have to keep an eye on that situation.

    Saw T Boone Pickens speak at local university. Impressive. Profit motivated. That’s alright with me. He then turned me off when I asked him the question of what his plans to use NG for transportation and power would it do to the availability and cost for over 50,000,000 residential/small business consumers and would it obsolete our personally very expensive home NG appliances. Flippant answer: There’s lots of NG out there. So? What about my concerns? Just look at what corn ethanol did to the price of our food!

    Quote Originally Posted by mark beiser View Post
    I saw a show on the Discovery channel a couple of months ago talking about some new wind turbine technology some people in Australia were working on.
    It doesn't require that there actually be wind blowing, it works off hot air rising.
    ...
    Have seen similar idea based on heat differential of deep and surface ocean water and natural currents created by induced flow. Got all excited about that. Haven’t heard any more about it. I guess just another case of “not cost effective” or before it’s time. But, take heart, how many materials did Tom Edison test before he got one that worked in his light bulb?

    Quote Originally Posted by shophound View Post

    Society and government must encourage an attitude that does not discourage profit, but simultaneously encourages profit gained via integrity and honesty vs. deceit and callous disregard for quality. This is a precarious matter in its own right...government intervention is often perceived as invasive and arbitrary, but lack of government intervention often leads to deceit and callous disregard for quality. …[/LIST]
    Nothing wrong with profit. Really is a measure of the cost-effectiveness of the solution after any fad stage. Also, government serves a very useful purpose when it creates sensible regulation that changes mind sets/market share dominance and leads to a new way of doing things. Example: requiring more efficient frigs lead to GE, I believe, totally changing the design and process. They didn’t want to but the Feds made them and they did not tell them how to do it. That’s critical!

    Quote Originally Posted by DanW13 View Post


    I'm all for Nucluear, build 200 more power plants starting today, lets drill for our own oil until we find ways other sources of engery that are better and cleaner. We still need all of the above approach IMO.

    Amen, Dan! Got to be truthful here. I worked for almost 15 years at Argonne National Lab, home of the early nuclear reactor designs. And, Dan, if the Feds hadn’t let the drop in the price of oil after the 1970’s oil crisis cause us to drop all innovative programs to address energy production and use, we would have had 35 years to put those 200 Nuc’s in place. Why are we so deaf? France and Japan heard the message and we just “enjoyed” the cheap gas for our cars. The Feds also needed the gonads to ignore Three Mile Island and Chernobyl and just keep innovating the design for safety and cost. Didn’t happen! Political, not solution oriented thinking!

    Quote Originally Posted by motoguy128 View Post


    Similarly, ethanol is considered a "green" energy source, but after you factor in the energy requred to prodce it and the "pollution" done to farmland along with petroleum products and fossil fuels used in the overall rpocess... it's not really all that green. Further complicated by the fact that it can't be transported in pipeline for long distances. But then again... I'm from Iowa...so I'm all for it.
    Motoguy, have a old friend that was a Nuc plant quality guy. We went over and over trying to figure out the economics of corn ethanol. Finally found some print sources that told the real cost of corn ethanol, excluding the impact on food costs. In terms of the water usage and energy requirements, corn ethanol is a net energy loss! It takes more energy to make than it gives back!

    Motoguy, shame on you people in Iowa for putting profit and subsidies ahead of the reality. Politicians should never decide complex, industry changing issues. They should only provide goals and let industry experts chosen by professional review set all short, medium and long term goals and approaches which hang together and which provide a comprehensive plan for all to understand and approve.

    Quote Originally Posted by justbud38134 View Post


    There are lots of little things to do, I try to use this kind of stuff as add on's to my reg ac work. Some buy the extras and some don't. I've tested them all and they will help your utility bill.
    JB, there are also a lot of ways to get energy. Read that there are 14 different ways that exist and that we need all of them to get to 2050 while we address environmental issues. The current mentality and that of most aggressive environmentalists is “I want the solution now and here it is!” I am very pro environment and love the outdoors, but this approach is unreal and only results in knee-jerk reactions that cost mega bucks and do not solve the real problem. Examples: corn ethanol, solar, wind, shut down coal plants now, kill nuclear plants, etc. May sound like ranting, but I repeat: we need industry experts chosen by professional review setting all short, medium and long term goals and approaches which hang together and which provide a comprehensive plan for all to understand and approve.

