Notices
Results 1 to 36 of 36
Like Tree5Likes
  • 1 Post By Harold14370
  • 1 Post By Harold14370
  • 2 Post By Harold14370
  • 1 Post By Ken Fabos

Thread: New power sources planned to replace nuclear plant

  1. #1 New power sources planned to replace nuclear plant 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    The Sierra Club, Barbara Boxer and other so-called environmentalists got their wish a couple of years ago when the San Onofre nuclear plant was shut down. Now we find out what will be used to replace the power, and - surprise - they will be burning more fossil fuel. What did these ninnies think was going to happen? I guess they believed their own solar power pipe dreams.

    Thanks, "environmentalists" for the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

    New power sources planned to replace nuclear plant

    LOS ANGELES (AP) -- California regulators Thursday approved a plan for two utilities to develop replacement power to help fill the void left by the closure of the San Onofre nuclear power plant, but environmentalists warned it could open the way for more dirty energy.

    <snip>

    Environmentalists say the decision increases the odds of seeing more polluting energy as California seeks to address climate change, but Commissioner Mike Florio said no one in the world has managed to run a complex electricity grid without some fossil-fuel energy to handle unexpected shortages.

    Solar production, for example, surges during the day when the sun is shining, then ebbs.

    A statement from environmental groups said the decision raises the risk of "new, gas-fired power plants that are often built in low-income communities of color." They said existing gas plants are contributing to ozone pollution that leaves the Los Angeles basin with some of the dirtiest air in the country.

    While the decision "does require that a portion of the energy come from renewable sources, the utilities will ultimately get to choose where the bulk of the energy comes from, which could include natural gas," said the statement from the Sierra Club of California, the California Environmental Justice Alliance and Earthjustice.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    They're not closing it. It's been shutdown since late 2011. The fossil or renewable question is already being dealt with by whatever power California can generate or buy from other generators.

    Going for renewables with natural gas back up isn't ideal but it's the best strategy. The more renewable power generated, the less the back up is needed. We're looking at 40-60 year investments here. Start with mostly renewables, keep your existing on-call gas backup generators. Expand your renewable network as much as you can.

    Sometime in the next few decades there will be grid-scale storage and affordable industrial, regional and domestic storage options. So the gas back up generators last longer and longer because they're needed less and less. Once the storage is adequate for whole regions, the outmoded gas generators will go the way of the whalebone corset.


    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    They're not closing it. It's been shutdown since late 2011. The fossil or renewable question is already being dealt with by whatever power California can generate or buy from other generators.
    Yes, it was shut down in 2011. They could have replaced the steam generators, but decided to shut down, thanks in large part to all the grief they were getting from Boxer and company.
    Going for renewables with natural gas back up isn't ideal but it's the best strategy. The more renewable power generated, the less the back up is needed. We're looking at 40-60 year investments here. Start with mostly renewables, keep your existing on-call gas backup generators. Expand your renewable network as much as you can.

    Sometime in the next few decades there will be grid-scale storage and affordable industrial, regional and domestic storage options. So the gas back up generators last longer and longer because they're needed less and less. Once the storage is adequate for whole regions, the outmoded gas generators will go the way of the whalebone corset.
    I doubt very seriously your statement about the grid scale storage. And, the fact remains that California will be putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Sierra Club did their part to make it happen.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    I am pro-nuclear but even I have to admit that plant should have been shut down forever.
    USA has built a lot of poorly designed reactors that were too expensive and dirty to run.
    The San Ofre plant was closed because the (newly replaced) steam generator tubes were cracking and the repair costs were too high to make the plant worth running again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    California will be putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
    Than what?

    Whatever their plans are, they've got to be better than what they've been doing for the last couple of years.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    I am pro-nuclear but even I have to admit that plant should have been shut down forever.
    USA has built a lot of poorly designed reactors that were too expensive and dirty to run.
    The San Ofre plant was closed because the (newly replaced) steam generator tubes were cracking and the repair costs were too high to make the plant worth running again.
    Really? Lots of plants have replaced their steam generators. Why do you say the plant was poorly designed? The SG modification was screwed up, but what else?

    Quote Originally Posted by Adelady
    Than what?

