schildi
Well-Known Member
3718 and no text
Joined: Jan 14, 2011 1:38:58 GMT -5
Posts: 1,799
|
Post by schildi on Mar 15, 2011 9:32:20 GMT -5
I'm aware of a "POWER GRID" as you call them ;D They still lose a significant amount of power during the transmission. Details, Texan, please. How much is lost over a hundred miles at 380,000V? ;D
|
|
schildi
Well-Known Member
3718 and no text
Joined: Jan 14, 2011 1:38:58 GMT -5
Posts: 1,799
|
Post by schildi on Mar 15, 2011 9:34:51 GMT -5
but they could do the same on the icw the way i understand it as long as there is current it can be turned into power. there is current on the houston ship channel,the icw,the illinois and the red river. You do need a certain drop, and a minimum volume of water per second, and there are more requirements. "Just a current" is not really enough.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 11:13:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2011 9:40:14 GMT -5
I'm aware of a "POWER GRID" as you call them ;D They still lose a significant amount of power during the transmission. Details, Texan, please. How much is lost over a hundred miles at 380,000V? ;D See....there's the problem.......you think 100 miles is a "long way" where you're from! I'm more like 400 miles away from the Red River and about 450 away from the MS.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 11:13:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2011 9:43:52 GMT -5
Solar is the future!
|
|
so1970
Junior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 23:54:13 GMT -5
Posts: 176
|
Post by so1970 on Mar 15, 2011 9:47:02 GMT -5
but as an option its doable. 17% of the worlds energy is hydro. 99% of norways use comes from hydro,57% of canadas,55% in switzerland. but only7% in the united states. if we are truly searching for clean safe energy water can not be overlooked
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Mar 15, 2011 9:53:50 GMT -5
This is the problem with you and your statements. Just bc YOU want to live next to all kinds of things, doesn't mean we all do. And for you to consider other people "whiners" bc they don't want to follow your path in life is unintelligent, at best.
Lena
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 11:13:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2011 9:59:45 GMT -5
but as an option its doable. 17% of the worlds energy is hydro. 99% of norways use comes from hydro,57% of canadas,55% in switzerland. but only7% in the united states. if we are truly searching for clean safe energy water can not be overlooked Of course you can't overlook it. I'm actually big into learning about alternative energy sources and their implementation. I just think most people look at the upfront cost as a deterrent. Coal and natural gas are relatively cheap at the moment so they aren't looking beyond that.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 11:13:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2011 10:04:45 GMT -5
This is the problem with you and your statements. Just bc YOU want to live next to all kinds of things, doesn't mean we all do. And for you to consider other people "whiners" bc they don't want to follow your path in life is unintelligent, at best. Lena Please get over yourself. Here's my point because you obviously have extremely poor comprehension skills: Since we were talking about probabilities, the likelihood of a nuclear power plant near you, me or anyone else is on the low end of probable dangers. Could it happen? Of course. Is it more likely to happen than a car wreck, tornado, flood, plane crash, jaywalking, whatever? Not really. That doesn't mean I do or don't want one in my backyard or that I'm telling you that you should be okay with one in your backyard. My point is that there are far more deadly probabilities on any given day.
|
|
so1970
Junior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 23:54:13 GMT -5
Posts: 176
|
Post by so1970 on Mar 15, 2011 10:15:45 GMT -5
i would be happier having one by my house if i recieved royalties ; ;D
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 11:13:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2011 10:18:20 GMT -5
i would be happier having one by my house if i recieved royalties ; ;D Would it be considered "Possible Hazard Pay"? ;D
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 11:13:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2011 10:20:28 GMT -5
I'm telling you that you should be okay with one in your backyard. Read more: notmsnmoney.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=finance&action=display&thread=4708&page=3#ixzz1GgJbX9ozI think you need to get over yourself. Any person who doesn't want something in their area - whatever it may be - should be able to say so, and if the overwhelming feelings of the community is to not have it - they should have that option. Of the people by the people for the people.....oh no - wait - let's just have someone like financial texan tell us what the probability is and make decisions for all of us. Can you please show me (Post #) where I put the following words? "I'm telling you that you should be okay with one in your backyard." I'm betting you won't find them since I never wrote them. So perhaps you should do some fact checking before you call someone out. EDIT: Just in case you come back with a post where I said this I did find those words......HOWEVER.....You conveniently left out the rest of the sentence to go along with it....so here it is for everyone to see: " That doesn't mean I do or don't want one in my backyard or that I'm telling you that you should be okay with one in your backyard." Nice try.
|
|
Mardi Gras Audrey
Senior Member
So well rounded, I'm pointless...
