From: Glen Labah on
In article <nasadowsk-582A8F.07415420042010(a)news.optonline.net>,
Philip Nasadowski <nasadowsk(a)usermale.com> wrote:

> 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...


Granted, it was back in the 1980s, but when I went on a plant tour (yes,
at that time nuke plants could have plant tours open to the general
public), but the way I remember it, the Joseph Farley plant in Alabama
didn't use much at all in the way of river water, because the river was
simply too small to serve as enough of a heat sink.

Therefore, their system involves what look like large air conditioning
condensers.

It could be they suck in the water and do evaporative cooling with their
fans (which is probably far more likely), but I was given the impression
they were 100% air cooled.

Certainly, having a nuke plant far from water is a rare thing, but I
think one of the South African plants is quite far away from water.

However, there are certainly coal plants that are quite far from water,
and they need cooling capacity just like a nuke plant does. Witness the
one near Farmington, New Mexico. There isn't even much in the way of
sewage water too cool that thing. There are a fair number of coal
plants throughout the west that are in similar circumstances.

--
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: Bolwerk on
Tony Harding wrote:
> On 04/14/10 08:37, dgk wrote:
>> So what's your option? Kill all the fish by boiling them in the case
>> of your NY reactor.
>
> Free food for the masses --- looks like win-win to me! :)

I'm not sure eating out of the Hudson River will ever be advisable.
From: dgk on
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 22:28:54 -0500, russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:

>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).


I don't think it's a large subset. There are odd people in every
group. I consider myself pretty green but understand the need for
power and some of the offsets and most people do as well.

What is the objection to STG? That would seem a pretty benign
technology. I do prefer solar panels and would love to do it to my
house but it is still pretty expensive. I don't see any way to do STG
locally but lining a roof with panels would be pretty easy.

I'm all for wind power; it may just be that I'm getting older but I
bike a lot and the wind seems to be getting stronger all the time.
Part of it is that I'm getting weaker but there seem to be a lot of
days with 15-20 mph winds and that used to be pretty rare around here.
Oddly, it always seems to be a headwind.

There was a lot of objection to an offshore wind farm on Long Island
lately but that had Greens on both side of the issue. I liked the idea
even though I spend a lot of time at the beach; a bunch of windmills a
few miles offshore is probably ok. But I do surf and wouldn't want it
to mess up the waves...
From: Matthew Russotto on
In article <pvvts5tdbu0us3ivg2alr9q231khtlccof(a)4ax.com>,
dgk <dgk(a)somewhere.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 22:28:54 -0500, russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net
>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>>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).
>
>I don't think it's a large subset. There are odd people in every
>group. I consider myself pretty green but understand the need for
>power and some of the offsets and most people do as well.
>
>What is the objection to STG? That would seem a pretty benign
>technology.

Lowers the albedo of the desert. Threatens fragile desert ecosystems
(this with respect to solar thermal in the US desert southwest).
--
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.
From: Grumpy AuContraire on
Tony Harding wrote:
> On 04/05/10 23:50, Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>> gl4317(a)yahoo.com wrote:
>>> In article <hpbj1e$m32$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, "Stewart"
>>> <gortamus(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Left wing socialist alert!
>>>>
>>>> And to keep it on topic.....what type of Honda do you own?
>>>
>>>
>>> Nah, we socialists only drive Volvo 240s and read
>>> misc.transport.rail.americas.
>>> (To which I am still trying to figure out why this thread is posted).
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> What???
>>
>> No Prius or Smaht Kahs???
>
> FEH! Light weight/small carbon footprint bicycles only!
>
> :)



Yep, perfect for all them thar' yankees up in the rust belt in January!

JT