    Whatever their plans are, they've got to be better than what they've been doing for the last couple of years.
    More carbon dioxide than if the nuclear plant was put back on line.
    dan hunter likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    San Onofre NGS was a pressurized water reactor. They work OK-ish for things like ships but do not really scale well for main grid power generation. As you are pointing out the Achilles heel of the design is the steam generator system. The high pressures used demand high pressure piping and containment vessels. These are expensive and generally short lived.
    Also the fuel has to be enriched which increases the operating costs by quite a bit.
    Originally Posted by Adelady
    Than what?

    Whatever their plans are, they've got to be better than what they've been doing for the last couple of years.



    More carbon dioxide than if the nuclear plant was put back on line.
    Yes, but it was unlikely the plant would have been put back online anyhow. Just the repair bills make that an unatractive option even if you don't consider the politics or the idea that the plant is old anyhow.
    (Of course the recent Fukushima tsunami disaster in Japan does not help either)

    If nuclear power generation had not stalled after the Three Mile Island fiasco USA would likely have had much better systems than San Onofre NGS ready to go instead of simply trying to keep old tech like San Onofre running.

    All 100 nuclear reactors currently operating in USA have construction start dates prior to 1977.
    Last edited by dan hunter; March 18th, 2014 at 09:24 AM. Reason: spelling
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    San Ofre NGS was a pressurized water reactor. They work OK-ish for things like ships but do not really scale well for main grid power generation.
    There are a number of pressurized water reactors operating around the country. They work well. The same basic PWR design is used in advanced reactor designs like
    Westinghouse's AP1000. The main difference with the advanced reactor designs is in more passive safety features.
    As you are pointing out the Achilles heel of the design is the steam generator system. The high pressures used demand high pressure piping and containment vessels. These are expensive and generally short lived.
    Short lived, as in a 40-year design life? Many plants have gotten license extensions for 20 more years. I wouldn't call 60 years short lived. The steam generators generally would only have to be replaced once in the life of the plant.
    Also the fuel has to be enriched which increases the operating costs by quite a bit.
    France has problems with theirs too.
    What doesn't have problems?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Yes, but it was unlikely the plant would have been put back online anyhow. Just the repair bills make that an unatractive option even if you don't consider the politics or the idea that the plant is old anyhow.
    Well, somebody thought it was worth putting in the new steam generators in the first place. Nothing much really changed, except they were taking a lot more political heat, and gas prices have been coming down. Nuclear doesn't get much credit for reducing greenhouse gases, mainly because of political reasons, and lobbying by Sierra Club and the like. The renewables get the "green" subsidies and mandates even though they are costly and cannot replace a base load plant.
    sculptor likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    San Ofre NGS was a pressurized water reactor. They work OK-ish for things like ships but do not really scale well for main grid power generation.
    There are a number of pressurized water reactors operating around the country. They work well. The same basic PWR design is used in advanced reactor designs like
    Westinghouse's AP1000. The main difference with the advanced reactor designs is in more passive safety features.
    As you are pointing out the Achilles heel of the design is the steam generator system. The high pressures used demand high pressure piping and containment vessels. These are expensive and generally short lived.
    Short lived, as in a 40-year design life? Many plants have gotten license extensions for 20 more years. I wouldn't call 60 years short lived. The steam generators generally would only have to be replaced once in the life of the plant.
    Also the fuel has to be enriched which increases the operating costs by quite a bit.
    France has problems with theirs too.
    What doesn't have problems?
    All 100 nuclear reactors currently operating in USA have construction start dates prior to 1977. They are old. Complete retubes in most NGS take at least 10 years of down time before any work is done so the areas inside the vault can cool enough for workers to be inside them.
    (It is the short half-life isotopes that they have to let decay.)

    Edit:
    The NRC has several pages about San Onofre as well as a wealth of information on other nuclear plants and other sites.
    NRC: Sites Undergoing Decommissioning (by Location or Name)

    NRC: Plans for Decommissioning of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Units 2 and 3

    NRC: SONGS Steam Generator Tube Degradation

    NRC: San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station - Units 2 and 3
    Last edited by dan hunter; March 18th, 2014 at 09:28 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    The renewables get the "green" subsidies and mandates even though they are costly and cannot replace a base load plant.
    Renewables get subsidies. What about nuclear subsidies?

