Wind or Nuclear?

[JBeukema]

We take 2 weeks, remember the big black out in the North East, and the one in Florida, I'm just referring to what is, not what could be. Nukes don't simply turn on an off with a flick of the switch. Restarting is a process. During this process, the grid needs to be stable. These shut downs were a glitch, that I'm sure was looked at. No offense intended. There are also issues with phase syncronization when coming into the grid.

My proposed system would put an end to such rolling blackouts.

 

[Intense]

Yeah, In "Anthem" they used candles. Am I close?

 

[JBeukema]

Yeah, In "Anthem" they used candles. Am I close?

 

[Navy1960]

Thank You for the Effort. Very well spoken. SSTAR,as you describe it would seem the right direction.
To establish accountability, joint-partnerships, acceptable procedures and standards only adds to the safety and protection. Standards change, as awareness increases, so it sounds like a good starting point. It would be nice for FAS to contribute in a positive was rather than obstruct and divert funding. One would think they would want to be a part of it, advise and consent, whatever. N.Korea, Iran, Pakistan, probably of more concern, yet I don't think we have much influence there. Still the potential for accident or theft, rises over time. Then again I sure Hope Prez. Obama's sense of equal distribution does not extend to Weapons Grade Plutonium.

You know when I was responding to your post I was reminded of Rickovers works with commercial nuclear reactors with the US Navy. It reminded me that when Rickovers group formulated most of the standard used for reactor construction as it applies to safety they did not keep it as a national security measure , in fact they released all their data to set up standards world wide. It' my opinion when it comes to setting standards for these reprocessing facilities as it applies to weapons grade material should be set down and agreed to by the IAEA. Only problem with that is you know an I know that there are memebers that have interests that they sometimes back door. Let's face it nations like Iran and N. Korea could never possibly develop weapons without outside help from the very members who belong to multiple treaties. This material should be heavily monitored and kept out of the hand of irresponsible individuals, I believe the best way to do that is to devise methods such as I mentiod above to render this material inert and unsable as weapons material and force these nations who wish to develop to build large scale fast reactors that cannot be hidden, that way it will be obvious what they are up too and it cannot be hidden under the guise of commercial nuclear power. These types of individuals IMO have with their behavior denied human beings especially here in the United States a technology that could have advanced our energy needs much more than they are now.

 

[Intense]

Thank You for the Effort. Very well spoken. SSTAR,as you describe it would seem the right direction.
To establish accountability, joint-partnerships, acceptable procedures and standards only adds to the safety and protection. Standards change, as awareness increases, so it sounds like a good starting point. It would be nice for FAS to contribute in a positive was rather than obstruct and divert funding. One would think they would want to be a part of it, advise and consent, whatever. N.Korea, Iran, Pakistan, probably of more concern, yet I don't think we have much influence there. Still the potential for accident or theft, rises over time. Then again I sure Hope Prez. Obama's sense of equal distribution does not extend to Weapons Grade Plutonium.

You know when I was responding to your post I was reminded of Rickovers works with commercial nuclear reactors with the US Navy. It reminded me that when Rickovers group formulated most of the standard used for reactor construction as it applies to safety they did not keep it as a national security measure , in fact they released all their data to set up standards world wide. It' my opinion when it comes to setting standards for these reprocessing facilities as it applies to weapons grade material should be set down and agreed to by the IAEA. Only problem with that is you know an I know that there are memebers that have interests that they sometimes back door. Let's face it nations like Iran and N. Korea could never possibly develop weapons without outside help from the very members who belong to multiple treaties. This material should be heavily monitored and kept out of the hand of irresponsible individuals, I believe the best way to do that is to devise methods such as I mentiod above to render this material inert and unsable as weapons material and force these nations who wish to develop to build large scale fast reactors that cannot be hidden, that way it will be obvious what they are up too and it cannot be hidden under the guise of commercial nuclear power. These types of individuals IMO have with their behavior denied human beings especially here in the United States a technology that could have advanced our energy needs much more than they are now.

Agreed. It would seem that FAS is lacking in the Faith Department, and doubting, obstruct, and delay. Let's Hope that they are gifted with Vision. The Courage to improve upon and effectively contribute. "What If" mentality helps in preparing for contingents, it should help preparation and structure, Keep development sober, It should not obstruct without cause, for long anyway.

You are a great help. Thanks for taking the time.

