• To those who think solar panels match demand against load

    From Tzortzakakis Dimitrios@21:1/5 to Anton on Thu Mar 9 14:15:34 2017
    XPost: sci.skeptic, alt.solar.thermal, alt.engineering.electrical
    XPost: sac.politics

    On 9/3/2017 1:58 μμ, Anton wrote:
    In article <efa43dFr907U1@mid.individual.net>
    Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

    On 24/01/2017 2:18 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
    It's 35 Celsius (95 Farenheit) here, and overcast all day. My air
    conditioner is definitely not running on solar power.

    Sylvia.

    And again today, except it's 38 Celsius (100 Fahrenheit).

    Sylvia.

    Where in the blazes are you that it's so hot?

    what is really solar, and a mature technology too, is heliotherma or dud shemesh in hebrew, and we have in Greece and israel, too. Even when it's
    much too cold to bathe with cold water, we have scalding hot water from
    the sun! The saved money and electricity over the lifetime of a
    heliothermo are tremendous.Even is summer you have hot water for dishes!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_energy

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anton@21:1/5 to Sylvia Else on Thu Mar 9 12:58:37 2017
    XPost: sci.skeptic, alt.solar.thermal, alt.engineering.electrical
    XPost: sac.politics

    In article <efa43dFr907U1@mid.individual.net>
    Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

    On 24/01/2017 2:18 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
    It's 35 Celsius (95 Farenheit) here, and overcast all day. My air conditioner is definitely not running on solar power.

    Sylvia.

    And again today, except it's 38 Celsius (100 Fahrenheit).

    Sylvia.

    Where in the blazes are you that it's so hot?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sylvia Else@21:1/5 to Anton on Fri Mar 10 09:27:33 2017
    XPost: sci.skeptic, alt.solar.thermal, alt.engineering.electrical
    XPost: sac.politics

    On 9/03/2017 10:58 PM, Anton wrote:
    In article <efa43dFr907U1@mid.individual.net>
    Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

    On 24/01/2017 2:18 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
    It's 35 Celsius (95 Farenheit) here, and overcast all day. My air
    conditioner is definitely not running on solar power.

    Sylvia.

    And again today, except it's 38 Celsius (100 Fahrenheit).

    Sylvia.

    Where in the blazes are you that it's so hot?


    Australia.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sylvia Else@21:1/5 to Anton on Fri Mar 10 15:56:41 2017
    XPost: sci.skeptic, alt.solar.thermal, alt.engineering.electrical
    XPost: sac.politics

    On 10/03/2017 3:33 PM, Anton wrote:
    In article <eie36lFs62U1@mid.individual.net>
    Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

    On 9/03/2017 10:58 PM, Anton wrote:
    In article <efa43dFr907U1@mid.individual.net>
    Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

    On 24/01/2017 2:18 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
    It's 35 Celsius (95 Farenheit) here, and overcast all day. My air
    conditioner is definitely not running on solar power.

    Sylvia.

    And again today, except it's 38 Celsius (100 Fahrenheit).

    Sylvia.

    ]
    Where in the blazes are you that it's so hot?


    Australia.

    Ah. Best of luck and cooler temps to ya.


    Things have cooled down as we head into Autumn.

    Now there's talk about there being insufficient natural gas to both
    supply consumers and gas fired power stations next summer, meaning we
    may see rolling blackouts again (not that we did actually get a blackout
    this year). Did someone say "third world"?

    Even more reason to get my generator running again.

    Sylvia.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anton@21:1/5 to Sylvia Else on Fri Mar 10 05:33:38 2017
    XPost: sci.skeptic, alt.solar.thermal, alt.engineering.electrical
    XPost: sac.politics

    In article <eie36lFs62U1@mid.individual.net>
    Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

    On 9/03/2017 10:58 PM, Anton wrote:
    In article <efa43dFr907U1@mid.individual.net>
    Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

    On 24/01/2017 2:18 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
    It's 35 Celsius (95 Farenheit) here, and overcast all day. My air
    conditioner is definitely not running on solar power.

    Sylvia.

    And again today, except it's 38 Celsius (100 Fahrenheit).

    Sylvia.

    Where in the blazes are you that it's so hot?


    Australia.

