Has anyone heard about wave-generated power? As in ocean waves? Apparantly it's supposed to be the most efficient way to generate power, but I haven't had time to check it out.
Anyone else afraid of nuclear energy?
- Thread starter tolivac
- Start date
Help Support :
portendere
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2005
- Messages
- 57
It's been noted that a coal-burning powerplant will release more radioactive material than a nuclear plant, and will result in many times more deaths in mining accidents and among people whose respiratory systems are sensitive to soot.
No single power source can replace our beloved dead dinosaurs. Nuclear, solar, wind, and who-knows-what will be a part of the picture. (Though coal will be with us for centuries, too.)
Personally, I'd like to see our garbage and yardwaste incinerated for power. The emissions are not really any more nasty than those from coal, and it's not like it's going anywhere.
No single power source can replace our beloved dead dinosaurs. Nuclear, solar, wind, and who-knows-what will be a part of the picture. (Though coal will be with us for centuries, too.)
Personally, I'd like to see our garbage and yardwaste incinerated for power. The emissions are not really any more nasty than those from coal, and it's not like it's going anywhere.
Tidal power
Here's an article on the tidal power plant up in Nova Scotia on the Bay of Fundy
Here's an article on the tidal power plant up in Nova Scotia on the Bay of Fundy
Personally, I'd like to see our garbage and yardwaste in
An excellent idea, IMHO
An excellent idea, IMHO
brettsomers
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2005
- Messages
- 1,993
Enough sun falls in ONE DAY on Australia's (and probably
the problem is *the powers that be* want us to use energy that can be sold. the sun is too widely available, no profits. no control. its a cruel world we live in.
the problem is *the powers that be* want us to use energy that can be sold. the sun is too widely available, no profits. no control. its a cruel world we live in.
Yard waste and food garbage is much better utilized if it is composted and turned into mulch or fertilizer for gardens, landscaping, and farms.
My local town has instituted a program where residents are encouraged to add food waste and paper-based food wrappers to the big green yard waste collection bins that are picked up on a weekly basis. This stuff is then taken to a local composting facility where it is turned into "black gold".
I compost much of my food and yard waste in my own backyard. I have three 1 cubic yard compost bins going most times, and use that to help condition the soil in my garden. A leaf shredder/chipper is essential to this operation.
Trash incinerators are not without controversy. Fair amounts of pollutants can be released from such facilities, including heavy metals, and there are concerns about off-odors from prospective host communities.
A possibly more sensible approach would be to ferment sewage, including human waste, to generate methane gas. This is done on a small scale in some projects in third world countries, and it provides cooking fuel, sparing the already sparse supplies of local timber. The leftover sludge can also be used to supplement compost (for non-food related crops, of course).
My local town has instituted a program where residents are encouraged to add food waste and paper-based food wrappers to the big green yard waste collection bins that are picked up on a weekly basis. This stuff is then taken to a local composting facility where it is turned into "black gold".
I compost much of my food and yard waste in my own backyard. I have three 1 cubic yard compost bins going most times, and use that to help condition the soil in my garden. A leaf shredder/chipper is essential to this operation.
Trash incinerators are not without controversy. Fair amounts of pollutants can be released from such facilities, including heavy metals, and there are concerns about off-odors from prospective host communities.
A possibly more sensible approach would be to ferment sewage, including human waste, to generate methane gas. This is done on a small scale in some projects in third world countries, and it provides cooking fuel, sparing the already sparse supplies of local timber. The leftover sludge can also be used to supplement compost (for non-food related crops, of course).
burning of garbage and solid waste in high temp incernerators creats some problems if you are using it as a heat source for a boiler-the ash,clinkers,and gases are hard on the boiler.The ash and clinkers clog up the boiler tubes and reduce heat transfer.The gases generated esp if plastics are burned-rapidly corrode the boiler tubes and other parts.Just too expensive for maintenance cost to the boiler.Power compnies learned that years ago when they tried burning trash-fuel mixtures.The increased maintenance cost to the boilers made it not worth it.As pointed out in the above entry-better to compost some of those items.And the composting you can do yourself.Many Federally funded landfills will no longer accept lawn and garden waste products.I can also remember some sewage plants that did use the methane gas generated by the wastes to power gas turbines to generate electricity to run the facility-and even to sell back to the electric utility thatfed the plant.
