| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"DanWood" |
| Date: |
23 Jun 2005 11:17:43 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Build Nuclear Plants, ban Oil! |
If the US were to start on a series of Nuclear power plants
it would be possible over the next two or three decades to
ban the use of oil. By then oil reserves will be reduced to
the point that only the richest among us will be able to
afford oil. Nuclear energy is the most practical source in
the near future. In time oil could be banned.
DanWood, DDS
.
|
|
| User: "dwacon" |
|
| Title: Re: Build Nuclear Plants, ban Oil! |
24 Jun 2005 04:39:37 AM |
|
|
"DanWood" <dan224@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:foHue.644$wm.528@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
If the US were to start on a series of Nuclear power plants
it would be possible over the next two or three decades to
ban the use of oil.
We have nuke plants... and still we need oil.
--
Jennifer Wilbanks is...
The Runaway Bride...
http://www.cafepress.com/dwacon/601709
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0525-3, 06/23/2005
Tested on: 6/24/2005 12:39:42 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanWood" |
|
| Title: Re: Build Nuclear Plants, ban Oil! |
24 Jun 2005 07:52:54 PM |
|
|
"dwacon" <uncle.fester@addams.family> wrote in message
news:h8Mue.140405$sy6.62859@lakeread04...
"DanWood" <dan224@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:foHue.644$wm.528@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
If the US were to start on a series of Nuclear power plants
it would be possible over the next two or three decades to
ban the use of oil.
We have nuke plants... and still we need oil.
Our current nuke plants are forty or nearing forty years old, considered
to be the life of the plants. They are being dismantled. My cousin a
nuclear engineer is deeply involved in this. He is retiring next year, his
concern is that we are losing the qualified technologist. If we embark
upon such a building program we do not have the personnel to do this.
European nations do but we are rapidly losing the ability.
Dan Wood, DDS
--
Jennifer Wilbanks is...
The Runaway Bride...
http://www.cafepress.com/dwacon/601709
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0525-3, 06/23/2005
Tested on: 6/24/2005 12:39:42 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Build Nuclear Plants, ban Oil! |
25 Jun 2005 06:23:02 AM |
|
|
DanWood wrote:
We have nuke plants... and still we need oil.
Our current nuke plants are forty or nearing forty years old,
considered to be the life of the plants. They are being dismantled.
My cousin a nuclear engineer is deeply involved in this. He is
retiring next year, his concern is that we are losing the qualified
technologist. If we embark upon such a building program we do not
have the personnel to do this. European nations do but we are rapidly
losing the ability.
Dan Wood, DDS
Pebble bed reactors are cheap, safe, don't require a huge technology, and
have been around since the 60's.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David H." |
|
| Title: Re: Build Nuclear Plants, ban Oil! |
23 Jun 2005 11:21:49 PM |
|
|
"DanWood" <dan224@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:foHue.644$wm.528@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
If the US were to start on a series of Nuclear power plants
it would be possible over the next two or three decades to
ban the use of oil. By then oil reserves will be reduced to
the point that only the richest among us will be able to
afford oil. Nuclear energy is the most practical source in
the near future. In time oil could be banned.
DanWood, DDS
How about the power of the sun: The power of the seas?
How about the power of the nervousness of people about to see their
dentist?
David H. aa #2217
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanWood" |
|
| Title: Re: Build Nuclear Plants, ban Oil! |
23 Jun 2005 11:31:03 PM |
|
|
"David H." <davidhaapala@sbcglobal.fart.not.net> wrote in message
news:huHue.1276$5w3.98@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
"DanWood" <dan224@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:foHue.644$wm.528@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
If the US were to start on a series of Nuclear power plants
it would be possible over the next two or three decades to
ban the use of oil. By then oil reserves will be reduced to
the point that only the richest among us will be able to
afford oil. Nuclear energy is the most practical source in
the near future. In time oil could be banned.
DanWood, DDS
How about the power of the sun: The power of the seas?
These are less practical than nuclear power plants. Breeder reactors
have been on line in Europe for decades. I agree that energy from
the sun, the wind, the oceans thermal wells could be a viable energy
source, but these as the massives sources we need are further into
the future. I like your suggestion for power from the ocean. Turbines
could in the near future generate power. And an inexhaustable source.
How about the power of the nervousness of people about to see their
dentist?
Oh if only we could harness that: especially five and six year old boys.
David H. aa #2217
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Build Nuclear Plants, ban Oil! |
23 Jun 2005 11:47:47 PM |
|
|
"DanWood" <dan224@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:LAHue.649$wm.591@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"David H." <davidhaapala@sbcglobal.fart.not.net> wrote in message
news:huHue.1276$5w3.98@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
"DanWood" <dan224@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:foHue.644$wm.528@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
If the US were to start on a series of Nuclear power plants
it would be possible over the next two or three decades to
ban the use of oil. By then oil reserves will be reduced to
the point that only the richest among us will be able to
afford oil. Nuclear energy is the most practical source in
the near future. In time oil could be banned.
DanWood, DDS
How about the power of the sun: The power of the seas?
These are less practical than nuclear power plants. Breeder reactors
have been on line in Europe for decades. I agree that energy from
the sun, the wind, the oceans thermal wells could be a viable energy
source, but these as the massives sources we need are further into
the future. I like your suggestion for power from the ocean. Turbines
could in the near future generate power. And an inexhaustable source.
How about the power of the nervousness of people about to see their
dentist?
Oh if only we could harness that: especially five and six year old boys.
David H. aa #2217
Its a nice theory .... but i was listening to a radio program a week or so
ago and the guest (who i cant recall) stated that the main problems with
going nuclear are
1) it can take up to a decade to get a reactor on line - which is too long
really
2) it would take 10,000 reactors to completely replace current fossil fuel
generation
3) if you had 10,000 reactors the worlds supply of uranium would run out in
10 yrs
so with all the massive construction you have solved the problem for only 10
years..and created a whole new problem with the waste from 10,000 reactors.
Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Build Nuclear Plants, ban Oil! |
24 Jun 2005 12:36:00 AM |
|
|
"Steve" <dontbother@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:42bb4adb$0$842$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-
03.brisbane.pipenetworks.
com.au:
"DanWood" <dan224@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:LAHue.649$wm.591@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"David H." <davidhaapala@sbcglobal.fart.not.net> wrote in message
news:huHue.1276$5w3.98@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
"DanWood" <dan224@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:foHue.644$wm.528@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
If the US were to start on a series of Nuclear power plants
it would be possible over the next two or three decades to
ban the use of oil. By then oil reserves will be reduced to
the point that only the richest among us will be able to
afford oil. Nuclear energy is the most practical source in
the near future. In time oil could be banned.
DanWood, DDS
How about the power of the sun: The power of the seas?
These are less practical than nuclear power plants. Breeder reactors
have been on line in Europe for decades. I agree that energy from
the sun, the wind, the oceans thermal wells could be a viable energy
source, but these as the massives sources we need are further into
the future. I like your suggestion for power from the ocean. Turbines
could in the near future generate power. And an inexhaustable source.
How about the power of the nervousness of people about to see
their
dentist?
Oh if only we could harness that: especially five and six year old
boys.
David H. aa #2217
Its a nice theory .... but i was listening to a radio program a week
or so ago and the guest (who i cant recall) stated that the main
problems with going nuclear are
1) it can take up to a decade to get a reactor on line - which is too
long really
Much of that is bureaucratic delay. The actual construction time is
comparable to that of a conventional power plant.
2) it would take 10,000 reactors to completely replace current fossil
fuel generation
3) if you had 10,000 reactors the worlds supply of uranium would run
out in 10 yrs
That's because only about 3% of the Uranium is the fissionable U-235.
so with all the massive construction you have solved the problem for
only 10 years..and created a whole new problem with the waste from
10,000 reactors.
That "waste" is itself the solution to problem #3. Reprocess to extract
the plutonium and other fissionable products, and run breeder reactors
to convert the 97% of Uranium 238 that was removed in the enrichment
process.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Metaphysics is almost always an attempt to prove
the incredible by an appeal to the unintelligible."
[H.L. Mencken, "Prejudices"]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Grogs" |
|
| Title: Re: Build Nuclear Plants, ban Oil! |
24 Jun 2005 12:16:29 AM |
|
|
"Steve" <dontbother@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:42bb4adb$0$842$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-03.brisbane.pipenetworks.
com.au:
"DanWood" <dan224@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:LAHue.649$wm.591@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"David H." <davidhaapala@sbcglobal.fart.not.net> wrote in message
news:huHue.1276$5w3.98@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
"DanWood" <dan224@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:foHue.644$wm.528@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
If the US were to start on a series of Nuclear power plants
it would be possible over the next two or three decades to
ban the use of oil. By then oil reserves will be reduced to
the point that only the richest among us will be able to
afford oil. Nuclear energy is the most practical source in
the near future. In time oil could be banned.
DanWood, DDS
How about the power of the sun: The power of the seas?
These are less practical than nuclear power plants. Breeder reactors
have been on line in Europe for decades. I agree that energy from
the sun, the wind, the oceans thermal wells could be a viable energy
source, but these as the massives sources we need are further into
the future. I like your suggestion for power from the ocean. Turbines
could in the near future generate power. And an inexhaustable source.
How about the power of the nervousness of people about to see
their
dentist?
Oh if only we could harness that: especially five and six year old
boys.
David H. aa #2217
Its a nice theory .... but i was listening to a radio program a week
or so ago and the guest (who i cant recall) stated that the main
problems with going nuclear are
1) it can take up to a decade to get a reactor on line - which is too
long really
2) it would take 10,000 reactors to completely replace current fossil
fuel generation
3) if you had 10,000 reactors the worlds supply of uranium would run
out in 10 yrs
so with all the massive construction you have solved the problem for
only 10 years..and created a whole new problem with the waste from
10,000 reactors.
Steve
I don't know who the fellow was, but it sounds like he didn't know a
whole lot about the subject.
1) Actually, they can build a full-scale nuclear power plant from ground-
breaking to ribbon-cutting in about 18 months to 2 years. In the U.S.,
the approval process is maddeningly slow though, so approval for new
reactors can take many, many years. In addition, even after the plant is
built, the state government (who regulates the price the utility can
charge) can just say 'no' and the whole thing is off. IIRC, there's a
fully functional plant in Shoreham, NY that was built, operated for *3
days*, and then abandoned when NY refused to allow them to sell the
electricity (although the state was at least nice enough to buy the
plant.) If we really wanted to get new reactors built quickly, we could
certainly do so.
2) A moderate nuclear power plant can produce ~1000 MW of electrical
power. This is the equivalent of a fairly large fossil fuel plant.
3) The 'worst-case' scenario I've ever seen from a respectable source
said ~60 years. That doesn't take reprocessing of spent fuel rods into
account, which should easily double that figure. There is also a near-
limitless supply of Uranium in sea water. Extracting it is an economic,
not a technological problem.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nog" |
|
| Title: Re: Build Nuclear Plants, ban Oil! |
24 Jun 2005 02:19:32 AM |
|
|
"Grogs" <grogs@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns967ECEBE3647Agrogsnomailcom@216.168.3.30...
"Steve" <dontbother@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:42bb4adb$0$842$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-03.brisbane.pipenetworks.
com.au:
"DanWood" <dan224@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:LAHue.649$wm.591@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"David H." <davidhaapala@sbcglobal.fart.not.net> wrote in message
news:huHue.1276$5w3.98@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
"DanWood" <dan224@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:foHue.644$wm.528@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
If the US were to start on a series of Nuclear power plants
it would be possible over the next two or three decades to
ban the use of oil. By then oil reserves will be reduced to
the point that only the richest among us will be able to
afford oil. Nuclear energy is the most practical source in
the near future. In time oil could be banned.
DanWood, DDS
How about the power of the sun: The power of the seas?
These are less practical than nuclear power plants. Breeder reactors
have been on line in Europe for decades. I agree that energy from
the sun, the wind, the oceans thermal wells could be a viable energy
source, but these as the massives sources we need are further into
the future. I like your suggestion for power from the ocean. Turbines
could in the near future generate power. And an inexhaustable source.
How about the power of the nervousness of people about to see
their
dentist?
Oh if only we could harness that: especially five and six year old
boys.
David H. aa #2217
Its a nice theory .... but i was listening to a radio program a week
or so ago and the guest (who i cant recall) stated that the main
problems with going nuclear are
1) it can take up to a decade to get a reactor on line - which is too
long really
2) it would take 10,000 reactors to completely replace current fossil
fuel generation
3) if you had 10,000 reactors the worlds supply of uranium would run
out in 10 yrs
so with all the massive construction you have solved the problem for
only 10 years..and created a whole new problem with the waste from
10,000 reactors.
Steve
I don't know who the fellow was, but it sounds like he didn't know a
whole lot about the subject.
1) Actually, they can build a full-scale nuclear power plant from ground-
breaking to ribbon-cutting in about 18 months to 2 years. In the U.S.,
the approval process is maddeningly slow though, so approval for new
reactors can take many, many years. In addition, even after the plant is
built, the state government (who regulates the price the utility can
charge) can just say 'no' and the whole thing is off. IIRC, there's a
fully functional plant in Shoreham, NY that was built, operated for *3
days*, and then abandoned when NY refused to allow them to sell the
electricity (although the state was at least nice enough to buy the
plant.) If we really wanted to get new reactors built quickly, we could
certainly do so.
2) A moderate nuclear power plant can produce ~1000 MW of electrical
power. This is the equivalent of a fairly large fossil fuel plant.
3) The 'worst-case' scenario I've ever seen from a respectable source
said ~60 years. That doesn't take reprocessing of spent fuel rods into
account, which should easily double that figure. There is also a near-
limitless supply of Uranium in sea water. Extracting it is an economic,
not a technological problem.
The approval process is not written in stone. It can be modified and sped up
with legislation.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "R. Pierce Butler" |
|
| Title: Re: Build Nuclear Plants, ban Oil! |
24 Jun 2005 12:02:45 AM |
|
|
"Steve" <dontbother@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:42bb4adb$0$842$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-03.brisbane.pipenetworks.co
m.au:
"DanWood" <dan224@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:LAHue.649$wm.591@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"David H." <davidhaapala@sbcglobal.fart.not.net> wrote in message
news:huHue.1276$5w3.98@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
"DanWood" <dan224@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:foHue.644$wm.528@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
If the US were to start on a series of Nuclear power plants
it would be possible over the next two or three decades to
ban the use of oil. By then oil reserves will be reduced to
the point that only the richest among us will be able to
afford oil. Nuclear energy is the most practical source in
the near future. In time oil could be banned.
DanWood, DDS
How about the power of the sun: The power of the seas?
These are less practical than nuclear power plants. Breeder reactors
have been on line in Europe for decades. I agree that energy from
the sun, the wind, the oceans thermal wells could be a viable energy
source, but these as the massives sources we need are further into
the future. I like your suggestion for power from the ocean. Turbines
could in the near future generate power. And an inexhaustable source.
How about the power of the nervousness of people about to see
their
dentist?
Oh if only we could harness that: especially five and six year old
boys.
David H. aa #2217
Its a nice theory .... but i was listening to a radio program a week or
so ago and the guest (who i cant recall) stated that the main problems
with going nuclear are
1) it can take up to a decade to get a reactor on line - which is too
long really
2) it would take 10,000 reactors to completely replace current fossil
fuel generation
3) if you had 10,000 reactors the worlds supply of uranium would run out
in 10 yrs
so with all the massive construction you have solved the problem for
only 10 years..and created a whole new problem with the waste from
10,000 reactors.
Steve
what about breeder reactors? I thought they make their own fuel.
rj
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Build Nuclear Plants, ban Oil! |
24 Jun 2005 12:41:22 AM |
|
|
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> wrote in
news:Xns967EC1B972517mc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1:
"Steve" <dontbother@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:42bb4adb$0$842$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-
03.brisbane.pipenetwork
s.co m.au:
"DanWood" <dan224@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:LAHue.649$wm.591@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"David H." <davidhaapala@sbcglobal.fart.not.net> wrote in message
news:huHue.1276$5w3.98@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
"DanWood" <dan224@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:foHue.644$wm.528@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
If the US were to start on a series of Nuclear power plants
it would be possible over the next two or three decades to
ban the use of oil. By then oil reserves will be reduced to
the point that only the richest among us will be able to
afford oil. Nuclear energy is the most practical source in
the near future. In time oil could be banned.
DanWood, DDS
How about the power of the sun: The power of the seas?
These are less practical than nuclear power plants. Breeder reactors
have been on line in Europe for decades. I agree that energy from
the sun, the wind, the oceans thermal wells could be a viable energy
source, but these as the massives sources we need are further into
the future. I like your suggestion for power from the ocean.
Turbines could in the near future generate power. And an
inexhaustable source.
How about the power of the nervousness of people about to see
their
dentist?
Oh if only we could harness that: especially five and six year old
boys.
David H. aa #2217
Its a nice theory .... but i was listening to a radio program a week
or so ago and the guest (who i cant recall) stated that the main
problems with going nuclear are
1) it can take up to a decade to get a reactor on line - which is
too long really
2) it would take 10,000 reactors to completely replace current fossil
fuel generation
3) if you had 10,000 reactors the worlds supply of uranium would run
out in 10 yrs
so with all the massive construction you have solved the problem for
only 10 years..and created a whole new problem with the waste from
10,000 reactors.
Steve
what about breeder reactors? I thought they make their own fuel.
Sort of. They convert non-fissionable material such as U-238 to
fissionable Pu-239 faster than they use up their original fuel charge.
But then you still have to reprocess the converted fuel rods to extract
the good stuff for later use.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Metaphysics is almost always an attempt to prove
the incredible by an appeal to the unintelligible."
[H.L. Mencken, "Prejudices"]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanWood" |
|
| Title: Re: Build Nuclear Plants, ban Oil! |
24 Jun 2005 03:04:29 AM |
|
|
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> wrote in message
news:Xns967EC1B972517mc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1...
"Steve" <dontbother@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:42bb4adb$0$842$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-03.brisbane.pipenetworks.co
m.au:
"DanWood" <dan224@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:LAHue.649$wm.591@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"David H." <davidhaapala@sbcglobal.fart.not.net> wrote in message
news:huHue.1276$5w3.98@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
"DanWood" <dan224@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:foHue.644$wm.528@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
If the US were to start on a series of Nuclear power plants
it would be possible over the next two or three decades to
ban the use of oil. By then oil reserves will be reduced to
the point that only the richest among us will be able to
afford oil. Nuclear energy is the most practical source in
the near future. In time oil could be banned.
DanWood, DDS
How about the power of the sun: The power of the seas?
These are less practical than nuclear power plants. Breeder reactors
have been on line in Europe for decades. I agree that energy from
the sun, the wind, the oceans thermal wells could be a viable energy
source, but these as the massives sources we need are further into
the future. I like your suggestion for power from the ocean. Turbines
could in the near future generate power. And an inexhaustable source.
How about the power of the nervousness of people about to see
their
dentist?
Oh if only we could harness that: especially five and six year old
boys.
David H. aa #2217
Its a nice theory .... but i was listening to a radio program a week or
so ago and the guest (who i cant recall) stated that the main problems
with going nuclear are
1) it can take up to a decade to get a reactor on line - which is too
long really
2) it would take 10,000 reactors to completely replace current fossil
fuel generation
3) if you had 10,000 reactors the worlds supply of uranium would run out
in 10 yrs
so with all the massive construction you have solved the problem for
only 10 years..and created a whole new problem with the waste from
10,000 reactors.
Steve
what about breeder reactors? I thought they make their own fuel.
In the 1970s, I heard about a farmer who made his own alcohol
to fuel his farm machines. I don't know how practical this is, how
efficient or how legal. But certainly this would be renewable.
Dr. Wood
rj
.
|
|
|
| User: "goozlefotz" |
|
| Title: Re: Build Nuclear Plants, ban Oil! |
24 Jun 2005 02:51:41 PM |
|
|
DanWood wrote:
In the 1970s, I heard about a farmer who made his own alcohol
to fuel his farm machines. I don't know how practical this is, how
efficient or how legal. But certainly this would be renewable.
Dr. Wood
Inspite of all the problems with nuclear power, it is still the most
practical alternative. Wind and solar are toys. Oil shale is
incredibly expensive to extract. Alcohol is being used now. Gasoline
in the midwest has alcohol in it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanWood" |
|
| Title: Re: Build Nuclear Plants, ban Oil! |
24 Jun 2005 08:13:45 PM |
|
|
"goozlefotz" <granteer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119624701.210858.276830@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
DanWood wrote:
In the 1970s, I heard about a farmer who made his own alcohol
to fuel his farm machines. I don't know how practical this is, how
efficient or how legal. But certainly this would be renewable.
Dr. Wood
Inspite of all the problems with nuclear power, it is still the most
practical alternative. Wind and solar are toys. Oil shale is
incredibly expensive to extract. Alcohol is being used now. Gasoline
in the midwest has alcohol in it.
True, here in the East, a few years ago 20% alcohol was common,
but I do not see it being used at present. I don't kn why.
Dr. Wood
.
|
|
|
| User: "goozlefotz" |
|
| Title: Re: Build Nuclear Plants, ban Oil! |
24 Jun 2005 11:18:10 PM |
|
|
DanWood wrote:
"goozlefotz" <granteer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119624701.210858.276830@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
DanWood wrote:
In the 1970s, I heard about a farmer who made his own alcohol
to fuel his farm machines. I don't know how practical this is, how
efficient or how legal. But certainly this would be renewable.
Dr. Wood
Inspite of all the problems with nuclear power, it is still the most
practical alternative. Wind and solar are toys. Oil shale is
incredibly expensive to extract. Alcohol is being used now. Gasoline
in the midwest has alcohol in it.
True, here in the East, a few years ago 20% alcohol was common,
but I do not see it being used at present. I don't kn why.
Dr. Wood
Supposedly it takes more energy to make alcohol for fuel than the
energy we get from it. I don't know if that is true or not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Build Nuclear Plants, ban Oil! |
26 Jun 2005 01:30:32 AM |
|
|
In article <1119655090.770521.312320@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
granteer@yahoo.com says...
DanWood wrote:
"goozlefotz" <granteer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119624701.210858.276830@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
DanWood wrote:
In the 1970s, I heard about a farmer who made his own alcohol
to fuel his farm machines. I don't know how practical this is, how
efficient or how legal. But certainly this would be renewable.
Dr. Wood
Inspite of all the problems with nuclear power, it is still the most
practical alternative. Wind and solar are toys. Oil shale is
incredibly expensive to extract. Alcohol is being used now. Gasoline
in the midwest has alcohol in it.
True, here in the East, a few years ago 20% alcohol was common,
but I do not see it being used at present. I don't kn why.
Dr. Wood
Supposedly it takes more energy to make alcohol for fuel than the
energy we get from it. I don't know if that is true or not.
It's not true, though several kooks associated with the petroleum
industry have tried to make such claims. Here's the real deal.
Traditionally ethanol has been most easy to extract from feedstock like
corn and you only get about 30% more power out of it than it takes to
grow it, harvest it and process it. But even then, there are a few
things that the number doesn't take into account. For one thing, the
"stillage" from the distillery mash becomes a light weight, high-protein
food for livestock. Of course, the cow quickly turns that food into
manure and then technologies like methane pyrolysis can extract methane
and hydrogen power from the manure. The final waste product from this
equipment can be used as a fertilizer along with sewage effluents and
this reduces the amount of fossil fuel which would normally be needed to
produce nitrogen fertilizers.
But the most important thing is that now there are technologies which
can also extract ethanol from cellulose waste. There are huge amounts
of cellulose waste from yard clippings to weeds and leaves which don't
even have to be intensively farmed. Ethanol from these sources is even
more efficient and inexpensive.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Goren" |
|
| Title: Re: Build Nuclear Plants, ban Oil! |
24 Jun 2005 08:27:52 PM |
|
|
DanWood wrote:
goozlefotz wrote:
In the 1970s, I heard about a farmer who made his own alcohol
to fuel his farm machines. I don't know how practical this is,
how efficient or how legal. But certainly this would be
renewable.
Inspite of all the problems with nuclear power, it is still the
most practical alternative. Wind and solar are toys. Oil
shale is incredibly expensive to extract. Alcohol is being
used now. Gasoline in the midwest has alcohol in it.
True, here in the East, a few years ago 20% alcohol was common,
but I do not see it being used at present. I don't kn why.
Gasoline here in Arizona is ``oxygenated'' year-round. Half the
year--I don't remember which--it's got some percentage--again,
don't remember exactly--of ethanol for that purpose.
Cheers,
b&
--
God can never prove that this sentence is true.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanWood" |
|
| Title: Re: Build Nuclear Plants, ban Oil! |
24 Jun 2005 02:48:08 AM |
|
|
"Steve" <dontbother@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42bb4adb$0$842$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-03.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au...
"DanWood" <dan224@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:LAHue.649$wm.591@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"David H." <davidhaapala@sbcglobal.fart.not.net> wrote in message
news:huHue.1276$5w3.98@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
"DanWood" <dan224@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:foHue.644$wm.528@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
If the US were to start on a series of Nuclear power plants
it would be possible over the next two or three decades to
ban the use of oil. By then oil reserves will be reduced to
the point that only the richest among us will be able to
afford oil. Nuclear energy is the most practical source in
the near future. In time oil could be banned.
DanWood, DDS
How about the power of the sun: The power of the seas?
These are less practical than nuclear power plants. Breeder reactors
have been on line in Europe for decades. I agree that energy from
the sun, the wind, the oceans thermal wells could be a viable energy
source, but these as the massives sources we need are further into
the future. I like your suggestion for power from the ocean. Turbines
could in the near future generate power. And an inexhaustable source.
How about the power of the nervousness of people about to see their
dentist?
Oh if only we could harness that: especially five and six year old boys.
David H. aa #2217
Its a nice theory .... but i was listening to a radio program a week or so
ago and the guest (who i cant recall) stated that the main problems with
going nuclear are
1) it can take up to a decade to get a reactor on line - which is too
long
really
2) it would take 10,000 reactors to completely replace current fossil fuel
generation
3) if you had 10,000 reactors the worlds supply of uranium would run out
in
10 yrs
so with all the massive construction you have solved the problem for only
10
years..and created a whole new problem with the waste from 10,000
reactors.
Breeder reactors would extend the life of power plants.
Steve
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nog" |
|
| Title: Re: Build Nuclear Plants, ban Oil! |
24 Jun 2005 02:17:26 AM |
|
|
"Steve" <dontbother@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42bb4adb$0$842$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-03.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au...
"DanWood" <dan224@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:LAHue.649$wm.591@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"David H." <davidhaapala@sbcglobal.fart.not.net> wrote in message
news:huHue.1276$5w3.98@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
"DanWood" <dan224@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:foHue.644$wm.528@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
If the US were to start on a series of Nuclear power plants
it would be possible over the next two or three decades to
ban the use of oil. By then oil reserves will be reduced to
the point that only the richest among us will be able to
afford oil. Nuclear energy is the most practical source in
the near future. In time oil could be banned.
DanWood, DDS
How about the power of the sun: The power of the seas?
These are less practical than nuclear power plants. Breeder reactors
have been on line in Europe for decades. I agree that energy from
the sun, the wind, the oceans thermal wells could be a viable energy
source, but these as the massives sources we need are further into
the future. I like your suggestion for power from the ocean. Turbines
could in the near future generate power. And an inexhaustable source.
How about the power of the nervousness of people about to see their
dentist?
Oh if only we could harness that: especially five and six year old boys.
David H. aa #2217
Its a nice theory .... but i was listening to a radio program a week or so
ago and the guest (who i cant recall) stated that the main problems with
going nuclear are
1) it can take up to a decade to get a reactor on line - which is too
long
really
2) it would take 10,000 reactors to completely replace current fossil fuel
generation
3) if you had 10,000 reactors the worlds supply of uranium would run out
in
10 yrs
so with all the massive construction you have solved the problem for only
10
years..and created a whole new problem with the waste from 10,000
reactors.
Steve
The world will NEVER run out of uranium.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David H." |
|
| Title: Re: Build Nuclear Plants, ban Oil! |
23 Jun 2005 11:46:48 PM |
|
|
"DanWood" <dan224@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:LAHue.649$wm.591@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"David H." <davidhaapala@sbcglobal.fart.not.net> wrote in message
news:huHue.1276$5w3.98@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
"DanWood" <dan224@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:foHue.644$wm.528@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
If the US were to start on a series of Nuclear power plants
it would be possible over the next two or three decades to
ban the use of oil. By then oil reserves will be reduced to
the point that only the richest among us will be able to
afford oil. Nuclear energy is the most practical source in
the near future. In time oil could be banned.
DanWood, DDS
How about the power of the sun: The power of the seas?
These are less practical than nuclear power plants. Breeder reactors
have been on line in Europe for decades. I agree that energy from
the sun, the wind, the oceans thermal wells could be a viable energy
source, but these as the massives sources we need are further into
the future. I like your suggestion for power from the ocean. Turbines
could in the near future generate power. And an inexhaustable source.
How about the power of the nervousness of people about to see their
dentist?
Oh if only we could harness that: especially five and six year old boys.
I think that 40 year old men can generate pre-dental visitation energy
too!
As far as using the ocean, please look at this:
http://www.sustainablehawaii.com/tidalpg1.htm
I could look up more, this is the first one I dug up using Google.
I had heard that there is an operational electrical generator using
ocean wave activity somewhere in Northern Europe, ( Netherlands, Sweden,
Finland...). It takes a place where wave activity is timed in a steady
oscillation, and the generator is powered through a turban that uses the
wind of wave oscillation focused through a tower to power it. The fans of
the turban are switched to the timing of wave activity to maintain a
constant rotational velocity in a specific direction, ( clockwise,
counterclockwise...).
I have to stop now, I am on my third drink and am about to lapse into
unrestricted Internet Shopping. My wife wants a new refrigerator.
David H. aa#2217
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike McWilliams" |
|
| Title: Re: Build Nuclear Plants, ban Oil! |
24 Jun 2005 02:45:17 PM |
|
|
David H. wrote:
"DanWood" <dan224@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:foHue.644$wm.528@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
If the US were to start on a series of Nuclear power plants
it would be possible over the next two or three decades to
ban the use of oil. By then oil reserves will be reduced to
the point that only the richest among us will be able to
afford oil. Nuclear energy is the most practical source in
the near future. In time oil could be banned.
DanWood, DDS
How about the power of the sun: The power of the seas?
How about the power of the nervousness of people about to see their
dentist?
David H. aa #2217
Not to mention the major expansion in northern Alberta, Canada's
oilsands which are estimated to hold as much oil as the middle eastern
reserves, albeit at a higher price of extraction.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanWood" |
|
| Title: Re: Build Nuclear Plants, ban Oil! |
24 Jun 2005 08:11:16 PM |
|
|
"Mike McWilliams" <michael.mcwilliams@drdc-rddc.gc.ca> wrote in message
news:1119624315.873904@coyote.suffield.drdc-rddc.gc.ca...
David H. wrote:
"DanWood" <dan224@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:foHue.644$wm.528@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
If the US were to start on a series of Nuclear power plants
it would be possible over the next two or three decades to
ban the use of oil. By then oil reserves will be reduced to
the point that only the richest among us will be able to
afford oil. Nuclear energy is the most practical source in
the near future. In time oil could be banned.
DanWood, DDS
How about the power of the sun: The power of the seas?
How about the power of the nervousness of people about to see their
dentist?
David H. aa #2217
Not to mention the major expansion in northern Alberta, Canada's oilsands
which are estimated to hold as much oil as the middle eastern reserves,
albeit at a higher price of extraction.
At the current cost $60.00/barrel and no doubt increasing over time,
extracting oil from shale and sands become increasingly attractive.
Dr. Wood
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike McWilliams" |
|
| Title: Re: Build Nuclear Plants, ban Oil! |
24 Jun 2005 08:22:31 PM |
|
|
DanWood wrote:
"Mike McWilliams" <michael.mcwilliams@drdc-rddc.gc.ca> wrote in message
news:1119624315.873904@coyote.suffield.drdc-rddc.gc.ca...
David H. wrote:
"DanWood" <dan224@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:foHue.644$wm.528@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
If the US were to start on a series of Nuclear power plants
it would be possible over the next two or three decades to
ban the use of oil. By then oil reserves will be reduced to
the point that only the richest among us will be able to
afford oil. Nuclear energy is the most practical source in
the near future. In time oil could be banned.
DanWood, DDS
How about the power of the sun: The power of the seas?
How about the power of the nervousness of people about to see their
dentist?
David H. aa #2217
Not to mention the major expansion in northern Alberta, Canada's oilsands
which are estimated to hold as much oil as the middle eastern reserves,
albeit at a higher price of extraction.
At the current cost $60.00/barrel and no doubt increasing over time,
extracting oil from shale and sands become increasingly attractive.
Dr. Wood
Well, recently billions of dollars has been put up for major expansions
by multiple companies. They are only in the oil business for a profit,
so I assume it has become more profitable to extract from these sources
than buy middle eastern oil, ship it across the ocean, and then use it.
Major pipelines are planned in addition to the existing ones.
What this means = I went to school for molecular biology when I really
should have went for petrochemical engineering.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Build Nuclear Plants, ban Oil! |
24 Jun 2005 05:06:24 PM |
|
|
In article <1119624315.873904@coyote.suffield.drdc-rddc.gc.ca>,
michael.mcwilliams@drdc-rddc.gc.ca says...
Not to mention the major expansion in northern Alberta, Canada's
oilsands which are estimated to hold as much oil as the middle eastern
reserves, albeit at a higher price of extraction.
That won't address issues of pollution or CO2 emissions.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike McWilliams" |
|
| Title: Re: Build Nuclear Plants, ban Oil! |
24 Jun 2005 08:13:56 PM |
|
|
quibbler wrote:
In article <1119624315.873904@coyote.suffield.drdc-rddc.gc.ca>,
michael.mcwilliams@drdc-rddc.gc.ca says...
Not to mention the major expansion in northern Alberta, Canada's
oilsands which are estimated to hold as much oil as the middle eastern
reserves, albeit at a higher price of extraction.
That won't address issues of pollution or CO2 emissions.
I didn't say it would, but it will prop the current infrastructure for
some time to come.
It also has the possibility of being used in a responsible way, like in
fuel cells to address the issues of pollution and CO2 emissions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Build Nuclear Plants, ban Oil! |
25 Jun 2005 02:46:34 AM |
|
|
In article <1119644036.328236@coyote.suffield.drdc-rddc.gc.ca>,
michael.mcwilliams@drdc-rddc.gc.ca says...
quibbler wrote:
In article <1119624315.873904@coyote.suffield.drdc-rddc.gc.ca>,
michael.mcwilliams@drdc-rddc.gc.ca says...
Not to mention the major expansion in northern Alberta, Canada's
oilsands which are estimated to hold as much oil as the middle eastern
reserves, albeit at a higher price of extraction.
That won't address issues of pollution or CO2 emissions.
I didn't say it would, but it will prop the current infrastructure for
some time to come.
So will biofuels, but they don't increase net CO2 output.
It also has the possibility of being used in a responsible way, like in
fuel cells
Yes, if cheap reliable fuel cells ever make it to market. You'd still
need to crack these fossil fuels, as opposed to using an easier fuel
like waste methane.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Build Nuclear Plants, ban Oil! |
24 Jun 2005 11:11:36 PM |
|
|
Mike McWilliams <michael.mcwilliams@drdc-rddc.gc.ca> wrote in
news:1119644036.328236@coyote.suffield.drdc-rddc.gc.ca:
quibbler wrote:
In article <1119624315.873904@coyote.suffield.drdc-rddc.gc.ca>,
michael.mcwilliams@drdc-rddc.gc.ca says...
Not to mention the major expansion in northern Alberta, Canada's
oilsands which are estimated to hold as much oil as the middle
eastern reserves, albeit at a higher price of extraction.
That won't address issues of pollution or CO2 emissions.
I didn't say it would, but it will prop the current infrastructure for
some time to come.
It also has the possibility of being used in a responsible way, like
in fuel cells to address the issues of pollution and CO2 emissions.
Scientific American has a big article about technologies to remove
carbon from fuel gas (basically by converting it with steam to pure
hydrogen) and then pumping the resulting CO2 back into the ground.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Metaphysics is almost always an attempt to prove
the incredible by an appeal to the unintelligible."
[H.L. Mencken, "Prejudices"]
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Build Nuclear Plants, ban Oil! |
25 Jun 2005 02:48:34 AM |
|
|
In article <1119654699.15ed7b50e31e7fe72c7b2b59c718b055@teranews>,
fstone69@earthling.com says...
Mike McWilliams <michael.mcwilliams@drdc-rddc.gc.ca> wrote in
news:1119644036.328236@coyote.suffield.drdc-rddc.gc.ca:
quibbler wrote:
In article <1119624315.873904@coyote.suffield.drdc-rddc.gc.ca>,
michael.mcwilliams@drdc-rddc.gc.ca says...
Not to mention the major expansion in northern Alberta, Canada's
oilsands which are estimated to hold as much oil as the middle
eastern reserves, albeit at a higher price of extraction.
That won't address issues of pollution or CO2 emissions.
I didn't say it would, but it will prop the current infrastructure for
some time to come.
It also has the possibility of being used in a responsible way, like
in fuel cells to address the issues of pollution and CO2 emissions.
Scientific American has a big article about technologies to remove
carbon from fuel gas (basically by converting it with steam
Steam reformation is an incredibly old and well known process. It's not
very effective. For most fossil fuels, like oil and coal, the energy
needed to make them clean would be approximately equivalent to the
energy they contain.
to pure
hydrogen) and then pumping the resulting CO2 back into the ground.
Your boy georgie doesn't even think that's necessary.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Build Nuclear Plants, ban Oil! |
25 Jun 2005 12:07:22 PM |
|
|
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1d2673ea2173bca198975d@news.readfreenews.net:
In article <1119654699.15ed7b50e31e7fe72c7b2b59c718b055@teranews>,
fstone69@earthling.com says...
Mike McWilliams <michael.mcwilliams@drdc-rddc.gc.ca> wrote in
news:1119644036.328236@coyote.suffield.drdc-rddc.gc.ca:
quibbler wrote:
In article <1119624315.873904@coyote.suffield.drdc-rddc.gc.ca>,
michael.mcwilliams@drdc-rddc.gc.ca says...
Not to mention the major expansion in northern Alberta, Canada's
oilsands which are estimated to hold as much oil as the middle
eastern reserves, albeit at a higher price of extraction.
That won't address issues of pollution or CO2 emissions.
I didn't say it would, but it will prop the current infrastructure
for some time to come.
It also has the possibility of being used in a responsible way,
like in fuel cells to address the issues of pollution and CO2
emissions.
Scientific American has a big article about technologies to remove
carbon from fuel gas (basically by converting it with steam
Steam reformation is an incredibly old and well known process. It's
not very effective. For most fossil fuels, like oil and coal, the
energy needed to make them clean would be approximately equivalent to
the energy they contain.
to pure
hydrogen) and then pumping the resulting CO2 back into the ground.
Your boy georgie doesn't even think that's necessary.
I don't either, but it could be done.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Metaphysics is almost always an attempt to prove
the incredible by an appeal to the unintelligible."
[H.L. Mencken, "Prejudices"]
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Razor 616" |
|
| Title: Re: Build Nuclear Plants, ban Oil! |
24 Jun 2005 12:07:35 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 23:21:49 GMT, "David H."
<davidhaapala@sbcglobal.fart.not.net> wrote:
How about the power of the sun: The power of the seas?
A fart in a hurricane... they're not cost effective, not reliable, not
practical, and they're not efficient enough to produce adequate power.
Studies show that even if you took a windblown coastal country like
mine and stuffed it full of windmills, you could only produce about
10% of the required electricity, and send the price of electricity up
tenfold.
--
#1295
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
