#Login Register


  • 5 Vote(s) - 3 Average
Home 


Alternate Energy Blows - 14000 dead turbines
11-27-2012, 04:10 PM #1
オタマジャクシ Member
Posts:1,310 Threads:32 Joined:Nov 2012
http://toryaardvark.com/2011/11/17/14000...n-the-usa/

That's not bad enough, they want to feed at the Government trough some more.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/26/a-...-the-wind/
11-27-2012, 04:40 PM #2
Octo Mother Superior
Posts:43,023 Threads:1,474 Joined:Feb 2011
That blows. A business shouldn't have to rely on subsidies to survive, but hell, that's the case with farming in EU as well. sad2.gif

I was reading about Denmark who was a pioneer in developing commercial wind power during the 1970s.
Quote: Wind power provided 18.9% of electricity production and 24.1% of generation capacity in Denmark in 2008.[2] In 2012 the Danish government adopted a plan to increase the share of electricity production from wind to 50% by 2020

Many countries tried to subsidize green technology such as wind power, and most failed to make a viable industry. The Danish system was an exception, providing 30% of initial capital cost in the early years which was gradually reduced to zero, but still maintaining a feed-in tariff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark

I think if powerful business interests wouldn't buy the patents of all alternative clean energy systems we would have a lot more options. dunno.gif
11-27-2012, 04:44 PM #3
JayRodney ⓐⓛⓘⓔⓝ
Posts:31,396 Threads:1,439 Joined:Feb 2011
This "green" admin that wants to screw the coal plants over non existent global warming, coupled with the general consensus that nuclear power is quite dangerous; is creating quite the dilemma.

Nuclear power’s potential as a solution to global warming and power needs comes with the industry’s long and expensive history of taxpayer subsidies and excessive charges to utility ratepayers. These subsidies not only enabled the nation’s existing reactors to be built in the first place, but have also supported their operation for decades. As we've seen with the Fukushima reactors they are also anything but safe. Just ask the children in japan with thyroid cancer.

Solar efficiency, while steadily improving is still a few years from being practical. These are problems with no easy solutions, but shutting down any new coal plant construction and putting unnecessary restrictions on existing ones is a "solution" to a non existent problem. Neither is a long term viable solution to energy needs.

I don't know what the real solution to any of this is, but knee jerk reactions based on pseudo science won't help matters, neither do dangerous solutions that require subsidies, that is unsustainable.

wonder.gif
11-27-2012, 08:30 PM #4
オタマジャクシ Member
Posts:1,310 Threads:32 Joined:Nov 2012
(11-27-2012, 04:44 PM)JayRodney Wrote:  This "green" admin that wants to screw the coal plants over non existent global warming, coupled with the general consensus that nuclear power is quite dangerous; is creating quite the dilemma.

Nuclear power’s potential as a solution to global warming and power needs comes with the industry’s long and expensive history of taxpayer subsidies and excessive charges to utility ratepayers. These subsidies not only enabled the nation’s existing reactors to be built in the first place, but have also supported their operation for decades. As we've seen with the Fukushima reactors they are also anything but safe. Just ask the children in japan with thyroid cancer.

Solar efficiency, while steadily improving is still a few years from being practical. These are problems with no easy solutions, but shutting down any new coal plant construction and putting unnecessary restrictions on existing ones is a "solution" to a non existent problem. Neither is a long term viable solution to energy needs.

I don't know what the real solution to any of this is, but knee jerk reactions based on pseudo science won't help matters, neither do dangerous solutions that require subsidies, that is unsustainable.


I'm still debating with Unique if the one known adolescent thyroid cancer death in Fukushima is due to the radiation released (it might be, but you can't make a graph from one data point). The projected worst case death rate for the Fukushima population is under 100 people (less than died in the evacuation). The Japan Tsunami killed 19294 more or less. The Fukushima radiation deaths will be less than 0.006 of the deaths in the tragedy.

The radiation level allowed for the Yucca Repository was just a hair above the level of the natural granite in the repository. Granite averages 1000 Bq/kg. The recommended dose limit for the repository was 0.02 - 0.2 mS/y, the background radiation from granite is in the .85 to 1.1 mS/y range (5 to 50 times the proposed radiation limit). Compare this to the EPA action level for Radon in the home of 8 mS/y.

A little background on radiation. The normal background radiation in US is 3.1 mS/y. The lowest cancer rate is at 200 mS/y. The radiation level has to increase to 2 S/y to equal the cancer rate at 3.1 mS/y. Ramsar Iran which has a background radiation level about 30 mS/y (one house had a committed dose rate of 640 mS/y) has below average cancer rate.
The linear no-threshold model of radiation is simply wrong, radiation hormesis is a better model.
From Wiki:
"The Health Physics Society's position statement first adopted in January 1996, as revised in July 2010, states:
In accordance with current knowledge of radiation health risks, the Health Physics Society recommends against quantitative estimation of health risks below an individual dose of 5 rem (50 mSv) in one year or a lifetime dose of 10 rem (100 mSv) above that received from natural sources. ...
The American Nuclear Society ... concurring with the Health Physics Society's position that:
There is substantial and convincing scientific evidence for health risks at high dose. Below 10 rem or 100 mSv (which includes occupational and environmental exposures) risks of health effects are either too small to be observed or are non-existent."

From Rational Wiki:"Recently, it was discovered that Herman Muller, originator of the LNT hypothesis, had access to evidence that contradicted it, but nonetheless endorsed it. Apparently it was a matter of political expediency in an effort to ban above-ground atomic testing."

Scrap steel from gas plants may be recycled if it has less than 500,000 Bq/kg. Coal ash has from 100 to 1800 Bq/kg. Coffee, tea, and some other common foods may be over 400 Bq/kg. According to the FDA,http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/UCM094513.pdf, up to 2000 Bq/kg for food is permitted. Superphosphate fertilizer is 2200 Bq/kg, concentrated superphosphate fertilizer is 4800 Bq/kg. Reactor steel that has a level of more that 500 Bq/kg must be treated as hazardous waste. The allowable radiation level for waste Reactor steel is 1000 times less than the radiation from waste gas pipeline steel. Just to make it clear, reactor steel scrap less radioactive than some food in your grocery store has to be treated as hazardous waste.

Nuclear reactors are expensive because they use an expensive design (Light water) and have ridiculous regulations that maximize the operating cost. As to US reactor safety: more people died in the back of Ted Kennedy's car than died from radiation in Nuclear Power Plant accidents in the US.

The problem with solar and wind is that a 100% backup must be provided, and the sites are far from the users and require high power lines run to the sites. As one power engineer said, "Solar power would be too expensive if the panels were free."



Home 




 



DISCLAIMER / Terms of Service (TOS):
Kritterbox.com - Socialize anonymously, commentary, discussion, oddities, technology, music and more!  This website is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. kritterbox.com shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, those resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this site or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this site.
This website exists solely for the purposes of exchange of information, communication and general entertainment. Opinions from posters are in no way endorsed by kritterbox.com. All posts on this website are the opinion of the authors and are not to be taken as statements of fact on behalf of kritterbox.com. This site may contain coarse language or other material that kritterbox.com is in no way responsible for. Material deemed to be offensive or pornographic at the discretion of kritterbox.com shall be removed. kritterbox.com reserves the right to modify, or remove posts and user accounts on this website at our discretion. kritterbox.com disclaims all liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of any material on this website. Fictitious posts and any similarity to any person living or dead is coincidental.
All users shall limit the insertion of any and all copyrighted material to portions of the article that are relevant to the point being made, with no more than 50%, and preferably less of the original source material. A link shall be visible in text format, embedded directly to the original source material without exception.
No third party links, i.e. blogs or forums will be accepted under any circumstances, and will be edited by staff in order to reflect the original source of copyrighted material, or be removed at the sole discretion of kritterbox.com.
Fair Use Notice:
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science, and technology. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for educational and/or research purposes.
This Disclaimer is subject to change at any time at our discretion.
Copyright © 2011 - 2017 kritterbox.com