    Ah. Best of luck and cooler temps to ya.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From BruceS@21:1/5 to Sylvia Else on Fri Mar 10 08:33:15 2017
    XPost: sci.skeptic, alt.solar.thermal, alt.engineering.electrical
    XPost: sac.politics

    On 03/09/2017 09:56 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 10/03/2017 3:33 PM, Anton wrote:
    In article <eie36lFs62U1@mid.individual.net>
    Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

    On 9/03/2017 10:58 PM, Anton wrote:
    In article <efa43dFr907U1@mid.individual.net>
    Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

    On 24/01/2017 2:18 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
    It's 35 Celsius (95 Farenheit) here, and overcast all day. My air
    conditioner is definitely not running on solar power.

    Sylvia.

    And again today, except it's 38 Celsius (100 Fahrenheit).

    Sylvia.

    ]
    Where in the blazes are you that it's so hot?


    Australia.

    Ah. Best of luck and cooler temps to ya.


    Things have cooled down as we head into Autumn.

    Now there's talk about there being insufficient natural gas to both
    supply consumers and gas fired power stations next summer, meaning we
    may see rolling blackouts again (not that we did actually get a blackout
    this year). Did someone say "third world"?

    Even more reason to get my generator running again.

    Meanwhile, over here in the U.S. we have so much natural gas available
    (largely because of widespread fracking), that the coal industry is in
    dire straits. Maybe what Australia needs to do is to build some
    coal-fired electric plants, and buy some of our surplus coal for them.
    Coal is a very reliable source for electric production, not varying
    with the weather, etc. Alternatively, if you have the sources, start
    doing some serious fracking to get your own natural gas.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tzortzakakis Dimitrios@21:1/5 to Anton on Fri Mar 10 20:44:13 2017
    XPost: sci.skeptic, alt.solar.thermal, alt.engineering.electrical
    XPost: sac.politics

    On 9/3/2017 1:58 μμ, Anton wrote:
    In article <efa43dFr907U1@mid.individual.net>
    Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

    On 24/01/2017 2:18 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
    It's 35 Celsius (95 Farenheit) here, and overcast all day. My air
    conditioner is definitely not running on solar power.

    Sylvia.

    And again today, except it's 38 Celsius (100 Fahrenheit).

    Sylvia.

    Where in the blazes are you that it's so hot?

    ...and even when it's sunny and they start generating all of a sudden
    and without the control of the grid operators, there are impulses that
    can easily destroy sensitive equipment, CFL lamps etc. One major CFL manufacturer withdrew the guarantee for Crete because of this! The
    voltage is too unstable never mind the AVR feature of the susbstation
    HV/MV transformers. 150/20kV. Ditto for the wind turbines!Because of EU legislation the utility is *obliged* to buy any electricity generated
    anytime, without taking into account the grid's stability, or voltage regulation!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sylvia Else@21:1/5 to BruceS on Sat Mar 11 11:33:07 2017
    XPost: sci.skeptic, alt.solar.thermal, alt.engineering.electrical
    XPost: sac.politics

    On 11/03/2017 2:33 AM, BruceS wrote:
    On 03/09/2017 09:56 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 10/03/2017 3:33 PM, Anton wrote:
    In article <eie36lFs62U1@mid.individual.net>
    Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

    On 9/03/2017 10:58 PM, Anton wrote:
    In article <efa43dFr907U1@mid.individual.net>
    Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

    On 24/01/2017 2:18 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
    It's 35 Celsius (95 Farenheit) here, and overcast all day. My air >>>>>>> conditioner is definitely not running on solar power.

    Sylvia.

    And again today, except it's 38 Celsius (100 Fahrenheit).

    Sylvia.

    ]
    Where in the blazes are you that it's so hot?


    Australia.

    Ah. Best of luck and cooler temps to ya.


    Things have cooled down as we head into Autumn.

    Now there's talk about there being insufficient natural gas to both
    supply consumers and gas fired power stations next summer, meaning we
    may see rolling blackouts again (not that we did actually get a blackout
    this year). Did someone say "third world"?

    Even more reason to get my generator running again.

    Meanwhile, over here in the U.S. we have so much natural gas available (largely because of widespread fracking), that the coal industry is in
    dire straits. Maybe what Australia needs to do is to build some
    coal-fired electric plants, and buy some of our surplus coal for them.
    Coal is a very reliable source for electric production, not varying
    with the weather, etc. Alternatively, if you have the sources, start
    doing some serious fracking to get your own natural gas.

    We have more than enough coal of our own - hundreds of years worth at
    current consumption, and most of our current base-load supply uses coal.
    But coal doesn't make economic sense for anything but base load - the
    plant is too expensive.