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:49:31 GMT -5
Posts: 2,082
|
Post by Mardi Gras Audrey on Mar 15, 2011 10:29:21 GMT -5
I went to a power company presentation about nuclear when I lived in southern TX. They spent several hours talking about how safe it was and how much cheaper it would be than the coal plants that they were using. They also had experts come in to talk about what happened at 3 mile island and Chernobyl. The strange thing was that they spent ~3 hours talking to the people in our city about what we would get (cheaper energy) if they got the approval to expand the site at Baytown. Never once was it mentioned what the people in/around Baytown thought of nuclear energy. I thought it was kind of telling that they were pitching it as wonderful to people who lived ~200 miles away yet made no mention of what the community that it would be going into thought about it. Cheap energy coming from someone else's backyard? I guess we are all supposed to jump on that....
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 11:13:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2011 10:40:21 GMT -5
well - perhaps the post is changed, or I misread it, possible. My perspective is that I think Lena has been very gracious, and you have been much less so. We are all aware of the relative probabilities, but make different choices. To tell someone that they need to "get over themselves" because their choice is different than yours, is really arrogant. Swing and a miss with the "it's changed" routine. If you'll notice Post #74 (where I did put those words) has not been edited. It actually tells you when a post is edited down in the bottom corner of that post. I have however edited a later post to include the full sentence that I originally posted that you butchered to call me out for something I didn't say.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,369
|
Post by Tiny on Mar 15, 2011 10:41:20 GMT -5
Um, is anyone concerned about the Spent Fuel Rods and how they are stored how they are shipped? I don't worry so much about the actual Nuclear plant - it's the still radioactive "spent" fuel rods that concern me... they are gonna be a hazard for centuries...
wait, maybe that will be a valuable source of jobs 60 or 70 years from now... building and maintaining the storage areas, and then monitoring those 'spent' fuel rods...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 11:13:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2011 10:45:06 GMT -5
well - perhaps the post is changed, or I misread it, possible. My perspective is that I think Lena has been very gracious, and you have been much less so. We are all aware of the relative probabilities, but make different choices. To tell someone that they need to "get over themselves" because their choice is different than yours, is really arrogant. tbird - We've all been around here awhile with these boards and the old boards. Lena has not always been gracious with some of her posts. Neither have you or I. We do get frustrated and take it out here at times. I'm not one to tell people what to do or what not to do. I'm happy to let others succeed or fall flat on their face all by themselves. However, this is a message board and we are going to disagree on issues. I've never told Lena that she MUST do something. If my knowledge is broadened on this board that's excellent. However, if you have a closed mind to something then you won't learn a thing.
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Mar 15, 2011 10:46:01 GMT -5
You keep telling me to "get over myself" is not the greatest way to convince me that you have something valuable to say.
However, I still get your point. Just bc I am not getting into a "probability of events" debate with you, doesn't mean there is anything wrong with my reading comprehension skills.
YOU responded to my statement that I don't want to live next door to nuclear plants by trying to convince me that it's not a big deal since there is a very low probability of something happening. And then tried to give me numerous examples of your life's tragedies.
What YOU don't seem to get is none of that is either relevant or important to me. I STILL don't want to be neighbors with the nuclear plant.
Just bc you consider my view wrong or silly, doesn't make it so. May be you should get over YOURself and move on with being rude to someone else
Lena
|
|
schildi
Well-Known Member
3718 and no text
Joined: Jan 14, 2011 1:38:58 GMT -5
Posts: 1,799
|
Post by schildi on Mar 15, 2011 10:51:37 GMT -5
Details, Texan, please. How much is lost over a hundred miles at 380,000V? ;D See....there's the problem.......you think 100 miles is a "long way" where you're from! I'm more like 400 miles away from the Red River and about 450 away from the MS. Nope, I did not think a hundred miles was a long way, not at all. :-) I was asking how much drop you expect over a hundred miles. I could have asked for the drop over a mile, or over a thousand miles, same thing. Just a matter of conversion. I can tell you are not an electrical engineer, otherwise you would not have replied like that. 400 miles is not much at all for a high voltage power transmission line, if that's what you are looking at.