    A 2008 study by Management Information Services Inc looked at US energy more widely than just electricity, and took in all federal incentives, not simply R&D, from 1950 to 2006. Some $726 billion was identified (2006 dollars). Its conclusions included:
    • The largest incentive category was tax concessions, especially for oil but also wind. No tax concession was for nuclear in this period.
    • Total support for nuclear power over the 56 years was $65 billion, 9% of the total incentives. This compared with $50 billion (7%) for non-hydro renewables (wind and solar) plus geothermal.
    • The main support was for oil and gas - $436 billion, 60% of total, with coal at $93 billion (13%).
    • Most of the support for nuclear power was in R&D.
    • Today nuclear power in the USA pays more than it receives due to contributions to the federal nuclear waste fund, which so far exceed disbursements from it by $14 billion. (There is no corresponding payment from other energy sources.)
    • http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Economic-Aspects/Energy-Subsidies-and-External-Costs/
    (And anyone who thinks the nuclear industries' acumulated contributions to the nuclear waste fund will completely offset government costs in managing wastes and other "externalities" has more faith than I do.)
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,224
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Sometime in the next few decades there will be grid-scale storage and affordable industrial, regional and domestic storage options.
    I think local storage/generation will take off a lot faster based on simple economics. As power prices rise people will have more incentive to implement local storage. Hawaii (oil based power generation) just hit grid parity even with battery storage; long term the price of utility power is now about the same of long term price of off-grid power.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,224
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I doubt very seriously your statement about the grid scale storage. And, the fact remains that California will be putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Sierra Club did their part to make it happen.
    Not for long:
    =====================================
    California electric grid sets solar generation record


    March 10 (Reuters) - California set back-to-back solar power records last week, the state grid operator said on Monday. The amount of electricity produced from carbon-free solar facilities connected to the grid reached 4,093 megawatts on Saturday, surpassing the day-earlier record of 3,926 MW, the California Independent System Operator (ISO) said in a statement.


    With 5,231 MW, California leads the nation in installed solar generation, including thermal and photovoltaic facilities, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association.

    Power generated from solar has more than doubled from June 2012 when the ISO recorded 2,071 MW of peak production, the ISO said. "This shows that California is making remarkable progress in not only getting new resources approved and connected to the grid, but making meaningful contributions in keeping the lights on as well," Steve Berberich, president the California ISO, said in a statement.
    ============
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    The amount of electricity produced from carbon-free solar facilities connected to the grid reached 4,093 megawatts on Saturday, surpassing the day-earlier record of 3,926 MW, the California Independent System Operator (ISO) said in a statement.
    ============
    And rather misleading, at least as far as PV power, which is the worst non-fossil fuel alternative energy from a life cycle Green house gas emissions perspective and doesn't resolve base loading problems. It's return on cost are relative long as well and probably wouldn't even be viable if not for huge government subsidize. California's biggest savings in green house gases have been conservation laws by a long shot--something the entire nation should follow.

    http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/57187.pdf
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; March 18th, 2014 at 05:07 PM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    745
    Harold, I don't understand how the closure of this nuclear plant was the Sierra Club's doing. Sure, they probably were persistent opponents but they are a small organisation with minimal mainstream political representation, who have limited political reach. The decision was never theirs.


    There is plenty of hard headed obstinacy when it comes to climate, emissions and our energy choices, but it is not confined to Environmentalism; the whole spectrum of mainstream politics is failing on climate and emissions, and failing at least as badly as extreme anti-nuclear environmentalists do. The failures are most of all that of those in mainstream politics, who have the power to enact policy. I don't think the solutions will come from The Sierra Club, or should, even if I think it's vital that we have organisations that seek to understand the longer term consequences, make them widely known and urge mainstream politics to incorporate them into their choices.

    Harold, you appear to be most critical of the nuclear plant closure based on climate and emissions impacts, yet I have never known that you thought climate and emissions are a genuinely serious concern. Just where do you stand on climate and emissions? Do you accept the fundamentals of the science on climate? Do you accept the need for emissions to be drastically reduced?

    You may have stated what you think previously elsewhere and why but it might be worth stating again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Fabos View Post
    Harold, I don't understand how the closure of this nuclear plant was the Sierra Club's doing. Sure, they probably were persistent opponents but they are a small organisation with minimal mainstream political representation, who have limited political reach. The decision was never theirs.
    They had been trying to shut down the plant for years. I think they are fairly influential in shaping attitudes about environmental issues, especially in a place like California. The plant was hanging by a thread economically. Like all nuclear plants they are challenged by falling natural gas prices. The regulators give no preference to nuclear over fossil fuels, like they do for renewables. Sierra club and other "environmental" groups have some part of the responsibility for that. The utility was going to have to struggle not only with the economic issue but some ugly dealings with the NRC where they would be cast in the media as irresponsible and a danger to the community. They didn't want the bad image. It's not good for business. So the Sierra Club played their part in the shutdown. They didn't do it by themselves, of course.
    Harold, you appear to be most critical of the nuclear plant closure based on climate and emissions impacts, yet I have never known that you thought climate and emissions are a genuinely serious concern. Just where do you stand on climate and emissions? Do you accept the fundamentals of the science on climate? Do you accept the need for emissions to be drastically reduced?

