"Jafo" <a@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:96mgt2p7cbgvs3d2fv90qb6rsdku8i65d6@4ax.com... > As viewed from alt.california, spartakus@my-deja.com wrote: > > >>so the Kyoto accords (which allow China and India - the biggest >>populations on the planet - to continue their emissions unimpeded) > >>won't solve anything. > > >They have bigger populations, but we are still the largest consumer > >of fossil fuels, by far. > > But for how long? India and China have growing populations and their > expanding heavy technologies are at a less sophisticated level of > technology, which means their pollution outputs are rising. It makes > no sense to throttle other countries while allowing two of the largest > to pollute as much as they need to in order to grow. That's one reason to suspect that the whole "global warming" crowd doesn't even take their own doom-and-gloom propaganda seriously. The other one is the eco-freaks refusal to embrace nuclear power as an option to burning coal (or oil) in stationary power plants. The sanctimonious Lefty Liberal idiots are hysterical about CO2 emissions from automobiles driven by Americans destroying the atmosphere - but they don't seem concerned about CO2 from coal-burning power plants, or CO2 from China or India. Not that your typical liberal has enough brain power to see the inconsistency here...

"Dave Barnett" <dave.dbarnettNO@SPAMgmail.com> wrote in message news:nlsht2h0lcbfrk14hj63i1etf29oibe1j4@4ax.com... > On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 10:27:17 -0800, "Stan de SD" > <standesd_DIGA_NO_A_SPAM@covad.net> wrote: > > > >That's one reason to suspect that the whole "global warming" crowd doesn't > >even take their own doom-and-gloom propaganda seriously. The other one is > >the eco-freaks refusal to embrace nuclear power as an option to burning coal > >(or oil) in stationary power plants. The sanctimonious Lefty Liberal idiots > >are hysterical about CO2 emissions from automobiles driven by Americans > >destroying the atmosphere - but they don't seem concerned about CO2 from > >coal-burning power plants, or CO2 from China or India. Not that your typical > >liberal has enough brain power to see the inconsistency here... > > > Nuclear power only works for a percentage of the total power grid. A > nuclear generator runs full power 100% of the time. Power consumption > varies drastically depending on the time of day and the weather. Since > there's no such thing as an AC battery, all power must be generated in > real time. As such, it isn't feasible to generate more than about 10 > to 15% of the total power consumed with nuclear generation. 40-50% of all stationary power in the US is produced by burning coal. A considerable chunk of that is base load, of which nuclear power is perfectly suited for. Given that nuke plants currently produce 13% of the baseload already, we can go to 35-40% total capacity with no problem. As far as off-peak generation, there are plenty of options. The French (in one of the few things I agree with) are planning on using off-peak generation capability for generating hydrogen for fuel cells (the ONLY feasible way to power hydrogen vehicles). In addition, what's wrong with transmitting (and selling) off-peak power to Canada or Mexico so they can shut down their plants off-peak. Mexico uses gas and oil for power generation, which not only generates CO2 emissions, and lacks capacity for significant growth. I have no problem selling off-peak power to Mexico: make some money, provide them with cheap energy to build their economy and employ their own citizens instead of exporting illegals here...