    Adding to the problem is that to appease the environmentalists, gas is
    now being used for base-load, because it has lower CO2 emissions. Even
    leaving aside the insufficiency of gas supply, the known gas reserves
    are nothing like as big as the coal reserves.

    We could, of course, process and use our huge uranium reserves in
    nuclear plants, rather than shipping the ore overseas. But the NIMBY
    effect applies, and in Australia BY seems to mean "within a couple of
    thousand kilometres."

    Sylvia.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From BruceS@21:1/5 to Sylvia Else on Sat Mar 11 12:09:47 2017
    XPost: sci.skeptic, alt.solar.thermal, alt.engineering.electrical
    XPost: sac.politics

    On 03/10/2017 05:33 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 11/03/2017 2:33 AM, BruceS wrote:
    On 03/09/2017 09:56 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 10/03/2017 3:33 PM, Anton wrote:
    In article <eie36lFs62U1@mid.individual.net>
    Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

    On 9/03/2017 10:58 PM, Anton wrote:
    In article <efa43dFr907U1@mid.individual.net>
    Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

    On 24/01/2017 2:18 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
    It's 35 Celsius (95 Farenheit) here, and overcast all day. My air >>>>>>>> conditioner is definitely not running on solar power.

    Sylvia.

    And again today, except it's 38 Celsius (100 Fahrenheit).

    Sylvia.

    ]
    Where in the blazes are you that it's so hot?


    Australia.

    Ah. Best of luck and cooler temps to ya.


    Things have cooled down as we head into Autumn.

    Now there's talk about there being insufficient natural gas to both
    supply consumers and gas fired power stations next summer, meaning we
    may see rolling blackouts again (not that we did actually get a blackout >>> this year). Did someone say "third world"?

    Even more reason to get my generator running again.

    Meanwhile, over here in the U.S. we have so much natural gas available
    (largely because of widespread fracking), that the coal industry is in
    dire straits. Maybe what Australia needs to do is to build some
    coal-fired electric plants, and buy some of our surplus coal for them.
    Coal is a very reliable source for electric production, not varying
    with the weather, etc. Alternatively, if you have the sources, start
    doing some serious fracking to get your own natural gas.

    We have more than enough coal of our own - hundreds of years worth at
    current consumption, and most of our current base-load supply uses coal.
    But coal doesn't make economic sense for anything but base load - the
    plant is too expensive.

    Before all the fracking made natural gas so cheap, coal was the most
    economical fuel over here. Many blame Obama's opposition to coal for
    its decline, but the real cause is simple economics. At some point,
    the natural gas supply will start getting more expensive, and coal will
    be king again. With Australia having such supplies, I'm surprised it
    doesn't burn more coal. Surely with rolling blackouts, there's a
    market.

    Adding to the problem is that to appease the environmentalists, gas is
    now being used for base-load, because it has lower CO2 emissions. Even leaving aside the insufficiency of gas supply, the known gas reserves
    are nothing like as big as the coal reserves.

    That's the same over here, with hundreds of years of coal reserves, but
    at the moment it's cheaper to burn natural gas. Of course, the
    coal-fired plants are still operating, just at lower levels.

    We could, of course, process and use our huge uranium reserves in
    nuclear plants, rather than shipping the ore overseas. But the NIMBY
    effect applies, and in Australia BY seems to mean "within a couple of thousand kilometres."

    I'd like to see more nuclear plants, preferably of a better design than
    is usual for the U.S. Canada's "CANDU" design seems like a good one.
    Nuclear power has some serious advantages if treated properly. I for
    one would much rather have a nuke nearby than a coal or oil plant. I
    just checked, and it looks like we've only ever had one in Colorado,
    and that's been shut down for years.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sylvia Else@21:1/5 to BruceS on Sun Mar 12 13:59:17 2017
    XPost: sci.skeptic, alt.solar.thermal, alt.engineering.electrical
    XPost: sac.politics

    On 12/03/2017 6:09 AM, BruceS wrote:

    Before all the fracking made natural gas so cheap, coal was the most economical fuel over here. Many blame Obama's opposition to coal for
    its decline, but the real cause is simple economics. At some point,
    the natural gas supply will start getting more expensive, and coal will
    be king again. With Australia having such supplies, I'm surprised it
    doesn't burn more coal. Surely with rolling blackouts, there's a
    market.

    Rolling blackouts are caused by a lack of peak supply, for which coal is singularly inappropriate. Such supply is traditionally provided by
    either gas or diesel generation. The problem is that with solar and wind
    taking the peak supply when it suits them, the economics of building
    peak generation are seriously undermined. Essentially, the market has
    been broken by government requirements that renewables be allowed to
    supply when they can. So some government intervention is required to fix it.


    Adding to the problem is that to appease the environmentalists, gas is
    now being used for base-load, because it has lower CO2 emissions. Even
    leaving aside the insufficiency of gas supply, the known gas reserves
    are nothing like as big as the coal reserves.

    That's the same over here, with hundreds of years of coal reserves, but
    at the moment it's cheaper to burn natural gas. Of course, the
    coal-fired plants are still operating, just at lower levels.

    We could, of course, process and use our huge uranium reserves in
    nuclear plants, rather than shipping the ore overseas. But the NIMBY
    effect applies, and in Australia BY seems to mean "within a couple of
    thousand kilometres."

    I'd like to see more nuclear plants, preferably of a better design than
    is usual for the U.S. Canada's "CANDU" design seems like a good one.
    Nuclear power has some serious advantages if treated properly. I for
    one would much rather have a nuke nearby than a coal or oil plant. I
    just checked, and it looks like we've only ever had one in Colorado,
    and that's been shut down for years.

    Provided they don't leak, nukes actually release less radiation into the environment that coal plant does, because there's a small amount of
    uranium in the coal, and it ends up in the ash.

    Sylvia.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan McKinley@21:1/5 to Sylvia Else on Sun Mar 12 13:01:44 2017
    XPost: sci.skeptic, alt.solar.thermal, alt.engineering.electrical
    XPost: sac.politics

    In article <eijrs7F562gU1@mid.individual.net>
    Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

    On 12/03/2017 6:09 AM, BruceS wrote:

    Before all the fracking made natural gas so cheap, coal was the most economical fuel over here. Many blame Obama's opposition to coal for
    its decline, but the real cause is simple economics. At some point,
    the natural gas supply will start getting more expensive, and coal will
    be king again. With Australia having such supplies, I'm surprised it doesn't burn more coal. Surely with rolling blackouts, there's a
    market.

    Rolling blackouts are caused by a lack of peak supply, for which coal is singularly inappropriate. Such supply is traditionally provided by
    either gas or diesel generation. The problem is that with solar and wind taking the peak supply when it suits them, the economics of building
    peak generation are seriously undermined. Essentially, the market has
    been broken by government requirements that renewables be allowed to
    supply when they can. So some government intervention is required to fix it.

    Governments get caught up in stupid political red tape and the
    end result is something based on methods and technology that is
    no longer optimal.


    Adding to the problem is that to appease the environmentalists, gas is
    now being used for base-load, because it has lower CO2 emissions. Even
    leaving aside the insufficiency of gas supply, the known gas reserves
    are nothing like as big as the coal reserves.

    That's the same over here, with hundreds of years of coal reserves, but
    at the moment it's cheaper to burn natural gas. Of course, the
    coal-fired plants are still operating, just at lower levels.

    We could, of course, process and use our huge uranium reserves in
    nuclear plants, rather than shipping the ore overseas. But the NIMBY
    effect applies, and in Australia BY seems to mean "within a couple of
    thousand kilometres."

    I'd like to see more nuclear plants, preferably of a better design than
    is usual for the U.S. Canada's "CANDU" design seems like a good one. Nuclear power has some serious advantages if treated properly. I for
    one would much rather have a nuke nearby than a coal or oil plant. I
    just checked, and it looks like we've only ever had one in Colorado,
    and that's been shut down for years.

    Provided they don't leak, nukes actually release less radiation into the environment that coal plant does, because there's a small amount of
    uranium in the coal, and it ends up in the ash.

    But when they do leak they can't always be controlled until
    substantial harm is done to large geographical regions.

    Just a personal observation, but it seems the nuke problems are
    always in the larger facilities.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From BruceS@21:1/5 to Alan McKinley on Mon Mar 13 09:37:16 2017
    XPost: sci.skeptic, alt.solar.thermal, alt.engineering.electrical
    XPost: sac.politics

    On 03/12/2017 06:01 AM, Alan McKinley wrote:
    In article <eijrs7F562gU1@mid.individual.net>
    Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

    On 12/03/2017 6:09 AM, BruceS wrote:

    Before all the fracking made natural gas so cheap, coal was the most
    economical fuel over here. Many blame Obama's opposition to coal for
    its decline, but the real cause is simple economics. At some point,
    the natural gas supply will start getting more expensive, and coal will
    be king again. With Australia having such supplies, I'm surprised it
    doesn't burn more coal. Surely with rolling blackouts, there's a
    market.

    Rolling blackouts are caused by a lack of peak supply, for which coal is
    singularly inappropriate. Such supply is traditionally provided by
    either gas or diesel generation. The problem is that with solar and wind
    taking the peak supply when it suits them, the economics of building
    peak generation are seriously undermined. Essentially, the market has
    been broken by government requirements that renewables be allowed to
    supply when they can. So some government intervention is required to fix it.

    Governments get caught up in stupid political red tape and the
    end result is something based on methods and technology that is
    no longer optimal.

    Yes, it sounds like the usual government screwup. Solar and wind
    should never be counted on for supply. AIUI, here we always have
    reliable backup to match any claimed production ability of those. We
    have some large wind farms in areas that are fairly consistently windy,
    but still don't count on them. Things like coal provides a solid,
    dependable level of power (yes, not quickly adjustable) and things like
    natural gas easily handle sudden need.

    Adding to the problem is that to appease the environmentalists, gas is >>>> now being used for base-load, because it has lower CO2 emissions. Even >>>> leaving aside the insufficiency of gas supply, the known gas reserves
    are nothing like as big as the coal reserves.

    That's the same over here, with hundreds of years of coal reserves, but
    at the moment it's cheaper to burn natural gas. Of course, the
    coal-fired plants are still operating, just at lower levels.

    We could, of course, process and use our huge uranium reserves in
    nuclear plants, rather than shipping the ore overseas. But the NIMBY
    effect applies, and in Australia BY seems to mean "within a couple of
    thousand kilometres."

    I'd like to see more nuclear plants, preferably of a better design than
    is usual for the U.S. Canada's "CANDU" design seems like a good one.
    Nuclear power has some serious advantages if treated properly. I for
    one would much rather have a nuke nearby than a coal or oil plant. I
    just checked, and it looks like we've only ever had one in Colorado,
    and that's been shut down for years.

    Provided they don't leak, nukes actually release less radiation into the
    environment that coal plant does, because there's a small amount of
    uranium in the coal, and it ends up in the ash.

    But when they do leak they can't always be controlled until
    substantial harm is done to large geographical regions.

    The biggest nuclear accident in the U.S., Three Mile Island, never did
    any real harm. The highest radiation levels released were less than
    the background radiation levels in places like my state, CO. The
    disasters of Chernobyl and Fukushima did release a lot of radiation,
    but it's hard to make any generalization from such a small sample set.

    Just a personal observation, but it seems the nuke problems are
    always in the larger facilities.

    It seems to me the big problems are from poor designs that aren't
    updated as we learn more. There isn't much accountability when a
    disaster does happen, and the damage easily crosses political
    boundaries. Then there's the problem of waste disposal.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tzortzakakis Dimitrios@21:1/5 to BruceS on Mon Mar 13 19:09:27 2017
    XPost: sci.skeptic, alt.solar.thermal, alt.engineering.electrical
    XPost: sac.politics

    On 13/3/2017 5:37 μμ, BruceS wrote:
    On 03/12/2017 06:01 AM, Alan McKinley wrote:
    In article <eijrs7F562gU1@mid.individual.net>
    Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

    On 12/03/2017 6:09 AM, BruceS wrote:

    Before all the fracking made natural gas so cheap, coal was the most
    economical fuel over here. Many blame Obama's opposition to coal for
    its decline, but the real cause is simple economics. At some point,
    the natural gas supply will start getting more expensive, and coal will >>>> be king again. With Australia having such supplies, I'm surprised it
    doesn't burn more coal. Surely with rolling blackouts, there's a
    market.

    Rolling blackouts are caused by a lack of peak supply, for which coal is >>> singularly inappropriate. Such supply is traditionally provided by
    either gas or diesel generation. The problem is that with solar and wind >>> taking the peak supply when it suits them, the economics of building
    peak generation are seriously undermined. Essentially, the market has
    been broken by government requirements that renewables be allowed to
    supply when they can. So some government intervention is required to
    fix it.

    Governments get caught up in stupid political red tape and the
    end result is something based on methods and technology that is
    no longer optimal.

    Yes, it sounds like the usual government screwup. Solar and wind
    should never be counted on for supply. AIUI, here we always have
    reliable backup to match any claimed production ability of those. We
    have some large wind farms in areas that are fairly consistently windy,
    but still don't count on them. Things like coal provides a solid,
    dependable level of power (yes, not quickly adjustable) and things like natural gas easily handle sudden need.