    You may have stated what you think previously elsewhere and why but it might be worth stating again.
    I agree with reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adelady
    (And anyone who thinks the nuclear industries' acumulated contributions to the nuclear waste fund will completely offset government costs in managing wastes and other "externalities" has more faith than I do.)
    True, when the government (read Obama) wastes the money by shutting down Yucca Mountain for no good reason.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    745
    I agree with reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.
    Harold, this seems woefully inadequate. I think you should be more forthcoming than that.

    I disagree with you of course; if the Sierra Club and it's kind have come to have excessive influence on energy policies it's because mainstream politics has allowed them to take up the low emissions cause by default. Mainstream politicians and parties have failed to front up to the climate problem in a consistent and effective way and a long term commitment to nuclear as solution is one major casualty of that negligence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Fabos View Post
    Harold, this seems woefully inadequate. I think you should be more forthcoming than that.
    That's okay. I find your approach woefully inadequate as well. It does no good vaguely complain about "mainstream politics." At least I have identified certain individuals and policies that are aggravating the problem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,224
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Fabos View Post
    Harold, I don't understand how the closure of this nuclear plant was the Sierra Club's doing.
    It wasn't. It's just easier to blame one person than to understand a fairly complex situation. Look at all the people who blame Obama for everything from unemployment to the deficit to the war in Afghanistan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Fabos View Post
    Harold, I don't understand how the closure of this nuclear plant was the Sierra Club's doing.
    It wasn't. It's just easier to blame one person than to understand a fairly complex situation. Look at all the people who blame Obama for everything from unemployment to the deficit to the war in Afghanistan.
    They wanted it shut down. It got shut down, and they were very surprised that the power would be replaced by fossil fuels. It shows their ignorance about what is required to operate an electrical grid. One thing we try to do here is combat ignorance.
    Lynx_Fox and Dave Wilson like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    745
    I still believe that the conservative Right's decision to deny the seriousness of climate change has been more profoundly distorting of climate-energy politics than anything nuclear denying environmental lobbyists have done. I think nuclear's dismal public PR profile is exacerbated by a failure by conservatives to commit to strong climate action - ie that if conservative politics would put as much effort into shilling for nuclear to fix the climate problem as they shill for fossil fuels to prevent fixing it nuclear would be in a much better PR position and probably be already booming.

    A high and rising price on emissions would improve nuclear's PR position enormously because I don't think anti-nuclear sentiment is deeply held by most ordinary people. The Conservative Right, not the Sierra Club, is adamantly opposed to pricing on emissions.

    A firm stance on climate would see major players in Commerce and Industry - currently being offered and shilling for the low budget deny and do nothing option - would almost certainly fall back to shilling for the kind of solutions they would prefer, which would probably be nuclear. Their shilling would become much more shrilling if the do nothing option were withdrawn completely. The Conservative Right have the power to do that but won't.

    Republicans in the US and their Australian imitators the LNP appear to be more committed than ever to the science denial blinkered do nothing option. Besides encompassing a much broader segment of mainstream politics than anti-nuclear environmentalism, the Right's entrenched use of false, misleading and deceptive claims - it's organised and coordinated lying about the biggest problem we face - is at odds with every low emissions option, including nuclear. The defense of the 'right' of fossil fuels to not have to pay for the economic damages arising from the climate consequences help's maintain fossil fuel's cost advantage over nuclear, so there is a big difference between nuclear being allowed to compete with renewables on a level playing field and nuclear and renewables being allowed to compete with fossil fuels on a level playing field.

    Nuclear's best feature IMO - low emissions - is no advantage within a political regulatory environment that denies the science on climate. As long as mainstream politics is strongly mobilised to defend the 'right' of fossil fuels to be subsidised by deferring costs to our descendents, costs that will keep on having to be paid for 10's of human generations, then mainsteam politics is failing us.