"Dave Barnett" <dave.dbarnettNO@SPAMgmail.com> wrote in message news:t8kit2hvua0sim0053bn0992p8i61h8hra@4ax.com... > On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 23:11:55 -0800, "Stan de SD" > <standesd_DIGA_NO_A_SPAM@covad.net> wrote: > > >40-50% of all stationary power in the US is produced by burning coal. A > >considerable chunk of that is base load, of which nuclear power is perfectly > >suited for. Given that nuke plants currently produce 13% of the baseload > >already, we can go to 35-40% total capacity with no problem. As far as > >off-peak generation, there are plenty of options. > > If you time it right, ramping up the generators and producing the > right amount of power at the right time that might be possible, but I > still think 35-40% would be iffy. In the winter that's probably > possible, given the use of electric heaters at night. A quick look > shows our consumption seems to be between 20,000 and 30,000 megawatts: > > http://www.caiso.com/outlook/outlook.html > > But I've seen loads as low as 12,000 megawatts and as high as 50,000. > You also have the problem of fuel disposal Fuel disposal is a minimal problem from a technological perspective - it's more of a "political" problem thanks to hysterical ignorant anti-nuke kooks who cook up laughable scenarious of doom. > and the high costs of > building the plants. With all of the other alternatives necessary, I > have to ask "why"? Name a single other "alternative" that can provide anywhere near the fraction of our energy needs that nuks can provide. > >The French (in one of the > >few things I agree with) are planning on using off-peak generation > >capability for generating hydrogen for fuel cells (the ONLY feasible way to > >power hydrogen vehicles). In addition, what's wrong with transmitting (and > >selling) off-peak power to Canada or Mexico so they can shut down their > >plants off-peak. Mexico uses gas and oil for power generation, which not > >only generates CO2 emissions, and lacks capacity for significant growth. I > >have no problem selling off-peak power to Mexico: make some money, provide > >them with cheap energy to build their economy and employ their own citizens > >instead of exporting illegals here... > > > > Good concepts, but it seems like it would be easier to build vehicles > that were more efficient and implement some conservation methods. Which we are doing already... > Also, in order to sell that power you have to have the transmission > facilities to carry it. I don't know the total costs involved but I > do know that it took several years to upgrade the infamous "path 15" > (the transmission line between Northern and Southern California) that > was responsible for some of our power problems. If the effort was > minimal you'd think it would have been done faster. Most likely dealing with the state bureaucracy... > No, I'm afraid that as long as there are people who make money from > the status quo (our use of energy), and those people continue to make > campaign contributions, we won't see any real change. I remember the > 1st time I became skeptical about G.W. Bush (before 9/11) when he > responded to a question about California's energy crisis. He said > "California got themselves into it, they can get themselves out of > it". That part I actually agree with - we got ourselves in our own mess. > Meanwhile, his friend Ken Lay Friend? Sources? Cites? > and other similar companies were > part of a scheme that milked us for billions. Our power crisis isn't the fault of Bush or Ken Lay. It's the fault of the eco-chicken-littles who shut down nukes, and have pussywhipped all of our recent governors (Ahhh-nald, Gray-Out, and Petey Wilson) into not dealing with our own energy generation shortfall. > Sorry - I can't agree with the concept of expanding nuclear generation > when there are so many other practical alternatives in existence or on > the horizon. Again, WHAT practical alternatives?

"Jafo" <a@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:96mgt2p7cbgvs3d2fv90qb6rsdku8i65d6@4ax.com... > As viewed from alt.california, spartakus@my-deja.com wrote: > > >>so the Kyoto accords (which allow China and India - the biggest >>populations on the planet - to continue their emissions unimpeded) > >>won't solve anything. > > >They have bigger populations, but we are still the largest consumer > >of fossil fuels, by far. > > But for how long? India and China have growing populations and their > expanding heavy technologies are at a less sophisticated level of > technology, which means their pollution outputs are rising. It makes > no sense to throttle other countries while allowing two of the largest > to pollute as much as they need to in order to grow. That's one reason to suspect that the whole "global warming" crowd doesn't even take their own doom-and-gloom propaganda seriously. The other one is the eco-freaks refusal to embrace nuclear power as an option to burning coal (or oil) in stationary power plants. The sanctimonious Lefty Liberal idiots are hysterical about CO2 emissions from automobiles driven by Americans destroying the atmosphere - but they don't seem concerned about CO2 from coal-burning power plants, or CO2 from China or India. Not that your typical liberal has enough brain power to see the inconsistency here...

"Dave Barnett" <dave.dbarnettNO@SPAMgmail.com> wrote in message news:nlsht2h0lcbfrk14hj63i1etf29oibe1j4@4ax.com... > On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 10:27:17 -0800, "Stan de SD" > <standesd_DIGA_NO_A_SPAM@covad.net> wrote: > > > >That's one reason to suspect that the whole "global warming" crowd doesn't > >even take their own doom-and-gloom propaganda seriously. The other one is > >the eco-freaks refusal to embrace nuclear power as an option to burning coal > >(or oil) in stationary power plants. The sanctimonious Lefty Liberal idiots > >are hysterical about CO2 emissions from automobiles driven by Americans > >destroying the atmosphere - but they don't seem concerned about CO2 from > >coal-burning power plants, or CO2 from China or India. Not that your typical > >liberal has enough brain power to see the inconsistency here... > > > Nuclear power only works for a percentage of the total power grid. A > nuclear generator runs full power 100% of the time. Power consumption > varies drastically depending on the time of day and the weather. Since > there's no such thing as an AC battery, all power must be generated in > real time. As such, it isn't feasible to generate more than about 10 > to 15% of the total power consumed with nuclear generation. 40-50% of all stationary power in the US is produced by burning coal. A considerable chunk of that is base load, of which nuclear power is perfectly suited for. Given that nuke plants currently produce 13% of the baseload already, we can go to 35-40% total capacity with no problem. As far as off-peak generation, there are plenty of options. The French (in one of the few things I agree with) are planning on using off-peak generation capability for generating hydrogen for fuel cells (the ONLY feasible way to power hydrogen vehicles). In addition, what's wrong with transmitting (and selling) off-peak power to Canada or Mexico so they can shut down their plants off-peak. Mexico uses gas and oil for power generation, which not only generates CO2 emissions, and lacks capacity for significant growth. I have no problem selling off-peak power to Mexico: make some money, provide them with cheap energy to build their economy and employ their own citizens instead of exporting illegals here...