    Adding to the problem is that to appease the environmentalists, gas is >>>>> now being used for base-load, because it has lower CO2 emissions. Even >>>>> leaving aside the insufficiency of gas supply, the known gas reserves >>>>> are nothing like as big as the coal reserves.

    That's the same over here, with hundreds of years of coal reserves, but >>>> at the moment it's cheaper to burn natural gas. Of course, the
    coal-fired plants are still operating, just at lower levels.

    We could, of course, process and use our huge uranium reserves in
    nuclear plants, rather than shipping the ore overseas. But the NIMBY >>>>> effect applies, and in Australia BY seems to mean "within a couple of >>>>> thousand kilometres."

    I'd like to see more nuclear plants, preferably of a better design than >>>> is usual for the U.S. Canada's "CANDU" design seems like a good one.
    Nuclear power has some serious advantages if treated properly. I for
    one would much rather have a nuke nearby than a coal or oil plant. I
    just checked, and it looks like we've only ever had one in Colorado,
    and that's been shut down for years.

    Provided they don't leak, nukes actually release less radiation into the >>> environment that coal plant does, because there's a small amount of
    uranium in the coal, and it ends up in the ash.

    But when they do leak they can't always be controlled until
    substantial harm is done to large geographical regions.

    The biggest nuclear accident in the U.S., Three Mile Island, never did
    any real harm. The highest radiation levels released were less than
    the background radiation levels in places like my state, CO. The
    disasters of Chernobyl and Fukushima did release a lot of radiation,
    but it's hard to make any generalization from such a small sample set.

    Just a personal observation, but it seems the nuke problems are
    always in the larger facilities.

    It seems to me the big problems are from poor designs that aren't
    updated as we learn more. There isn't much accountability when a
    disaster does happen, and the damage easily crosses political
    boundaries. Then there's the problem of waste disposal.
    You can't compare US nuclear reactors to soviet ones, as the latter
    didn't even have a containment building, were boiling water reactors,
    had a graphit moderator, the fuel elements were exchanged on the fly
    (without shutting the reactor down, obviously).Also after the accident
    on the 4th unit, the other 3 units continued in normal operation until,
    I think 2000 when they were shut down for good. Also in Fukushima the
    company who build the rector tried to cut corners to increase profits.
    For a couple of bad apples we shouldn't denigrate peaceful nuclear
    energy.IMHO I prefer nuclear energy than more nuclear bombs.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stphane Duceppe@21:1/5 to Tzortzakakis Dimitrios on Tue Mar 14 01:30:46 2017
    XPost: sci.skeptic, alt.solar.thermal, alt.engineering.electrical
    XPost: sac.politics

    In article <oa6jit$3he$1@dont-email.me>
    Tzortzakakis Dimitrios <noone@nospam.com> wrote:

    On 13/3/2017 5:37 μμ, BruceS wrote:
    On 03/12/2017 06:01 AM, Alan McKinley wrote:
    In article <eijrs7F562gU1@mid.individual.net>
    Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

    On 12/03/2017 6:09 AM, BruceS wrote:

    Before all the fracking made natural gas so cheap, coal was the most >>>> economical fuel over here. Many blame Obama's opposition to coal for >>>> its decline, but the real cause is simple economics. At some point, >>>> the natural gas supply will start getting more expensive, and coal will >>>> be king again. With Australia having such supplies, I'm surprised it >>>> doesn't burn more coal. Surely with rolling blackouts, there's a
    market.

    Rolling blackouts are caused by a lack of peak supply, for which coal is >>> singularly inappropriate. Such supply is traditionally provided by
    either gas or diesel generation. The problem is that with solar and wind >>> taking the peak supply when it suits them, the economics of building
    peak generation are seriously undermined. Essentially, the market has
    been broken by government requirements that renewables be allowed to
    supply when they can. So some government intervention is required to
    fix it.

    Governments get caught up in stupid political red tape and the
    end result is something based on methods and technology that is
    no longer optimal.

    Yes, it sounds like the usual government screwup. Solar and wind
    should never be counted on for supply. AIUI, here we always have
    reliable backup to match any claimed production ability of those. We
    have some large wind farms in areas that are fairly consistently windy,
    but still don't count on them. Things like coal provides a solid, dependable level of power (yes, not quickly adjustable) and things like natural gas easily handle sudden need.