    If as much heartfelt effort was put into solving the climate problem by conservatives over the past 2 decades as they have put into defending the externalised subsidies to fossil fuels - or half as much effort as conservationists have - then nuclear would almost certainly be in a much better position to be a principle means employed to reduce emissions. And I would feel a lot more optimistic that we are capable of avoiding the worst climate scenarios.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Ken, this is your standard rant that you put in every thread. You should have a shorthand code for it, so people don't have to read through the whole thing every time. Next time, just write <insert standard Ken Fabos rant> or <sKFr> and I'll know what you mean.

    Have you ever heard the expression, If wishes were horses then beggars would ride? Your ifs don't mean a thing, and it doesn't help to wish that people did something else than what they did.

    If some people make wrong choices out of ignorance, how does it help that someone on the other side of the aisle also makes wrong choices out of ignorance, or makes more wrong choices than the people on your side of the aisle?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,224
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    They wanted it shut down.
    Yep. So did local homeowners, and local natural gas power plant operators, and the Mexican coal power industry . . .
    It shows their ignorance about what is required to operate an electrical grid. One thing we try to do here is combat ignorance.
    I recall all the pro-nuclear supporters claiming that shutting it down was pretty much guaranteed to cause summer blackouts. Looks like their ignorance was pretty profound as well.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    745
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Ken, this is your standard rant that you put in every thread. You should have a shorthand code for it, so people don't have to read through the whole thing every time. Next time, just write <insert standard Ken Fabos rant> or <sKFr> and I'll know what you mean.

    Have you ever heard the expression, If wishes were horses then beggars would ride? Your ifs don't mean a thing, and it doesn't help to wish that people did something else than what they did.

    If some people make wrong choices out of ignorance, how does it help that someone on the other side of the aisle also makes wrong choices out of ignorance, or makes more wrong choices than the people on your side of the aisle?
    Harold, you have not addressed any of the points I make about the ways that climate science denial and deliberate, politically organised obstructionism have impacted and distorted climate and energy policy. Dismissing what I say as a "rant" is not addressing the points I make; it's avoiding addressing the points I make. Whilst you appear very willing to wish that the Sierra Club and similar had done something else than what it did you appear to be avoiding any critique of other influences in a similar manner. To me that looks just a tad hypocritical. Are you seriously saying that a Republican party in the USA that accepts the science on climate and takes it seriously would do no more to advance solutions like nuclear than one that has made disbelief of climate science a badge of loyalty to their 'side of the isle' and is currently strongly mobilised to prevent and delay action on emissions and climate?

    My "side of the isle" (whatever that is) wants mainstream politics to approach the problem seriously and rationally - with the hope of developing and enacting more effective policy for reducing future damaging climate impacts. If that involves more use of nuclear - and I've repeatedly stated that I think that would indeed be the case - it does not change my strong desire to see the dangerously irresponsible and irrational position of mainstream conservative politics (in the USA and in Australia and elsewhere) on climate and emissions ended and replaced by policies intended to address the problem.

    I don't think you have ever comprehended my position because I suspect you, even more than I, are viewing things through an ideological filter. You don't seem able to see that I want this to NOT be decided by loud fringe minorities, but by sober and responsible politicians who take their responsibilities seriously, seek to be as well informed as possible and address the problem directly.

    Frankly I'm not convinced your desire to see emissions reduced is any more than a vague asperation that - if you were frank and forthcoming - would be followed by conditions and provisos that would make that asperation meaningless. Be forthcoming Harold. Does your OP reveal a genuine, heartfelt - or scientifically convinced - concern about the need for emissions reduction or is it just a gratuitous dig at 'greenies'?
    RedPanda likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Fabos View Post
    Harold, you have not addressed any of the points I make about the ways that climate science denial and deliberate, politically organised... blah, blah blah
    That's because it has nothing to do with this thread.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    77
    I though of an interesting energy created, though its probably not efficient. So gravity obviously pulls tuff towards the mass, so if you had a plate on the surface of earth and dropped a ball on it. Kinetic energy would have existence because of gravity, if we could convert this energy into electricity then we just created electricity out of nothing. To get the ball back up we could use pressurized air to force the ball back up a tube to start the process again. Tell me if there is any obvious flaw I have missed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Um, yes.
    Several obvious flaws come to mind right away.

