I want a 'green' job
- Thread starter highup
- Start date
Help Support Flooring Forum - DIY & Professional:
"Irrational ideology?" lol
Theres always a biased study done for everything out there. The thing is that country's like Germany are light years ahead of us in green energy consumption and jobs. Even China is out spending us.
And as usual our oil companies and their lobbiests in DC want us to stay in the dark ages so they can make more profit by funding rhetoric like this and filling corrupt politicians pockets.
Meanwhile we fall further and further behind.
Our local biodiesel plant went bankrupt after a few years and took the local farmer/investors with it. Then it got new investors and started over. And they are struggling again.
Most studies are biased. Look up GE and their wind power site to read about a the power output on a particular turbine.
Lets say its rated at 1.5 MW Sounds good till you realize that the turbine rated at the maximum output. A level that is never realized during actual use. Not even close. When the wind is blowing slow, or not at all, it's output is a tiny fraction of 1.5 MW
Over a years average, including no wind, down time for repairs, maintaining the unit and the replacement cost over time, the true energy cost is ridiculously expensive. I'd bet on an annual basis, most wind turbines don't exceed 10% or 15% of the rated output.
Reality check:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...-supply-a-sixth-of-countrys-energy-needs.html
We had one of the first wind farms near by in the late 1970's. How come after 25 or 35 years of testing development and technological advancements, why can't these companies make the product efficient and profitable?
(can't get there from here syndrome)
Light years ahead, or behind? They are shutting off their already running, fully functional nuke power plants. Kinda like me burning my van and buying a bicycle with a trailer to get carpet and tools to a job site.
I don't mind the government getting behind a project as huge as renewable energy. They did it with the highway system and building dams. I just want some idea that it can work on a large enough scale to make a dent. To me, better money spent on nuke power.
Huge problem here with wind farms is that the wind blades attract insects....... the insects attract bats, and the blades kill em by the thousands. So it's just not bird kills anymore.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/july-dec10/bats_11-29.html
But green energy's real cost that is many, many times more expensive than current forms of energy that we use. In the 'land of minimum wage jobs' (USA), people can't afford it. It's just not feasible here in almost all most cases.
Wind is totally unreliable and there is a huge problem getting it distributed because wind locations are often far away from the grid. It will never produce more than about 5% of the power we need because of that. Solar is getting a lot better, but never pays for itself. By the time a solar panel dies in 15 to 20 years, it's power output is way less than the day it was installed.
Germany's green power is way overrated.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspi...disaster-a-cautionary-tale-for-world-leaders/
Green power is a nice idea, but all green power sources need a 100% ready and running backup system for when the wind don't blow and the sun don't shine. OK, so now we have two power systems to operate and maintain. We can't decommission a nuke plant and replace it with a wind farm.......... we would need both............. OK, now how much does it cost? If you are paying 10 cents per kw for the nuke or coal power, add 40 cents per kw for the occasional wind power. We can't afford to run a green source and a 100% reliable backup. Backups need to be running all the time. You can't flip a switch and crank up a nuke or coal system when the wind dies down or it gets cloudy or dark. (happens often)
Solar farms might eventually pay for themselves in Arizona and other paces in the far south.............. but then you have issues with their large land footprint and being allowed to install the system without harming the endangered and nearly extinct, blue finned desert tortoise.
Lots to absorb here, but worth the read.
http://www.nofreewind.com/
Lots of reality here....... it just never makes headlines because it lacks "feel good"
Last edited:
every energy source is subsidized by the government/s.
Nuke plants rarely include cost of storage which BTW has still not happened effectively. And yes you can simply turn on a switch. Might take awhile to get up to speed.
Coal is great if gases are scrubbed. Look at china, again they are killing themselves and the planet. Wheres all the pollution go? It comes here and everywhere.
Save the planet, get rid of carbon based energy.
Nuke plants rarely include cost of storage which BTW has still not happened effectively. And yes you can simply turn on a switch. Might take awhile to get up to speed.
Coal is great if gases are scrubbed. Look at china, again they are killing themselves and the planet. Wheres all the pollution go? It comes here and everywhere.
Save the planet, get rid of carbon based energy.
No such thing as "clean coal". China is completing 2 new coal powered plants per week.......... how many are we firing up per .......year?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...tied-to-success-of-carbon-capture-and-storage
WHAT, Lassie? The depleted nuke material is leaking and Timmy is in the well?
I'll give a penny for your thoughts ..........and a dollar and a half for evidence.