    Adding to the problem is that to appease the environmentalists, gas is >>>>> now being used for base-load, because it has lower CO2 emissions. Even >>>>> leaving aside the insufficiency of gas supply, the known gas reserves >>>>> are nothing like as big as the coal reserves.

    That's the same over here, with hundreds of years of coal reserves, but >>>> at the moment it's cheaper to burn natural gas. Of course, the
    coal-fired plants are still operating, just at lower levels.

    We could, of course, process and use our huge uranium reserves in
    nuclear plants, rather than shipping the ore overseas. But the NIMBY >>>>> effect applies, and in Australia BY seems to mean "within a couple of >>>>> thousand kilometres."

    I'd like to see more nuclear plants, preferably of a better design than >>>> is usual for the U.S. Canada's "CANDU" design seems like a good one. >>>> Nuclear power has some serious advantages if treated properly. I for >>>> one would much rather have a nuke nearby than a coal or oil plant. I >>>> just checked, and it looks like we've only ever had one in Colorado, >>>> and that's been shut down for years.

    Provided they don't leak, nukes actually release less radiation into the >>> environment that coal plant does, because there's a small amount of
    uranium in the coal, and it ends up in the ash.

    But when they do leak they can't always be controlled until
    substantial harm is done to large geographical regions.

    The biggest nuclear accident in the U.S., Three Mile Island, never did
    any real harm. The highest radiation levels released were less than
    the background radiation levels in places like my state, CO. The
    disasters of Chernobyl and Fukushima did release a lot of radiation,
    but it's hard to make any generalization from such a small sample set.

    Just a personal observation, but it seems the nuke problems are
    always in the larger facilities.

    It seems to me the big problems are from poor designs that aren't
    updated as we learn more. There isn't much accountability when a
    disaster does happen, and the damage easily crosses political
    boundaries. Then there's the problem of waste disposal.
    You can't compare US nuclear reactors to soviet ones, as the latter
    didn't even have a containment building, were boiling water reactors,
    had a graphit moderator, the fuel elements were exchanged on the fly
    (without shutting the reactor down, obviously).Also after the accident
    on the 4th unit, the other 3 units continued in normal operation until,
    I think 2000 when they were shut down for good. Also in Fukushima the
    company who build the rector tried to cut corners to increase profits.
    For a couple of bad apples we shouldn't denigrate peaceful nuclear energy.IMHO I prefer nuclear energy than more nuclear bombs.

    Nuclear energy is a billion year cleanup problem, and that is
    assuming it can all be contained safely that long.

    Environmental damage from coal, oil and gas can be recovered in
    less than a century, usually a few decades. Recovery does not
    include cleaning up mines, that is a separate issue.

    If you want to help stop global warming, insulate in summer,
    don't heat your home in the winter. Wear more clothing.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From BruceS@21:1/5 to All on Tue Mar 14 08:42:55 2017
    XPost: sci.skeptic, alt.solar.thermal, alt.engineering.electrical
    XPost: sac.politics

    On 03/13/2017 06:30 PM, Stphane Duceppe wrote:
    In article <oa6jit$3he$1@dont-email.me>
    Tzortzakakis Dimitrios <noone@nospam.com> wrote:

    On 13/3/2017 5:37 μμ, BruceS wrote:
    On 03/12/2017 06:01 AM, Alan McKinley wrote:
    In article <eijrs7F562gU1@mid.individual.net>
    Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

    On 12/03/2017 6:09 AM, BruceS wrote:

    Before all the fracking made natural gas so cheap, coal was the most >>>>>> economical fuel over here. Many blame Obama's opposition to coal for >>>>>> its decline, but the real cause is simple economics. At some point, >>>>>> the natural gas supply will start getting more expensive, and coal will >>>>>> be king again. With Australia having such supplies, I'm surprised it >>>>>> doesn't burn more coal. Surely with rolling blackouts, there's a
    market.

    Rolling blackouts are caused by a lack of peak supply, for which coal is >>>>> singularly inappropriate. Such supply is traditionally provided by
    either gas or diesel generation. The problem is that with solar and wind >>>>> taking the peak supply when it suits them, the economics of building >>>>> peak generation are seriously undermined. Essentially, the market has >>>>> been broken by government requirements that renewables be allowed to >>>>> supply when they can. So some government intervention is required to >>>>> fix it.

    Governments get caught up in stupid political red tape and the
    end result is something based on methods and technology that is
    no longer optimal.

    Yes, it sounds like the usual government screwup. Solar and wind
    should never be counted on for supply. AIUI, here we always have
    reliable backup to match any claimed production ability of those. We
    have some large wind farms in areas that are fairly consistently windy,
    but still don't count on them. Things like coal provides a solid,
    dependable level of power (yes, not quickly adjustable) and things like
    natural gas easily handle sudden need.

    Adding to the problem is that to appease the environmentalists, gas is >>>>>>> now being used for base-load, because it has lower CO2 emissions. Even >>>>>>> leaving aside the insufficiency of gas supply, the known gas reserves >>>>>>> are nothing like as big as the coal reserves.

    That's the same over here, with hundreds of years of coal reserves, but >>>>>> at the moment it's cheaper to burn natural gas. Of course, the
    coal-fired plants are still operating, just at lower levels.

    We could, of course, process and use our huge uranium reserves in >>>>>>> nuclear plants, rather than shipping the ore overseas. But the NIMBY >>>>>>> effect applies, and in Australia BY seems to mean "within a couple of >>>>>>> thousand kilometres."

    I'd like to see more nuclear plants, preferably of a better design than >>>>>> is usual for the U.S. Canada's "CANDU" design seems like a good one. >>>>>> Nuclear power has some serious advantages if treated properly. I for >>>>>> one would much rather have a nuke nearby than a coal or oil plant. I >>>>>> just checked, and it looks like we've only ever had one in Colorado, >>>>>> and that's been shut down for years.

    Provided they don't leak, nukes actually release less radiation into the >>>>> environment that coal plant does, because there's a small amount of
    uranium in the coal, and it ends up in the ash.

    But when they do leak they can't always be controlled until
    substantial harm is done to large geographical regions.

    The biggest nuclear accident in the U.S., Three Mile Island, never did
    any real harm. The highest radiation levels released were less than
    the background radiation levels in places like my state, CO. The
    disasters of Chernobyl and Fukushima did release a lot of radiation,
    but it's hard to make any generalization from such a small sample set.

    Just a personal observation, but it seems the nuke problems are
    always in the larger facilities.

    It seems to me the big problems are from poor designs that aren't
    updated as we learn more. There isn't much accountability when a
    disaster does happen, and the damage easily crosses political
    boundaries. Then there's the problem of waste disposal.
    You can't compare US nuclear reactors to soviet ones, as the latter
    didn't even have a containment building, were boiling water reactors,
    had a graphit moderator, the fuel elements were exchanged on the fly
    (without shutting the reactor down, obviously).Also after the accident
    on the 4th unit, the other 3 units continued in normal operation until,
    I think 2000 when they were shut down for good. Also in Fukushima the
    company who build the rector tried to cut corners to increase profits.
    For a couple of bad apples we shouldn't denigrate peaceful nuclear
    energy.

    You'll notice that I'm not claiming the plants with the catastrophic
    failures indicate a fundamental problem with all other plants. They
    were, as I indicated, bad designs (or if you will, bad
    implementations). Unfortunately, they are hardly unique, as there are
    many plants out there with bad designs or implementations. When
    corrupt individuals "cut corners" or otherwise ignore safety, the
    results can be disastrous. I'm in favor of safer nuclear plants,
    though with some reservations.

    IMHO I prefer nuclear energy than more nuclear bombs.

    You may want to look up the term "false dichotomy".

    Nuclear energy is a billion year cleanup problem, and that is
    assuming it can all be contained safely that long.

    Agreed, essentially, although that can be "containment" rather than
    "cleanup". Yet another problem with our (U.S.) nuke plants is that
    they only use a small fraction of the fuel, leaving the rest as high
    level waste. That's very bad for efficiency, but far worse for the
    containment problem.

    Environmental damage from coal, oil and gas can be recovered in
    less than a century, usually a few decades. Recovery does not
    include cleaning up mines, that is a separate issue.

    If you want to help stop global warming, insulate in summer,
    don't heat your home in the winter. Wear more clothing.

    I have plenty of money to keep the thermostat wherever I want it, but
    in winter we keep it at (3 zones) 64 and 66F and (as you suggest) wear
    more clothing. Being in Colorado, that definitely involves heating,
    but nowhere near as much as if we, like many who can't even afford to
    pay their own utilities, kept it in the high 70s. For summer, we have
    a single room A/C, and wear less clothing.

    I don't know which ngs you two come from, this thread being so widely crossposted, but I'm happy to see sci.skeptic get some traffic,
    especially as thoughtful and considered as the above. Thanks!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)