 

[Navy1960]

Not a problem Intense, I have always felt that while we all may disagree on methods from time to time, and on those methods at times people get heated. In the end people can come together and take the best of their ideas to find solutions for most problems. This can apply to a lot of the issues that people debate these days. while I can never be accused of being a fan of the current cap and trade legislation *laughs* I do feel that a goal of energy independence and clean energy has many benefits. What I feel is that our nation can combine these things such as a stimulus with energy construction and then you will have a real energy solution and real long term stimulus. This is sort of a side note here, but it take's people to clean up these sites like Hanford , can you imagine if we had a program of new nuclear power consturction assiciated with reprocessing, and programmed deconstruction and clean up of old sites , how many people would be working in those industries? That same kind of solution can apply to grid construction too. One other thing I have long thought about and that is if we plan and it looks like we are to construct large scale wind farms then, they should done in conjunction with an overall energy plan and not as a seperate replacement for let's say nuclear but rather to augment it. Then we will really have something there,.

 

[KittenKoder]

I don't know. Do you know how they power up during start up.

TE beat me to it, but no, they don't rely on "conventional" plants and most don't take "two weeks" to start up, the time between a forced shut down and start up is greatly influenced by inspections, not mechanical requirements. You do need to look into how they operate a little more.

We take 2 weeks, remember the big black out in the North East, and the one in Florida, I'm just referring to what is, not what could be. Nukes don't simply turn on an off with a flick of the switch. Restarting is a process. During this process, the grid needs to be stable. These shut downs were a glitch, that I'm sure was looked at. No offense intended. There are also issues with phase syncronization when coming into the grid.

Kit, I'm not blasting Nuclear Power, Done safely, I will support it. I recognize that we are grossly under powered. The solution is years away. Natural Gas and Hydro compliment the Grid too, and also have their own advantages. They should not be abandoned.

I'm also trying to learn. Navy 1960 has been very helpful. Why not check into reprocessing spent fuel, and if it checks out for you, support that too. It seems to make allot of sense.

Love that Avatar. It's one of my favorites.

Thanks. But my point wasn't is making you look a fool, I have a few scratching posts already. But there are plants that don't have that problem. One of our biggest flaws with nuclear here is there is no support for it, financially, that does anything to help progress it. Our plants, though very safe and well maintained, are still behind in technological standards simply because too much fear stops them from funding the upgrades and advancements needed. There is a lot that we are behind on as a country, nuclear is one we are seriously lagging in.

 

[Old Rocks]

Here in Oregon we just produced 2 gigawatts for an hour, solely from wind. That is enough to power both Seattle and Portland.

 

[KittenKoder]

Here in Oregon we just produced 2 gigawatts for an hour, solely from wind. That is enough to power both Seattle and Portland.

You're joking ... right? Seattle? We use that for our science center alone.

 

[mdn2000]

wind or nuke, simple, you have to have nuke to build wind and wind cannot produce the power to build wind so its nuke.

 

[Intense]

Wind has a long way to go before you can even consider it.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Nuclear or wind?

How about a third option.


Nuclear wind.

 

[Intense]

Nuclear or wind?

How about a third option.


Nuclear wind.

That will cut down the need too!

 

[JBeukema]

Nuclear or wind?

How about a third option.


Nuclear wind.

yeah, that would suck

 

[RadiomanATL]

buncha pussies.

 

[GHook93]

There are no clean coal plants in the US that even in construction. The only one that I know of that is being built now is in China. Clean coal is a myth.

I saw on 60 minutes that there was one small clean coal plant built in the US decades ago and it wasn't built to stop global warming!

Nevertheless, from the 60 minutes report. I believe they stated switching over 50% of the coal plants would take 10 years and cost trillions of dollar! Does sound promising!

 

[JBeukema]

Is it spending or investment?


What is the long-term outcome of such an undertaking, if undertaken?

 

[mdn2000]

A wind farm will never produce the energy needed to manufacture windmills. Hence windmills are counter productive. Anything that is counter productive contributes to global warming.

The environuts solutions destroy the planet at a faster rate than burning coal in old dirty coal plants.

 

[JBeukema]

A wind farm will never produce the energy needed to manufacture windmills. Hence windmills are counter productive. Anything that is counter productive contributes to global warming.

The environuts solutions destroy the planet at a faster rate than burning coal in old dirty coal plants.

You're pretty stupid, aren't you?

You just said that everything contributes to global warming because nothing can ever sustain itself.

and then used that to attack wind energy

 

[mdn2000]

A wind farm will never produce the energy needed to manufacture windmills. Hence windmills are counter productive. Anything that is counter productive contributes to global warming.

The environuts solutions destroy the planet at a faster rate than burning coal in old dirty coal plants.

You're pretty stupid, aren't you?

You just said that everything contributes to global warming because nothing can ever sustain itself.

and then used that to attack wind energy

Apperently not as stupid as you are, you got 19000 posts and your asking the noob a question, thats rich.

So your saying wind farms can produce enough energy to produce windmills, what did you do think that up in your tiny little head cuz that is not what the facts are.