Last edited:
I'm not done.
http://www.pge.com/includes/docs/pd...ystemworks/dcpp/PGE_FactSheet_safestorage.pdf
Lastly they mention:
Minimal Waste
A nuclear power plant produces relatively little non-recyclable
waste and is the only large-scale electric power generation system
that contains and safely stores 100 percent of its used fuel. In fact,
if a family of four received all of its electricity from a nuclear power
plant for 20 years, the resulting used fuel would fit in a shoe box.
If that depleted material could efficiently be reclaimed, the offending fuel need for a family of 4 for 20 years would fit inside a Flintstones vitamin bottle.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
We need to spend money figuring how to reuse the energy in those spent fuel rods and develop cold fusion instead of this 'feel good' pie in the sky green stuff.
How many tons of coal have to be mined to supply a family of four for 20 years of electricity?
http://www.pge.com/includes/docs/pd...ystemworks/dcpp/PGE_FactSheet_safestorage.pdf
Lastly they mention:
Minimal Waste
A nuclear power plant produces relatively little non-recyclable
waste and is the only large-scale electric power generation system
that contains and safely stores 100 percent of its used fuel. In fact,
if a family of four received all of its electricity from a nuclear power
plant for 20 years, the resulting used fuel would fit in a shoe box.
If that depleted material could efficiently be reclaimed, the offending fuel need for a family of 4 for 20 years would fit inside a Flintstones vitamin bottle.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
We need to spend money figuring how to reuse the energy in those spent fuel rods and develop cold fusion instead of this 'feel good' pie in the sky green stuff.
How many tons of coal have to be mined to supply a family of four for 20 years of electricity?
Last edited:
I'm as green as the next guy............. I just live in reality instead of hope.
If I win the Power ball tomorrow night, I'm gonna buy a house and install $150,000 worth of photocells on the roof. I don't care if it doesn't pencil out. I'll be rich and I won't care if in reality it costs me 5 times as much as everyone else is paying. ..........I will 'feel good' ...ain't that what it's all about?
If I win the Power ball tomorrow night, I'm gonna buy a house and install $150,000 worth of photocells on the roof. I don't care if it doesn't pencil out. I'll be rich and I won't care if in reality it costs me 5 times as much as everyone else is paying. ..........I will 'feel good' ...ain't that what it's all about?
bla blah blah. You know as well as I know all that nuclear waste sitting in temporary storage facilities on site is a ticking time bomb. It costs money and is dangerous eg; Japan nuke sites. Ask them what the cost is for cleaning up that krap.
You can go on and on. But you and other small minded people out there don't realize the main objective. That objective is to rid ourselves of the dependency on imported oil. Any imported oil and become energy self sufficient. That could well be a combination of domestic oil, gas, wind, and solar. It would benefit us all.
You can go on and on. But you and other small minded people out there don't realize the main objective. That objective is to rid ourselves of the dependency on imported oil. Any imported oil and become energy self sufficient. That could well be a combination of domestic oil, gas, wind, and solar. It would benefit us all.
There's over one BILLION cars in the world.......... they all have batteries with a gallon of sulfuric acid in them.
That is a lot more to worry about than storing nuke waste in controlled conditions.
Japan's disaster is a wake up call for geologists, statisticians, government regulators and the nuke business.
They knew beforehand that this reactor should have been built on the other side of this island/peninsula/land mass......whatever. Why? Because of the tsunami potential. They screwed up not figuring a 3 foot subduction possibility. Not sure why they built the emergency power supply a lot further up, and away from the site.............. Hey, I'm just a lowly old rug kicker, not a rokit scientist.
The reactor's emergency power supply was right next to the power plant........ why not 500 feet higher on the hillside? That was stupid. Had the power supply been better placed, it could have pumped cooling water and avoided the disaster. Human error on a big scale, yes. A learning experience, yes........ a big one.
I will not bother to ask you to compare the death ratio from nuclear power accidents to coal.................. it's gotta be a zillion to one, with nukes 1 million miles out front.
So what if the fuel rods need to be contained for 20 or 50 years. It isn't hazardous waste for 10,000 years.
People probably imagine huge areas to store the high level waste.
from the following article:
Whether used fuel is reprocessed or not, the volume of high-level waste is modest, - about 3 cubic metres per year of vitrified waste, or 25-30 tonnes of used fuel for a typical large nuclear reactor. The relatively small amount involved allows it to be effectively and economically isolated.