    The biggest one is what you are asking about has nothing to do with what is going on in the thread.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Quote Originally Posted by frumpydolphin View Post
    I though of an interesting energy created, though its probably not efficient. So gravity obviously pulls tuff towards the mass, so if you had a plate on the surface of earth and dropped a ball on it. Kinetic energy would have existence because of gravity, if we could convert this energy into electricity then we just created electricity out of nothing. To get the ball back up we could use pressurized air to force the ball back up a tube to start the process again. Tell me if there is any obvious flaw I have missed.
    Why bother? The sun provides us with more energy than we could possibly use - in the form of direct radiation and in the inevitable consequence of the movements of cooler/warmer masses of air, otherwise referred to as wind. (We've been concentrating mostly on ancient sunlight driving photosynthesis resulting in concentrated carbon in the fossilised carcases of plants and animals for the past couple of centuries.)

    Far better to look at the simplest, shortest possible paths to redirecting that energy as it comes to us. And we're getting closer and closer to managing it cheaper and cheaper. Wind farms can provide society a surplus of reliable clean energy -- ScienceDaily
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    745
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Fabos View Post
    Harold, you have not addressed any of the points I make about the ways that climate science denial and deliberate, politically organised... blah, blah blah
    That's because it has nothing to do with this thread.
    Nice sidestep Harold. One "irrational", politicised and polarised influence on energy policy is open for criticism but others are off topic? Other irrational, politicised influences do exist and they directly and indirectly contributed to the political environment that resulted in the decision to close this nuclear plant.

    You could try and address the points I make rather than just shut down the discussion.
    Last edited by Ken Fabos; March 23rd, 2014 at 04:49 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    745
    Frumpydolphin, where does the energy come from to compress the air? What makes you think the energy required to lift these balls would be less than the kinetic potential energy gained by doing so?
    Last edited by Ken Fabos; March 24th, 2014 at 04:20 PM. Reason: strike kinetic
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    940
    Quote Originally Posted by frumpydolphin View Post
    I though of an interesting energy created, though its probably not efficient. So gravity obviously pulls tuff towards the mass, so if you had a plate on the surface of earth and dropped a ball on it. Kinetic energy would have existence because of gravity, if we could convert this energy into electricity then we just created electricity out of nothing. To get the ball back up we could use pressurized air to force the ball back up a tube to start the process again. Tell me if there is any obvious flaw I have missed.
    you can not be serious about this proposal. you can not create energy from nothing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    5
    Nothing wrong with this, if it is for the benefit of all....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by frumpydolphin View Post
    I though of an interesting energy created, though its probably not efficient. So gravity obviously pulls tuff towards the mass, so if you had a plate on the surface of earth and dropped a ball on it. Kinetic energy would have existence because of gravity, if we could convert this energy into electricity then we just created electricity out of nothing. To get the ball back up we could use pressurized air to force the ball back up a tube to start the process again. Tell me if there is any obvious flaw I have missed.
    Due to the conservation of energy, you would need to expend as much energy returning the ball to its original state as you would gain from dropping the ball. What you're suggesting is perpetual energy and it isn't possible.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    77
    People we were talking about energy so I said my idea, and to sum it up I was trying to invent a system to use gravity for energy, and why would it require energy to pressurize air? through a bunch of air in a box and its under pressure.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by frumpydolphin View Post
    People we were talking about energy so I said my idea, and to sum it up I was trying to invent a system to use gravity for energy, and why would it require energy to pressurize air? through a bunch of air in a box and its under pressure.
    Learn some science before spouting your ideas. How do you throw some air into a box without a source of energy? Do you think it's going to jump in there on its own?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,224
    Quote Originally Posted by frumpydolphin View Post
    People we were talking about energy so I said my idea, and to sum it up I was trying to invent a system to use gravity for energy, and why would it require energy to pressurize air? through a bunch of air in a box and its under pressure.
    The "throwing" takes energy. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Refurbishing legacy equipments by modern power sources(!!NEW!!)
    By Lawrenzo in forum Electrical and Electronics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 12th, 2012, 10:46 AM
  2. nuclear plant
    By Heinsbergrelatz in forum Physics
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: March 19th, 2011, 09:09 PM
  3. Fit a nuclear power plant into a tennis ball
    By freeyourmind in forum Physics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: October 17th, 2010, 05:01 PM
  4. Replies: 9
    Last Post: November 12th, 2008, 11:13 AM
  5. Bacteria cleaning up nuclear power plant waste?
    By keeban in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: July 31st, 2008, 09:04 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •