RE: California power ... unplugged.

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

The Enviro-Nazis are at it again, demonstrating why no new power plants have
been built here, in the past 15 years.

Did you live in SV during the late 70s Roeland? I did and remember
its pre-"Enviro-Nazi" smog all too well. Some days you couldn't
even see _3_blocks_. I don't suppose the thousands of people who
have avoided lung and other cancers because of clean air regulation
would rather go back to the way it was to avoid any number of
blackouts.

Pollution trade-offs aside there's no rational way to blame clean-air
regulations for California's power problem. Nor can you blame the
states virtually stagnant demand. There is more than enough power
and the cost to produce it hasn't changed significantly for decades.
What has changed is the market. A) out of state hold-backs forcing
spot-market and other prices (though not costs) up mainly thanks
to B) Ronald Regan, who dismantled the forward thinking energy
policies worked out by Ford and Carter after the (Arab) oil embargo.

Between the enviro-nazis and the no-nukes folks (they *are* different
groups), California has been dead-locked on power plant construction for
almost 20 years.

Roeland's diatribe should be the tip-off. "Just build more {power
plants, freeways, nuclear, etc.}" will only get us more {acid rain
sterilized lakes, urban blight, Chernobyl radiated milk, Mexico
City smog, ...}.

This, in a population so brainwashed, it actually
wants to pay more taxes, even when they are already taxed at the 60% level.

Brainwashed in Morgan Hill perhaps. Anyhow, I hope this manufactured
"crisis" will at least get solar, wind, and co-generation back on
track before further Regan/Bush anti-environment, pro-business-monopoly,
short-sighted policies make life just that much worse for us and
those who will be living here 50 and 100 years from now.

2

Roeland's diatribe should be the tip-off. "Just build more {power
plants, freeways, nuclear, etc.}" will only get us more {acid rain
sterilized lakes, urban blight, Chernobyl radiated milk, Mexico
City smog, ...}.

Sorry, but nukes are clean and safe. Sure people have died from nukes,
but millions have died from producing coal for plants. Why do we build
coal plants and not nukes? Because people don't care if OTHERS die, if
100,000 people a year die from digging coal they are not in your
community, that is better then the risk to THEM however small.

You should look at the numbers of people in the US that die powering coal
plants and the number that have died in coal fired plants.

<>

Nathan Stratton CTO, Exario Networks, Inc.
nathan@robotics.net nathan@exario.net
http://www.robotics.net http://www.exario.net

3

Roger should also compare the amount of radiation released by properly
running nuclear plant to the amount of radiation released by coal fired
power plants. Coal fired power plants release tons of radioactive thorium
and uranium into the air every year.

-Dan

4

All true, but irrelevant to the people with cancer in the Ukraine
and elsewhere. Still, having worked in rnd.pge.com back when it
was a state of the art department, the consensus there was that
small nuclear plants were far safer than the large one's in vogue
before 3 mile island (whose core is now encased in concrete for
thousands of years).

No question nuclear is clean but only if you carefully ignore
the danger of depleted uranium. But I digress, that's a problem
for future generations (if we're lucky).

Roger

5

Perhaps you just need some properly built nuclear plants. :slight_smile: Ontario has
3 nuclear plants that generator 40% of the province's power and these
things are pretty much the safest nukes in the world. Last time I took a
tour of one, they said they were building similar plants for other
countries. Perhaps you Yanks want to buy some Canadian built technology,
eh?

http://www.opg.com/newgen/nuclear/nuclear.asp

6

Well said, good form.

7

Hell, go ahead and compare the amount of radiation released accidentally
by every US power plant in total forever, against the amount released by
an average coal plant in a year.

8

Sorry, but nukes are clean and safe. Sure people have died from nukes,
but millions have died from producing coal for plants. Why do we build

Hear in the land of the Tennessee Valley Authority, home to Oak Ridge
and power producing nuke plants, electricity is plentiful, but a large
percentage of it is Hydro and Coal. Nuke plants are expensive to build
and operate, mostly due to red tape and 'job program' hiring practices.

Either way... there is both electricity and connectivity here, lots
of fiber on the railroad tracks. To bad Tennessee taxes and tax
practices on telecommunications and internet services make me wish I was
elsewhere.

My point... Nuke plants are expensive. Check out Watts Bar Nuclear Plant.
It sets records for costs of construction and operation.

We need more power/heat efficient equipment, efficient cooling systems
and better designed buildings. Luckily, the equipment is getting smaller,
and used less energy for more functionality and power.

  --Mike--

9

No question nuclear is clean but only if you carefully ignore
the danger of depleted uranium. But I digress, that's a problem
for future generations (if we're lucky).

Here is this wacky view point again... nuclear power plants don't
manufacture uranium. It's not like the uranium used didn't exist before
it was mined. Would you consider building a housing track in the middle
of a yellow cake uranium mineral deposit environmentally safe because it
is naturally occurring?

This is the "naturally occurring must be good" falacy. Take radon gas for
example, though I digress...

Point is, either way future generations will have the same amount of
uranium or less.

I've allways found it hypocritical how antinuclear people support coal
burning power plants that release more material into the air than nuclear
power plants output. I find it an interesting example of human social
studies.

This being considered, I've been wondering about whether Internet industry
lobbying organizations like CIX or the CISPA should have a energy policy.
My cynical side says that economic darwinism will ensure that people that
don't have an energy policy will end up in businesses that don't rely on
power. i.e. You don't like power plants? Don't worry, in a little more
time you won't have to worry about a job that depends as much on
electricity. California has allways had a large amount of fruit picking
jobs. :wink:

Heh, when the availability and price of electricity start affecting
decisions involving your operations, you are being an ostritch if you
don't atleast examine the possible solutions and develop and opinion.

Mike. :slight_smile:

Roger

> Sorry, but nukes are clean and safe. Sure people have died from nukes,
> but millions have died from producing coal for plants. Why do we build
> coal plants and not nukes? Because people don't care if OTHERS die, if
> 100,000 people a year die from digging coal they are not in your
> community, that is better then the risk to THEM however small.

+------------------- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C -------------------+

10

Pal,

wacky point of view, huh? :wink:

You're way off base with your hypothesis about waste products of nuclear
power. And I'm by no means "Green" or whatever else you'd like to call the
treehuggers.

Sure they manufacture Usomething from another Usomethingelse. They are
uniquely different elements and if you don't recognize that, you need to go
check out yourself. It's interesting stuff, and you mighty learn something.
Uranium, and the isotopes derived from the naturally occuring one, is only one
of the elements of cause serious concern. It doesn't take much physics and
chemistry and biology knowledge to fully understand the complex of problems.

The point isn't Uwhatever, the point is the series of waste products generated
during the entire lifecycle of the reactor. This includes what is generated
during the course of the operation of the reactor and has to be disassembled
from time to time for routine maintainence to keep the reactor safe as well
as at the end of the life of a reactor (yes, they have limited lifetimes).
Anything which has been exposed to those amounts of neutron flux common in
such plants is not something you want to live on.

If you factor it all in for the lifecycle of power generation method x,
nuclear power is considerably more expensive than any other power generation
method presently in use.

There are plenty of studies that prove this point, check your favorite public
library for the study and backup materials.

Or, you can just stay ignorant and not consider the entire lifecycle and claim
that nuclear power is cheaper, better, bla bla bla. Fairy tales do serve their
purpose, I suppose.

Did you know that Chernobyl has to be burried in concrete for the next 25k
years (earliest halflife time of the elements burried in the plant)? Where
were you or your ancestors 25k years ago?

Simply the facts around proper storage for very long periods of time (25k years
or more) should be a hint at the problems around nuclear waste, even though
it isn't an exhaustive one.

I would strongly recommend you do your homework before broadcasting such
nonsense.

I'm sure I'll just get yet another pointless flame back, but you're so wrong
that I couldn't restraint myself not saying something about all this nonsense.

I suppose it will never cease to amaze me what sort of things are born out of
ignorance...

Anyways, back to our regularly scheduled flamewars...

Cheers,
Chris

11

If you factor it all in for the lifecycle of power generation method x,
nuclear power is considerably more expensive than any other power generation
method presently in use.

I find this unlikely since Canada is considering selling power to the
western US and they use nuclear. Or they are just stupid?

Did you know that Chernobyl has to be burried in concrete for the next 25k
years (earliest halflife time of the elements burried in the plant)? Where
were you or your ancestors 25k years ago?

Does the fact that Bhopal occured mean that we shouldn't have chemical
processing plants anywhere in the world?

Simply the facts around proper storage for very long periods of time (25k years
or more) should be a hint at the problems around nuclear waste, even though
it isn't an exhaustive one.

This is solved, although rather boringly. Volumetrically, waste takes up
less space than the original mined material. You wouldn't build houses on
either. Both are buried materials. How long does it take for a mountain
range to move? longer than 25k years.

I'm sure I'll just get yet another pointless flame back, but you're so wrong
that I couldn't restraint myself not saying something about all this nonsense.

No flame here. Back to the operational aspect.

So, on balance you feel coal is less harmful. That is fine. Others
disagree. In any case not building power plants isn't a choice.
California already ranks 48th lowest in power consumption per capita.
So, now that you must chose, what type will you build?

Chosing not to build power plants in this case is effectively quitting the
game/getting out of the Internet business since you are already at 100%
capacity. If you are in the western US this will effect you, whether you
form an opinion or not.

Mike.

>
>
> > No question nuclear is clean but only if you carefully ignore
> > the danger of depleted uranium. But I digress, that's a problem
> > for future generations (if we're lucky).
>
> Here is this wacky view point again... nuclear power plants don't
> manufacture uranium. It's not like the uranium used didn't exist before
> it was mined. Would you consider building a housing track in the middle
> of a yellow cake uranium mineral deposit environmentally safe because it
> is naturally occurring?
>
> This is the "naturally occurring must be good" falacy. Take radon gas for
> example, though I digress...
>
> Point is, either way future generations will have the same amount of
> uranium or less.
>
> I've allways found it hypocritical how antinuclear people support coal
> burning power plants that release more material into the air than nuclear
> power plants output. I find it an interesting example of human social
> studies.
>
> This being considered, I've been wondering about whether Internet industry
> lobbying organizations like CIX or the CISPA should have a energy policy.
> My cynical side says that economic darwinism will ensure that people that
> don't have an energy policy will end up in businesses that don't rely on
> power. i.e. You don't like power plants? Don't worry, in a little more
> time you won't have to worry about a job that depends as much on
> electricity. California has allways had a large amount of fruit picking
> jobs. :wink:
>
> Heh, when the availability and price of electricity start affecting
> decisions involving your operations, you are being an ostritch if you
> don't atleast examine the possible solutions and develop and opinion.
>
> Mike. :slight_smile:
>
> >
> > Roger
> >
> > > Sorry, but nukes are clean and safe. Sure people have died from nukes,
> > > but millions have died from producing coal for plants. Why do we build
> > > coal plants and not nukes? Because people don't care if OTHERS die, if
> > > 100,000 people a year die from digging coal they are not in your
> > > community, that is better then the risk to THEM however small.
> >
> >
>
> +------------------- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C -------------------+
> > Mike Leber Direct Internet Connections Voice 510 580 4100 |
> > Hurricane Electric Web Hosting Colocation Fax 510 580 4151 |
> > mleber@he.net http://www.he.net |
> +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
>
>

--
Christian Kuhtz <ck@arch.bellsouth.net> -wk, <ck@gnu.org> -hm
Sr. Architect, Engineering & Architecture, BellSouth.net, Atlanta, GA, U.S.
"I speak for myself only.""

+------------------- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C -------------------+

12

I don't see any reasonable issue in this discussion. Coal and GAS power plants use
limited organic resources and will be replaced by the other power sources
including nuclear ones; heat plants (coal ones) provide much more enviromental
pollution; nuclear wastes are limited in size and the problem how to store them
can be solved by many ways.

So, the countries which contribute into nuclear power today will have a benefits,
and other will pay to this countries by some way.

And so, it's terrible mistake (it's why I hate green people being one of them by
some mean) to stop the builting and investigation of the nuclear power plants. No
one see any other way out of the current situation, and all we (or green ones) can
do is to move the problem (limited organic resources) to the next generation.

13

Just a short note to make sure everyone stays at least HALF on track
here. Nuclear plants generate power by HEATING water to run turbines. As
such, the only difference between a nuclear plant and a coal or gas plant
is the heat source.

14

Not only - yopu did forgot about CO2 and other air pollutions.

But we got far from nanog issueas, are we?