"Dave Barnett" <dave.dbarnettNO@SPAMgmail.com> wrote in message news:t8kit2hvua0sim0053bn0992p8i61h8hra@4ax.com... > On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 23:11:55 -0800, "Stan de SD" > <standesd_DIGA_NO_A_SPAM@covad.net> wrote: > > >40-50% of all stationary power in the US is produced by burning coal. A > >considerable chunk of that is base load, of which nuclear power is perfectly > >suited for. Given that nuke plants currently produce 13% of the baseload > >already, we can go to 35-40% total capacity with no problem. As far as > >off-peak generation, there are plenty of options. > > If you time it right, ramping up the generators and producing the > right amount of power at the right time that might be possible, but I > still think 35-40% would be iffy. In the winter that's probably > possible, given the use of electric heaters at night. A quick look > shows our consumption seems to be between 20,000 and 30,000 megawatts: > > http://www.caiso.com/outlook/outlook.html > > But I've seen loads as low as 12,000 megawatts and as high as 50,000. > You also have the problem of fuel disposal Fuel disposal is a minimal problem from a technological perspective - it's more of a "political" problem thanks to hysterical ignorant anti-nuke kooks who cook up laughable scenarious of doom. > and the high costs of > building the plants. With all of the other alternatives necessary, I > have to ask "why"? Name a single other "alternative" that can provide anywhere near the fraction of our energy needs that nuks can provide. > >The French (in one of the > >few things I agree with) are planning on using off-peak generation > >capability for generating hydrogen for fuel cells (the ONLY feasible way to > >power hydrogen vehicles). In addition, what's wrong with transmitting (and > >selling) off-peak power to Canada or Mexico so they can shut down their > >plants off-peak. Mexico uses gas and oil for power generation, which not > >only generates CO2 emissions, and lacks capacity for significant growth. I > >have no problem selling off-peak power to Mexico: make some money, provide > >them with cheap energy to build their economy and employ their own citizens > >instead of exporting illegals here... > > > > Good concepts, but it seems like it would be easier to build vehicles > that were more efficient and implement some conservation methods. Which we are doing already... > Also, in order to sell that power you have to have the transmission > facilities to carry it. I don't know the total costs involved but I > do know that it took several years to upgrade the infamous "path 15" > (the transmission line between Northern and Southern California) that > was responsible for some of our power problems. If the effort was > minimal you'd think it would have been done faster. Most likely dealing with the state bureaucracy... > No, I'm afraid that as long as there are people who make money from > the status quo (our use of energy), and those people continue to make > campaign contributions, we won't see any real change. I remember the > 1st time I became skeptical about G.W. Bush (before 9/11) when he > responded to a question about California's energy crisis. He said > "California got themselves into it, they can get themselves out of > it". That part I actually agree with - we got ourselves in our own mess. > Meanwhile, his friend Ken Lay Friend? Sources? Cites? > and other similar companies were > part of a scheme that milked us for billions. Our power crisis isn't the fault of Bush or Ken Lay. It's the fault of the eco-chicken-littles who shut down nukes, and have pussywhipped all of our recent governors (Ahhh-nald, Gray-Out, and Petey Wilson) into not dealing with our own energy generation shortfall. > Sorry - I can't agree with the concept of expanding nuclear generation > when there are so many other practical alternatives in existence or on > the horizon. Again, WHAT practical alternatives?