In terms of the photovoltaic power-we cannot and it isn't practical to carpet the landscape with the photocell panels.And yes,since the photocell panels are a semiconductor product--energy use and some pollution is involved in their manufacture.The semiconductor industry is one of the major generators of hazardous wastes.Yet we cannot do without the semiconductor products--our modern life would be impossible without them!!I still think the best use of photvoltaic power is to use it for local and small power useages.They can also power small remote power users such as homes and communication repeater transmitters in very remote areas.
and another thing on wind and solar power-many power engineers don't like those becasue they are diffcult to control or regulate-Power engineers love to be able to control the parameters-power sources such as Hydroelectric,Coal,Oil,Nuclear can be easily controlled.
In terms of the photovoltaic power-we cannot and it isn't practical to carpet the landscape with the photocell panels.And yes,since the photocell panels are a semiconductor product--energy use and some pollution is involved in their manufacture.The semiconductor industry is one of the major generators of hazardous wastes.Yet we cannot do without the semiconductor products--our modern life would be impossible without them!!I still think the best use of photvoltaic power is to use it for local and small power useages.They can also power small remote power users such as homes and communication repeater transmitters in very remote areas.
and another thing on wind and solar power-many power engineers don't like those becasue they are diffcult to control or regulate-Power engineers love to be able to control the parameters-power sources such as Hydroelectric,Coal,Oil,Nuclear can be easily controlled.
brettsomers--- you raise a good point; however, we'd still need a large company to put up solar panels, etc. to harness and then distribute the power, wouldn't we?
Although it may be technically possible, I just don't think it would be practical for every single building to have its own stand-alone solar power system. Frankly, I have complete faith that some clever entrepreneur will find a way to sell us solar power. After all, some clever person found a way to sell us a drink of water for $1.25, LOL!
Although it may be technically possible, I just don't think it would be practical for every single building to have its own stand-alone solar power system. Frankly, I have complete faith that some clever entrepreneur will find a way to sell us solar power. After all, some clever person found a way to sell us a drink of water for $1.25, LOL!
Well, in my area, the local power company will "buy back" any excess power you generate from your solar panels. The meter actaully can run backwards in the middle of a sunny day with low home energy use. So one's electric bills can theoretically be close to zero. However in most cases the power company will not pay out if you have a net surplus of electricity over time... they'll gladly take it anyway. So the key is to size the panels to suit your expected consumption.
All this apparently requires is a new meter than can go both ways (shush toggle). The killer for photovoltaic is still the high cost and relative low efficiency of currently available panels. And added complication is how to mount and orient the panels on a roof. For example, my main house has a thick cedar shake roof. There is no way I am going to want to penetrate that to mount solar panels. Fortunately the property has other buildings with corrugated steel or aluminum roofing that would also be appropriate for mounting solar panels.
These systems can also be set up to charge a battery bank to store excess energy, so it can be used when the grid fails, or if the home is off the grid in the first place. They do add considerable extra expense, and batteries have a finite lifespan and must be replaced every five to ten years. In my location, I'd probably opt for a system without storage batteries, and if I was really concerned about grid failure (such as following an earthquake) I'd have a standby fossil fuel powered generator to cover the outtage.
All this apparently requires is a new meter than can go both ways (shush toggle). The killer for photovoltaic is still the high cost and relative low efficiency of currently available panels. And added complication is how to mount and orient the panels on a roof. For example, my main house has a thick cedar shake roof. There is no way I am going to want to penetrate that to mount solar panels. Fortunately the property has other buildings with corrugated steel or aluminum roofing that would also be appropriate for mounting solar panels.
These systems can also be set up to charge a battery bank to store excess energy, so it can be used when the grid fails, or if the home is off the grid in the first place. They do add considerable extra expense, and batteries have a finite lifespan and must be replaced every five to ten years. In my location, I'd probably opt for a system without storage batteries, and if I was really concerned about grid failure (such as following an earthquake) I'd have a standby fossil fuel powered generator to cover the outtage.