Can you compute the number of cubic meters available on the planet earth, and not find a place to safely store this literal microscopic level of hazardous waste? 'cmon....... it's not like its nuclear waste!!! ...........oh wait, yes it is.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/N...astes/Waste-Management-Overview/#.UZRuS5HPaSo
Solidification processes have been developed in several countries over the past fifty years. Liquid high-level wastes are evaporated to solids, mixed with glass-forming materials, melted and poured into robust stainless steel canisters which are then sealed by welding.
Vitrified waste
Borosilicate glass from the first waste vitrification plant in UK in the 1960s. This block contains material chemically identical to high-level waste from reprocessing. A piece this size would contain the total high-level waste arising from nuclear electricity generation for one person throughout a normal lifetime.
................and more.
Waste disposal
Final disposal of high-level waste is delayed for 40-50 years to allow its radioactivity to decay, after which less than one thousandth of its initial radioactivity remains, and it is much easier to handle. Hence canisters of vitrified waste, or used fuel assemblies, are stored under water in special ponds, or in dry concrete structures or casks, for at least this length of time.........................
...........................The vitrified waste from the operation of a 1000 MWe reactor for one year would fill about twelve canisters, each 1.3m high and 0.4m diameter and holding 400 kg of glass.
So much in this article that needs to be made public.
It won't however, because it lacks the doom and gloom hype that the media makes the big $$$ from.
Is nuclear safe? Yes if it is managed correctly. With the disaster in Japan and Chernobyl omitted........... because of stupidity, why are people so freaked out about the cleanest source of power in the world? ............childhood trauma?
...some people are scared of clowns, some of spiders, some of the electrical source that charges their Ipad.
Me? ..............I'm scared of living in the world of wind turbines and having the wind slowing to a stop, just as I am downloading one of Nicks e-mails. ...........oh , the horror!
Last edited:
..........an afterthought.
If you want to keep people safe from radiation poisoning, stop installing granite and marble flooring.
.................shebang!
If you want to keep people safe from radiation poisoning, stop installing granite and marble flooring.
.................shebang!
Nick
In Remembrance
We don't . We have more oil in ND then all those country's put together .
According to what I read, within 10 years we will be producing much more oil than we use. Some of what we now produce, we ship overseas, especially to Japan. I drive past oil wells 10 miles west of here at least once a month that are usually idle. Oil isn't the problem, it's the tree huggers stopping the building of new, cleaner and safer refineries.
Its not that big oil cannot build more refinerys, they dont want to build more because the new ones would have more pollution controls.
Actually we do not need more of them anyway. With alternative fuel sources we can have it both ways. Reduction of fossil fuel consumption is better for everyone, including the planet.
And if ya really believe in Nuke power, go tell your congressman you would like one in your back yard. We got one bout 120 miles from here. Thats close enough.
Actually we do not need more of them anyway. With alternative fuel sources we can have it both ways. Reduction of fossil fuel consumption is better for everyone, including the planet.
And if ya really believe in Nuke power, go tell your congressman you would like one in your back yard. We got one bout 120 miles from here. Thats close enough.
There is one about 100 miles from here. I never even think about it.
I'd love one here. Perfect location except for the fact that's we're close to or past due for mag 8+ or a 9 earthquake.Its not that big oil cannot build more refinerys, they dont want to build more because the new ones would have more pollution controls.
Actually we do not need more of them anyway. With alternative fuel sources we can have it both ways. Reduction of fossil fuel consumption is better for everyone, including the planet.
And if ya really believe in Nuke power, go tell your congressman you would like one in your back yard. We got one bout 120 miles from here. Thats close enough.
The location would be here. The circled area we call the north spit.
Weyerhauser had a paper mill out there, there is a lumber mill out there and a large wood chip facility that loads ships with wood chips, and after 5 years of fighting enviro-wackos, we are destined to have an Liquid Natural Gas import terminal, which will have a pipe line from here to California. They will offload LNG ships and convert the liquid gas into gas vapor and push it down the pipeline. Could be as many as 2600 jobs for a few years during construction.
Like I said, because of the earthquake issue, I doubt if a nuke facility would fly here. The elevation on that spit isn't very high except for the sand dunes. Our area is in a major subduction zone, so what happened in Japan might happen here.............blub, blub, blub.
I wish we had more flat land available for a nuke facility..... jobs are jobs.
Only nuke we ever had was up northern Oregon........... The Trojan nuke plant was built in the 70's. It was shut down and never restarted after a steam tube cracked and released radioactive steam, killing 2.5 million Oregonians, a Canadian hockey player and one Chinese tourist.
http://clui.org/ludb/site/trojan-nuclear-power-plant
Last edited:
