Prev: Petition to keep the current alcohol limit for driving
Next: Pocket GPS World speed camera database now free
From: Matthew Russotto on 18 Apr 2010 00:21 In article <fldbs59lra1j6q83qt4plklbti9ce1h56h(a)4ax.com>, dgk <dgk(a)somewhere.com> wrote: >On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 20:52:10 -0500, russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net >(Matthew Russotto) wrote: > >>In article <42hrr5dl5t240hm3gqtvohp5p3ri82djr4(a)4ax.com>, >>dgk <dgk(a)somewhere.com> wrote: >>> >>>Right, but the question is how to best deliver people where they want >>>to go with the least harmful impact on the environment. Is that a bad >>>goal? >> >>That's not a goal at all. Taken one way, it's an unsatisfiable set of >>constraints. Taken another way, it's an ambiguous one. >> >>If you want to both "BEST deliver people where they want to go", and >>"deliver people where they want to go with the least harmful impact on >>the environment", it's unsatisfiable. If you want to balance delivery >>with impact on the environment, it's ambiguous. >> >>>Hopefully electric cars are part of the solution, and the electricity >>>can be produced by a cleaner method than coal. >> >>Not likely. In the US, a state court just ruled that a nuke >>supplying 30% of the power to New York City has to shut down because >>its water output is too hot. Now, it's possible to produce >>electricity with a minimum of conventional pollutants, and it's even >>possible to produce it with a minimum of CO2 (with a nuke). But you >>can't produce electricity without heat. The standards are >>impossible. > > >So what's your option? Kill all the fish by boiling them in the case >of your NY reactor. As much amusement as having electricity shortages in NYC would provide to people elsewhere, I think it's pretty clear what the better option is, to all but die-hard anti-human environmentalists. Dead fish it is. -- The problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need.
From: dgk on 19 Apr 2010 08:42 On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 18:51:32 -0800, John David Galt <jdg(a)diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote: >Matthew Russotto wrote: >> Not likely. In the US, a state court just ruled that a nuke >> supplying 30% of the power to New York City has to shut down because >> its water output is too hot. Now, it's possible to produce >> electricity with a minimum of conventional pollutants, and it's even >> possible to produce it with a minimum of CO2 (with a nuke). But you >> can't produce electricity without heat. The standards are >> impossible. > >If it were possible, the greens would find some other excuse to demand >shutdown. Their movement isn't really about saving the earth; it's about >destroying civilization because they hate humans. You really believe that? I think you're pretty stupid.
From: Philip Nasadowski on 20 Apr 2010 07:41 In article <gl4317-C82827.21001319042010(a)feeder.eternal-september.org>, Glen Labah <gl4317(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Actually, you can run a power plant without heating up the river. When Indian Point 2 & 3 were being planned, Con Ed wanted to build cooling towers. The environmentalists opposed them, because it would 'spoil the view'. Cooling towers aren't a bad thing, but they do have the disadvantage of drawing a bit of power - on a large plant like IP, you'd be looking at something like 20 - 40 MW per unit. That's all pumping losses (!). IIRC, Palo Verde is unique in the world for being the only nuke that's not near a river or body of water. The plant uses recycled sewage for the condensers...
From: Glen Labah on 20 Apr 2010 00:00 In article <wOqdnRqPeNB9FVfWnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d(a)speakeasy.net>, russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote: > In article <fldbs59lra1j6q83qt4plklbti9ce1h56h(a)4ax.com>, > dgk <dgk(a)somewhere.com> wrote: > >So what's your option? Kill all the fish by boiling them in the case > >of your NY reactor. > > As much amusement as having electricity shortages in NYC would provide > to people elsewhere, I think it's pretty clear what the better option > is, to all but die-hard anti-human environmentalists. Dead fish it > is. Actually, you can run a power plant without heating up the river. The big coal fired power plants in New Mexico and Arizona, with the exception of the one near Lake Mead, operate without discharging heat into rivers at all, since rivers are rather difficult to find in that part of the world - Los Angeles took them all. Even in places such as Alabama, there are nuke plants that use atmospheric condensers. I think in the Alabama case a large cooling tower would have interfered with an airport or something like that, and there weren't any rivers large enough to act as a heat sink. So, atmospheric radiators it is. Means a bit more noise from cooling fans, and a bitmore electricity being dumped into running them, but still a barely measurable percent of the total power generated by the thing. But the real best solution would be to dump the hot water into downtown New York City. There's dozens of buildings with heat plants there that boil water. A bit of extra heat from the outside world would do them some good. -- Please note this e-mail address is a pit of spam due to e-mail address harvesters on Usenet. Response time to e-mail sent here is slow.
From: Matthew Russotto on 20 Apr 2010 23:28
In article <cqjos59tgjo4u934s21sihdrkquoqbde25(a)4ax.com>, dgk <dgk(a)somewhere.com> wrote: >On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 18:51:32 -0800, John David Galt ><jdg(a)diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote: > >>If it were possible, the greens would find some other excuse to demand >>shutdown. Their movement isn't really about saving the earth; it's about >>destroying civilization because they hate humans. > >You really believe that? I think you're pretty stupid. I think you haven't been paying attention. There's a very large subset of the green movement which opposes any practical means of large-scale power generation. They were all for wind until people started building windmills, and they're dead-set against solar thermal generation (but not solar panels, which are too costly and inefficient to work on a large scale). -- The problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need. |