Efficiency really isn't such a big issue for solar panels, it is just cost. It doesn't matter too much if the efficiency is low, you can just make the panels bigger to compensate if they can be made cheap enough. The most popular panels are not the most efficient, Canon panels are lower on the efficiency but as they are pretty low cost they are quite popular. They just take up more room on your roof. The main need for more efficient panels is where space is limited, such as on the roof of a solar car. Solar panels are much more efficient than coal for example. Not sure about wind or solar, though the efficiency of wind turbines changes with the wind speed so comparison would be difficult or impossible.
"Batteries need to be changed every five to ten years..." well my batteries are 35 years old. That is unusual and I have been particularly careful with them and very lucky, but every 15 years is more like it, with correctly sized and operated systems.
Chris.
"Batteries need to be changed every five to ten years..." well my batteries are 35 years old. That is unusual and I have been particularly careful with them and very lucky, but every 15 years is more like it, with correctly sized and operated systems.
Chris.
Solar panels today are about 10% efficient. If they could be made 20% efficient, then 1/2 as many panels would be needed, and if the price per panel stays the same, then naturally the overall cost for a given installation would go down.
Most homes with a peaked roof only have one part of the roof that is optimally situated for collecting solar power. Otherwise ugly and added cost stands need to be built to orient the panels towards the sun (roughly at perhaps a 30 degree angle from horizontal towards the south). Hipped roofs have an advantage over gable roofs because they have four slanted sides and therefore are better able to present at least one surface to the southern exposure.
Not sure how you get that solar is more efficient than coal. The average natural gas generation station is about 40% efficient, higher is co-generation and other energy recovery tricks are used. I can't think that coal is all that much less efficient than natural gas; after all, it's all BTU's once it's burned. Perhaps more energy is required to mine coal and transport it? Even so, I'd think that coal is at least twice as efficient as current photovoltaic solar panels.
35 years for a lead-acid battery must be some kind of record... My own experience with car batteries is that five years is the average - some last longer, some last shorter. Keeping them charged up all the time helps - I got some floating trickle battery chargers a year or two ago, and my car and bike batteries seem to be lasting much longer as a result. Bike batteries are particularly short lived, with three years more the average. They are generally undersized, and subject to long periods of slow drain (winter/rainy weather), as well as more vibration than the usual car battery. No doubt deep drain (marine type) stationary batteries such as might be used for photovoltaic storage might be longer lasting, with the absence of vibration and the opportunity to protect them from temperature extremes.
Photovoltaic efficiency is also more important in climes where there is more cloud cover than in sunny Australia, I would imagine. Higher efficiency panels can generate electricity even on an overcast day, but I understand that the lower efficiency cheaper panels pretty much go bust when the sun dips behind a cloud.
Most homes with a peaked roof only have one part of the roof that is optimally situated for collecting solar power. Otherwise ugly and added cost stands need to be built to orient the panels towards the sun (roughly at perhaps a 30 degree angle from horizontal towards the south). Hipped roofs have an advantage over gable roofs because they have four slanted sides and therefore are better able to present at least one surface to the southern exposure.
Not sure how you get that solar is more efficient than coal. The average natural gas generation station is about 40% efficient, higher is co-generation and other energy recovery tricks are used. I can't think that coal is all that much less efficient than natural gas; after all, it's all BTU's once it's burned. Perhaps more energy is required to mine coal and transport it? Even so, I'd think that coal is at least twice as efficient as current photovoltaic solar panels.
35 years for a lead-acid battery must be some kind of record... My own experience with car batteries is that five years is the average - some last longer, some last shorter. Keeping them charged up all the time helps - I got some floating trickle battery chargers a year or two ago, and my car and bike batteries seem to be lasting much longer as a result. Bike batteries are particularly short lived, with three years more the average. They are generally undersized, and subject to long periods of slow drain (winter/rainy weather), as well as more vibration than the usual car battery. No doubt deep drain (marine type) stationary batteries such as might be used for photovoltaic storage might be longer lasting, with the absence of vibration and the opportunity to protect them from temperature extremes.
Photovoltaic efficiency is also more important in climes where there is more cloud cover than in sunny Australia, I would imagine. Higher efficiency panels can generate electricity even on an overcast day, but I understand that the lower efficiency cheaper panels pretty much go bust when the sun dips behind a cloud.
insulinpumpuser
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2006
- Messages
- 75
wind power
Hi, all. My uncle in Sieara Vista (spell) has a giant Ge wind turbine to power his entire property. It's about 100 feet tall, but it does the job. You can also get it in custom colors instead of that damn ugly white color....Bill in Az....
Hi, all. My uncle in Sieara Vista (spell) has a giant Ge wind turbine to power his entire property. It's about 100 feet tall, but it does the job. You can also get it in custom colors instead of that damn ugly white color....Bill in Az....
Exide industrial batteries may be good for solar system energy storage.However I think keeping large banks of batteries in or near the home has dangers.They generate flammable and explosive hydrogen gas while charging or discharging.So they need a well ventilated battery room with explosion proof light ot electrical wiring.A large battery bank may contain several gallons of corrosive Sulfuric acid.I have maintained battery banks--Exide in a few workplaces-they are used as what is often called "house battery" supplies-usually 48V and 120V.the 48V supply is used to run control and relay equipment. the 120V bank is used to operate the open-close coils of remote trip stored energy LV and medium voltage circuit breakers.The batteries are in an industrial place where they get regular and professional care.In a Home you will have to be famaliar with their care and hazards.The big hazard is any lead-acid battery system can store and quickly release large maounts of electrical energy.and as they do so-the batteries can overheat and even explode showering anyone or anything nearby by hot acid and hot lead.I don't want this in my home.Its better and safer-not to mention cheaper to have the utility to generate your power.And other things batteries-if many homes have them with the photocells-in a mishap-like a flood,earthquake,etc-that acid could be released from broken or flooded batteries and go??and when the batteries do reach the end of their useful life-they can be an enviorenmental hazard.I would like to see some sort of other battery used.There are also solar cell controller-inverters on the market that are "batteryless" you use the utility as the "battery"The downside of these in case of a power failure-the system MUST disconnect from the powerline so it can't feed power back into the line endangering utility workers.And since it doesn't then have a "storage" you won't have power until the utility restores their power.
I think it is mandated here that any subsidized solar system that is connected to the grid must have an automatic cutoff switch that will disconnect it from the grid if there is a grid power failure. The utility is already complaiing about people hooking up emergency generators to their home wiring, without any cutoff from the grid, and when the utility electrical workers try to fix the problem on their end, they risk getting zapped from two directions.
But like I said, earlier, when you connect a solar electric system here to the grid, the meter can spin backwards and the utility acts like the battery, as you put it. The only difference is that the utility keeps any energy over and above what you consume. You don't get that back, not as payment, that is.
I have also seen automatic grid disconnect devices being sold alongside emergency generators. Presumably people use them.
Me, I'd just use the generator to power a the fridge and chest freezer and maybe a few lights/radio/tv/computer etc. And maybe the pond pump so the fish don't all croak. The rest can wait - it would be like camping...
But like I said, earlier, when you connect a solar electric system here to the grid, the meter can spin backwards and the utility acts like the battery, as you put it. The only difference is that the utility keeps any energy over and above what you consume. You don't get that back, not as payment, that is.
I have also seen automatic grid disconnect devices being sold alongside emergency generators. Presumably people use them.
Me, I'd just use the generator to power a the fridge and chest freezer and maybe a few lights/radio/tv/computer etc. And maybe the pond pump so the fish don't all croak. The rest can wait - it would be like camping...
The "automatic Disconnect" or transfer switches--in most areas are REQUIRED by the NEC for emergency generators wether for the home or commercial.The only exception is on "load management" generators-at whre I work we have a load management generator.On certain days-(Very hot in summer or cold in winter)The power co. asks us to run the building load and transmitters off the generator.In the Load management mode it is paralled to the power line.If the utility is working on the lines in the area-they ask us NOT to use the gen.Ours can also be operated in the "emergency" mode-isolated from the utility.When it runs in this mode-the "line circuit breaker in the gen system is opened-and the gen breaker closed to feed power.With the line breaker open it cannot feed power back into the line.We follow their requests-even disable the gen so it cannot start if they give us notice they are working on the lines.When they are finished and clear-we restore the gen start.Severasl years ago when Floyd hit this area with its floods-people were using their generators-the utility workers would ask and inspect the householders gen setup-if it was feeding back into the lines-the utility workers had the right to shut the genset off and inform the householder about the incorrect gen connections.Most gen connections complied.Since Floyd-have seen some gensets installed as emergency units-usually "Guardian" brand-they are sold and installed through Home Depot.They have certified electricians install the gensets and transfer switches so they meet codes.the cabinets they are in look like an AC compresser unit.They can generate up to 18Kw of power.Can run most appliances in the house.The gen cannot run electric heat though-but would run a heat pump.
Efficiency is not a big issue with solar energy because the energy source is free, unlike a fossil-fuel energy source. Fossil fuel power plants are cheap to build, and can be buit efficiently even at that low cost. 40% efficiency is at the low end. 60% is the high end on most steam based powerplants. Efficiency is a big-time issue with these plants however becasue the fuel must be paid for. The more energy you extract out of the fuel, the more money you can make selling it as electricity.
Internal-combustion fossil fuel power plants, like home backup generators, and portable construction generators are usually only in the 20-25% efficiency range. This is primarly a space issue. If one wanted to make these generators more efficient, they would need to be 4 times bigger and heavier...not to mention out of the price range of the typical homeowner, and out of the skill range required to operate it!
With solar panels however, efficiency is not an issue becaue the energy source if free. The cost to benefit ratio is much higher with a low-efficiency panel. For example, a 50 watt panel that's 10% efficient may cost $200, while a 50 watt panel that's 20% efficient may cost almost $300. If you're doing a whole roof of solar panels in an attempt to make say, 1000 watts, it's going to be much more cost beneficial to buy the lesser efficient panels for the lower price, and just consume more space on the rooftop
Internal-combustion fossil fuel power plants, like home backup generators, and portable construction generators are usually only in the 20-25% efficiency range. This is primarly a space issue. If one wanted to make these generators more efficient, they would need to be 4 times bigger and heavier...not to mention out of the price range of the typical homeowner, and out of the skill range required to operate it!
With solar panels however, efficiency is not an issue becaue the energy source if free. The cost to benefit ratio is much higher with a low-efficiency panel. For example, a 50 watt panel that's 10% efficient may cost $200, while a 50 watt panel that's 20% efficient may cost almost $300. If you're doing a whole roof of solar panels in an attempt to make say, 1000 watts, it's going to be much more cost beneficial to buy the lesser efficient panels for the lower price, and just consume more space on the rooftop
Actually the Canon solar panels are the least affected by overcast conditions, they are amorphous silicon panels, most other quality full size panels are polycrystalline or monocrystalline. The amorphous Canon panels suffer less output loss from partial shading, overcast, and high temperature - an ironic problem in central Australia is that with most solar panels, the output drops severely in extremely strong sun as the panels heat up too much and the output falls off.
I don't have Canon panels, mine are older Arco and Siemens panels but the high temp factor isn't a problem, I live in the cold, damp, foggy part of Australia, it's not all outback here ya know!
My 35 year old batteries are ex-government, from Telecom Australia. They are Exide 500 amp-hour cells. They were retired from the telephone exchange at twenty years old, I bought them by tender for $22 each (they sold new for $250 at the time) and I have had 15 years solar use from them. They have lost efficiency over time but I treat them well and they are still OK. When we move to the new house I will take all my solar gear except the batteries, they will be recycled and I will buy a new set of Exide Energystore solar batteries.
Safety - the code here demands that the cells must be fully enclosed in a gas-tight enclosure from the room they are in; the enclosure must be vented to outside; the cells must be standing in a containment trays capable of holding all acid in case ALL cells should leak at once; warning signs about explosion risk and chemical burns risk, a supply of clean water to treat any acid spills or injuries, no electrical connections able to be touched/shorted, even low voltage. Plus fuses/breakers, etc. (my current installation complies with almost none of this as it was done before the code came in)
Most crystalline panels on the AU market are 12 to 15% efficient. There are 20% efficient cells available from Sydney University but they are more than twice as expensive as the 15% cells.
The State I live in, Victoria, uses mainly BROWN coal which is horribly dirty and inefficient. It needs to be dried out after having been mined before it can be burnt. One the energy used to mine it and dry it is added in, plus transmission losses, it works out to about 5% efficient. That is, to get 1kwh of heat to your living room, about 20 kwh needs to go into mining, drying, burning the coal and distributing that electricity.
Chris.
I don't have Canon panels, mine are older Arco and Siemens panels but the high temp factor isn't a problem, I live in the cold, damp, foggy part of Australia, it's not all outback here ya know!
My 35 year old batteries are ex-government, from Telecom Australia. They are Exide 500 amp-hour cells. They were retired from the telephone exchange at twenty years old, I bought them by tender for $22 each (they sold new for $250 at the time) and I have had 15 years solar use from them. They have lost efficiency over time but I treat them well and they are still OK. When we move to the new house I will take all my solar gear except the batteries, they will be recycled and I will buy a new set of Exide Energystore solar batteries.
Safety - the code here demands that the cells must be fully enclosed in a gas-tight enclosure from the room they are in; the enclosure must be vented to outside; the cells must be standing in a containment trays capable of holding all acid in case ALL cells should leak at once; warning signs about explosion risk and chemical burns risk, a supply of clean water to treat any acid spills or injuries, no electrical connections able to be touched/shorted, even low voltage. Plus fuses/breakers, etc. (my current installation complies with almost none of this as it was done before the code came in)
Most crystalline panels on the AU market are 12 to 15% efficient. There are 20% efficient cells available from Sydney University but they are more than twice as expensive as the 15% cells.
The State I live in, Victoria, uses mainly BROWN coal which is horribly dirty and inefficient. It needs to be dried out after having been mined before it can be burnt. One the energy used to mine it and dry it is added in, plus transmission losses, it works out to about 5% efficient. That is, to get 1kwh of heat to your living room, about 20 kwh needs to go into mining, drying, burning the coal and distributing that electricity.
Chris.
I can believe that internal combustion generators are only about 25% efficient. However most big fossil fuel power plants here run on natural gas, and these use gas turbines, which are 40% or better efficient (as I understand it). A modern car engine is about 35% efficient, but that is mainly in coverting chemical energy into motion; not chemical energy into electricity.
neptunebob
Well-known member
Pennsylvania is a leader in nuclear energy.....
So I just have to chime in. I am interested in nuclear energy and would have gone into it if college went better. My Aunt Edith was a high school science teacher, and one summer she came to our house with a motor home full of material about nuclear power stations. I spent hours reading it when I probably should have played baseball (how boring for me).
Pennsylvania, and Pittsburgh in particular, is a leader in nuclear energy. The first US commercial nuclear power station, The Shippingport Atomic Power Station, started up in 1957 about 30 miles from where I am now typing. This reactor was small and ran well into the 1980's when it was decommissioned and replaced with the two much larger Beaver Valley units, all built by Westinghouse. In Monroeville, Wsstinghouse has its Energy Center and a lot of engineers in our area work there. I read that when Shippingport was decomissioned, workers used Tide to decomtaminate many of the parts.
Pennsylvania now has 9 nuclear reactors, only Illinois has more (11), at one time our state was the leader in the number of nuclear power plants.
Toggle, when you talk about France's nuclear program you might want to go to the web site for Areva, the French reactor maker. They are the company that had the commercials last year with the "Funkytown" song.