  5. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Northwest Arkansas via Chicago Area via Straight Up from There on Lake Superior
    Posts
    1,411
    Quote Originally Posted by motoguy128 View Post
    I think he was talking efficiency. ... turns into a isotope that is ideal for making weapons grade material... os the governemnt forces them to take that the fuel out of service, even though it has a lot of life left in it.. ot prevent the risk of weapons grade material falling into the wrong hands.

    that's at least how my BIL explained it... he's an engineer at a nuclear plant. I think either a shfit supervisor or engineer.
    Yeah, Motoguy, I screwed up there.

    See my previous post for my exposure to nuclear. I have also read some pretty comprehensive books on the subject. Do you know that our nuclear strategy is based on an unproven policy that the effects of exposure to radiation is linear? That means the more exposure and/or the intensity of the exposure accumulates in a straight-line, bad way. Wrong! Exposure from a nuc plant is regulated at about 10 MR (millirads, I believe). But the natural background radiation people get can be 100, 300, 600 MR here in the US, 6,000 MR in the Scandinavian countries, AND 12,000 MR in Iran! Don't see all of them dead from radiation, do you. They're still planting roadside bombs and killing our guys.

    You know the biggest emitter of radiation? Coal plants. One million tons of coal burned a year releases large amounts of radiation. They are probably the largest emitter of mercury also.

    The other bad nuclear policy is that we will use uranium only one time and then discard. Why? Security concerns. Do you know that reused uranium can be recycled and recycled with new material in a reactor until it is the size of a beer can? Now what it easier to handle and discard, tons of slightly used uranium or a beer can you could put in lead and drive out to the storage in your pick-up truck or even just sink it in a few feet of water and let it set? Just remember about security, handling really hot materials causes you to die fast. A dirty bomb is probably more realistic and threatening than a plutonium one. Drastically reducing the waste and containing it in those "5 acres" (doubt that) is a much easier security issue than handling tons of material half way across the US to Yucca Mountain.

  6. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Keokuk, IA
    Posts
    5,520
    My understanding was the an attempt to further use the uranium, would result in a security risk because weapons grade-ready material would exist at every nuclear power facility. Of course, realistically, if terroists could break into a nuclear facility, they could do worse things than steal radioctive material.

    I agree, that a change in policy regarding nuclear power is in roder. I believe France and Germany get something like 75% of their power form nuclear plants. Very safe, clean, reliable technology where the waste is in ery small qualtities.

    I wonder how many people have died worldwide from nuclear energy or uranium mining accidents... compared to coal mining accidents???

  7. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Northwest Arkansas via Chicago Area via Straight Up from There on Lake Superior
    Posts
    1,411
    Quote Originally Posted by motoguy128 View Post
    ...

    I wonder how many people have died worldwide from nuclear energy or uranium mining accidents... compared to coal mining accidents???
    Do you know that not one person has ever died in a Nuclear Navy accident? Not one, in all of those enclosed subs, for how many years? My buddy with an advanced technical degree and who worked in quality for a nuc plant has nothing but total respect for Nuclear Navy guys.

    Nobody died at Three Mile Island. I believe somebody turned off the cooling system. I think sub-100 died at Chernobyl, mostly 1st responders. You know that Chernobyl was the result of a stupid design that nowhere except Russia would use and it was triggered by an administrator wanting to check something and it ran away. I believe that that administrator screwed up at another plant also. Also, Russia had available pills to reduce the affect of thyroid cancer from the release, I believe, but didn't use them. How about, 1,000's of babies died due to abortion caused by parental fear. I could probably do some more, but you get the point.

    As to mining, all mining is dangerous. I was raised in a deep-mining district where on average one miner a week died over many decades.

  8. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    273
    This is totally bogus. The cap and trade rukles would not aply to private homes. just a scare tactic.

  9. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    273
    The cap and trade regulations do NOT apply to provate homes. Totaly bogus scare tactics

  10. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Keokuk, IA
    Posts
    5,520
    Fundamentally, three mile island wa a combination of poor design, lack of proper instrumentation and inadequate programming of interlocks. any 1 of those 3 would have prevented the accident.

    The accident started because during maintenance on a demineralizer (non-critical ancillary system), water got into the instrument air lines and forced the primary cooling water valves to fail shut.

    What kind of retarded engineer designs installs valves on a cooling system that fail shut??? Even automobiles have thermostats that fail open on their cooling systems.

    Worse, there were no limit switches on the valves so the operators weren;t sure what was happening.

    Later on, when the water level in thereactor was at a ciritcal level, is was unknown because a pressure based level transmitter was used. that's normally a good relaible type of point level transmitter... except when used in vessel that could become pressurized. Another bad design.

    the only good design, was the series of pumps and overflow tanks and containment building that allowed all the steam and overflowing cooling water to mostly stay contained. They also overbuilt the containment building. It actually reached 29psig inside the containment building!!! without failing!

    In Russia, somehow I think they allowed all of the cooling water in the reactor to drain out or just shutdown the cooling water pumps. Try doing that to a CFB and you'll have a big explosion...nevermind a nuclear reactor. They at least kept some water in the TMI reactor, but it still wasn't enough to prevent permenant damage.

  11. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    999
    Quote Originally Posted by ron3637 View Post
    The cap and trade regulations do NOT apply to provate homes. Totaly bogus scare tactics
    I do believe that you'll be paying more per KWH from your local coal-fired power plant. Likewise, for other forms of energy, maybe not as much per unit of energy.

    The cost of all manufactured items will rise, and most probably, that of services.

    So, it will affect us ALL.

    Amp

  12. #38
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    SW Wisconsin
    Posts
    4,471

    What?

    Quote Originally Posted by ron3637 View Post
    The cap and trade regulations do NOT apply to private homes. Totaly bogus scare tactics
    It gives the impression it applies to homes, homes are normally owned, bought or rented by individuals.

    I hope Cap & trade does not apply to privately owned homes; I have not read much of the bill.

    Please explain why it does not apply to privately owned homes. - Darrell

  13. #39
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Cedar Grove, Wi-Sheboygan
    Posts
    1,582
    The Cap & Tax Bill all 1,300 pages of it contains alot more than what your hearing in the news, Trust me when I say that !!! your utility cost will on average increase atleast $300/yr if not close to $1,300 once everything in the bill would be implenmented. Just to have politicians voting on a Bill that is 1,300 pages long and no one read it prior to voting on it should scare everyone to death, where even the politicians do not know what the hell they voted on or what the real cost is to us the TAX PAYER.

    Look at Mr. Waxman, his GW bill where he was asked a question on "his Bill" he didn't even know what was is it and he authored the bill !!

    As for Nuclear energy, they now have small Nuclear power systems so small that they can be installed in a neighborhood to power several city blocks and is no larger than a automobile and will supply enough energy for up to 10yrs. The technology is huge but we will never see it for awhile.

    Accordingly the POTUS has given the go ahead to build 7 or 8 more Nuclear power plants, but when there going to be online is yet to be determined but hopefully it will be within 5-6yrs where it will be needed since the Gov't is hoping to shut the coal industry down so there's going to be a need to replace that energy that will be lost form the coal power plants, but there has been alot of Coal power plants being converted over to NG slowly but surely.

    If the POTUS can keep his promise of Clean Coal technology and get that going will be a huge step in the right direction until we have a POTUS who will delivery real solution to our Energy problems of today. We've been promised for over 30 plus years to get off the Foreign Oil but we never get any closer to doing it, but instead we pass the blame around to everyone else excpet those who are the problem our GOV'T is the problem and they have continually stood in the way of innovation and progress to be more Engery effcient.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event