This weekend I attended a conference in Harrisburg and could see Three Mile Island in the background, you could see it (the undamaged unit 1) was running all the time. In proportion to the city's size, I believe Harrisburg must be a mostly nuclear-powered city. Pittsburgh is probably nuclear powered when both Beaver Valley units are on.
Gizmo, I think solar energy might work in Austrailia but here in PA it is often, cold, cloudy, miserable, and dark (even thought it was so sunny this weekend I was sunburned!). There is, however, solar panels along the PA Turnpike for electric signs and windmills on the mountaines in Somerset County. Recently a "Combined Cycle Gas Turbine" Generator was built near my sister's house. They don't seem to run that every day though, so I guess it's just when needed.
Now wasn't that interesting about Tide being used to decomtaminate the first nuclear power plant? Nep.
So I just have to chime in. I am interested in nuclear energy and would have gone into it if college went better. My Aunt Edith was a high school science teacher, and one summer she came to our house with a motor home full of material about nuclear power stations. I spent hours reading it when I probably should have played baseball (how boring for me).
Pennsylvania, and Pittsburgh in particular, is a leader in nuclear energy. The first US commercial nuclear power station, The Shippingport Atomic Power Station, started up in 1957 about 30 miles from where I am now typing. This reactor was small and ran well into the 1980's when it was decommissioned and replaced with the two much larger Beaver Valley units, all built by Westinghouse. In Monroeville, Wsstinghouse has its Energy Center and a lot of engineers in our area work there. I read that when Shippingport was decomissioned, workers used Tide to decomtaminate many of the parts.
Pennsylvania now has 9 nuclear reactors, only Illinois has more (11), at one time our state was the leader in the number of nuclear power plants.
Toggle, when you talk about France's nuclear program you might want to go to the web site for Areva, the French reactor maker. They are the company that had the commercials last year with the "Funkytown" song.
This weekend I attended a conference in Harrisburg and could see Three Mile Island in the background, you could see it (the undamaged unit 1) was running all the time. In proportion to the city's size, I believe Harrisburg must be a mostly nuclear-powered city. Pittsburgh is probably nuclear powered when both Beaver Valley units are on.
Gizmo, I think solar energy might work in Austrailia but here in PA it is often, cold, cloudy, miserable, and dark (even thought it was so sunny this weekend I was sunburned!). There is, however, solar panels along the PA Turnpike for electric signs and windmills on the mountaines in Somerset County. Recently a "Combined Cycle Gas Turbine" Generator was built near my sister's house. They don't seem to run that every day though, so I guess it's just when needed.
Now wasn't that interesting about Tide being used to decomtaminate the first nuclear power plant? Nep.
Designgeek
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2004
- Messages
- 865
I'm going to resist the temptation to write a long essay here and just say that I'd be glad to have a nuclear reactor next door.
Nuclear is safe and climate-clean, and the new reactor technology is even better. It's also the best foundation for maximizing use of wind and solar on the grid. As oil production peaks out in a few years, we are going to need it even more.
I'm hoping we can get one built in the Central Valley. Out of reach of earthquake faults, and along the main power transmission corridor where an extra gigawatt of power can reach the largest number of users.
BTW, actual construction time is 5 - 7 years for these things. What makes it take longer has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with NIMBYs. So if there is a reactor planned for your area, the thing to do is organize your friends to go to the public hearings and support it strongly, and have good technical arguements to refute all the NIMBY issues. You might be able to make a real difference in helping get it built on-time and on-budget.
Nuclear is safe and climate-clean, and the new reactor technology is even better. It's also the best foundation for maximizing use of wind and solar on the grid. As oil production peaks out in a few years, we are going to need it even more.
I'm hoping we can get one built in the Central Valley. Out of reach of earthquake faults, and along the main power transmission corridor where an extra gigawatt of power can reach the largest number of users.
BTW, actual construction time is 5 - 7 years for these things. What makes it take longer has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with NIMBYs. So if there is a reactor planned for your area, the thing to do is organize your friends to go to the public hearings and support it strongly, and have good technical arguements to refute all the NIMBY issues. You might be able to make a real difference in helping get it built on-time and on-budget.