|
|
schildi
Well-Known Member
3718 and no text
Joined: Jan 14, 2011 1:38:58 GMT -5
Posts: 1,799
|
Post by schildi on Mar 15, 2011 11:07:20 GMT -5
Texan, why don't you reply to ATSiaRU's question? I have brought this up before. The radioactive "used" fuel rods do concern me much more than the possibility of an accident. Waste that radiates for thousands of years to come, stored somewhere. Is there a safe place? I doubt it. Once it starts leaking, it can contaminate drinking water supplies hundreds of miles away. There have been problems already with fuel rods that were stored some 20-30 years ago in Europe. Real problems, with no real solution. Do you want that stuff near your or your kids water supply? And "near" in this case can actually be quite far. In many cases you won't even know if some of that stuff is dumped near you. And yes, you do come across a little arrogant when you keep on telling people to "get over themselves", especially when it's about issues like this. So again, you are ok with radioactive waste near you? (Near could mean a thousand miles or more once we are talking about a contaminated ground water supply, btw, in case you come back again with your relative definition of "near" and "far", as you did with the power transmission lines )
|
|
domeasingold
Established Member
Joined: Apr 12, 2011 16:45:41 GMT -5
Posts: 255
|
Post by domeasingold on Mar 15, 2011 11:35:40 GMT -5
So how much have you all thought about this in the past 20-30 years? Until something like this happens you go on with your lives and never think about the dangers of power generation. Think about what the cost associated with the changes to be made and how you will live with that. Take all the nuke plants offline and watch the scramble to cool your home this summer.
|
|
schildi
Well-Known Member
3718 and no text
Joined: Jan 14, 2011 1:38:58 GMT -5
Posts: 1,799
|
Post by schildi on Mar 15, 2011 11:50:10 GMT -5
So how much have you all thought about this in the past 20-30 years? Until something like this happens you go on with your lives and never think about the dangers of power generation. Think about what the cost associated with the changes to be made and how you will live with that. Take all the nuke plants offline and watch the scramble to cool your home this summer. Honestly, I have thought about this a lot, and I have followed the Castor transport protests in Europe that have been going on for a few years now where they ship these fuel rods on trains. Interesting images taken with special cameras where they show these train cars glowing at night! I am glad we don't have a nuclear plant anywhere near where I live. Not sure about the waste though.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 11:13:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2011 13:38:00 GMT -5
Texan, why don't you reply to ATSiaRU's question? I have brought this up before. The radioactive "used" fuel rods do concern me much more than the possibility of an accident. Waste that radiates for thousands of years to come, stored somewhere. Is there a safe place? I doubt it. Once it starts leaking, it can contaminate drinking water supplies hundreds of miles away. There have been problems already with fuel rods that were stored some 20-30 years ago in Europe. Real problems, with no real solution. Do you want that stuff near your or your kids water supply? And "near" in this case can actually be quite far. In many cases you won't even know if some of that stuff is dumped near you. And yes, you do come across a little arrogant when you keep on telling people to "get over themselves", especially when it's about issues like this. So again, you are ok with radioactive waste near you? (Near could mean a thousand miles or more once we are talking about a contaminated ground water supply, btw, in case you come back again with your relative definition of "near" and "far", as you did with the power transmission lines ) As far as ATSiaRU's question: Yes, the spent fuel rods are a concern. As long as they are properly (that's the key word) shielded away where nobody can get to them then I'm okay with that. The problem lies in the fact that if not properly maintained or sealed away the could cause massive problems. It could also effect future generations way down the line if the site is buried for some reason. As far as water supply and contamination goes: Same answer as above. If it's properly disposed of then I wouldn't be that worried about it. If a company is truly worried possible contamination then they would do whatever is possible to stop that from happening. Obviously accidents happen, but if properly contained it wouldn't be that big of a concern to me. Edit: Schildi - I'm definitely not an Electrical Engineer. I'm an Accountant. ;D
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 11:13:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2011 13:50:11 GMT -5
You keep telling me to "get over myself" is not the greatest way to convince me that you have something valuable to say. However, I still get your point. Just bc I am not getting into a "probability of events" debate with you, doesn't mean there is anything wrong with my reading comprehension skills. YOU responded to my statement that I don't want to live next door to nuclear plants by trying to convince me that it's not a big deal since there is a very low probability of something happening. And then tried to give me numerous examples of your life's tragedies. What YOU don't seem to get is none of that is either relevant or important to me. I STILL don't want to be neighbors with the nuclear plant. Just bc you consider my view wrong or silly, doesn't make it so. May be you should get over YOURself and move on with being rude to someone else Lena I'll just ask this question as I've never said anything about it specifically being "at your back door". How far away would you be okay with? Also, I don't consider your view wrong or silly, I'm actually trying to learn why you think of nuclear energy the way you do. It just seems that people here (not specifically you) and all over the country and world are having a discussion about something because of a tragic event. Everybody seems to be rushing to a reactionary judgment and shouldn't we have learned our lesson on rushing to judgments and making stupid legislation or laws or committees over an event that happened 9 and 1/2 years ago? I look at this as someone else mentioned: Shouldn't this be showing us how safe nuclear power has become? If this happened decades ago with Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island there would more widespread devastation around Japan than there already is.
|
|
schildi
Well-Known Member
3718 and no text
Joined: Jan 14, 2011 1:38:58 GMT -5
Posts: 1,799
|
Post by schildi on Mar 15, 2011 13:54:35 GMT -5
Texan, why don't you reply to ATSiaRU's question? I have brought this up before. The radioactive "used" fuel rods do concern me much more than the possibility of an accident. Waste that radiates for thousands of years to come, stored somewhere. Is there a safe place? I doubt it. Once it starts leaking, it can contaminate drinking water supplies hundreds of miles away. There have been problems already with fuel rods that were stored some 20-30 years ago in Europe. Real problems, with no real solution. Do you want that stuff near your or your kids water supply? And "near" in this case can actually be quite far. In many cases you won't even know if some of that stuff is dumped near you. And yes, you do come across a little arrogant when you keep on telling people to "get over themselves", especially when it's about issues like this. So again, you are ok with radioactive waste near you? (Near could mean a thousand miles or more once we are talking about a contaminated ground water supply, btw, in case you come back again with your relative definition of "near" and "far", as you did with the power transmission lines ) As far as ATSiaRU's question: Yes, the spent fuel rods are a concern. As long as they are properly (that's the key word) shielded away where nobody can get to them then I'm okay with that. The problem lies in the fact that if not properly maintained or sealed away the could cause massive problems. It could also effect future generations way down the line if the site is buried for some reason. As far as water supply and contamination goes: Same answer as above. If it's properly disposed of then I wouldn't be that worried about it. If a company is truly worried possible contamination then they would do whatever is possible to stop that from happening. Obviously accidents happen, but if properly contained it wouldn't be that big of a concern to me. Wow, we agree. One problem: I don't think the proper way exists to dispose of this radioactive material making sure it's still sealed in hundreds (actually thousands) of years, and certainly companies today don't care much. Their profits are more important. There have been problems in some sites after 25 years, LOL. Too bad it's not all that funny. And now the stuff can't be reached because it's down in old mines that then have been back filled. The only problem is an increase in measurable radiation in the area, again, after 25 years. This case is in Europe, Germany, in fact. You trust companies to seal that stuff for hundreds, thousands or years? You really do? Really? You think it's ok to sacrifice our kids kids future because of today's greed?
|
|
schildi
Well-Known Member
3718 and no text
Joined: Jan 14, 2011 1:38:58 GMT -5
Posts: 1,799
|
Post by schildi on Mar 15, 2011 13:59:08 GMT -5
Edit: Schildi - I'm definitely not an Electrical Engineer. I'm an Accountant. ;D I am. :-)
|
|
schildi
Well-Known Member
3718 and no text
Joined: Jan 14, 2011 1:38:58 GMT -5
Posts: 1,799
|
Post by schildi on Mar 15, 2011 14:03:39 GMT -5
You keep telling me to "get over myself" is not the greatest way to convince me that you have something valuable to say. However, I still get your point. Just bc I am not getting into a "probability of events" debate with you, doesn't mean there is anything wrong with my reading comprehension skills. YOU responded to my statement that I don't want to live next door to nuclear plants by trying to convince me that it's not a big deal since there is a very low probability of something happening. And then tried to give me numerous examples of your life's tragedies. What YOU don't seem to get is none of that is either relevant or important to me. I STILL don't want to be neighbors with the nuclear plant. Just bc you consider my view wrong or silly, doesn't make it so. May be you should get over YOURself and move on with being rude to someone else Lena I'll just ask this question as I've never said anything about it specifically being "at your back door". How far away would you be okay with? Also, I don't consider your view wrong or silly, I'm actually trying to learn why you think of nuclear energy the way you do. It just seems that people here (not specifically you) and all over the country and world are having a discussion about something because of a tragic event. Everybody seems to be rushing to a reactionary judgment and shouldn't we have learned our lesson on rushing to judgments and making stupid legislation or laws or committees over an event that happened 9 and 1/2 years ago? I look at this as someone else mentioned: Shouldn't this be showing us how safe nuclear power has become? If this happened decades ago with Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island there would more widespread devastation around Japan than there already is. I say wait as this develops. I don't think this is done yet, unfortunately. And I do not think anything is "safe" about nuclear power, especially not the radioactive fuel rod storage. I do not believe that companies put the good of generations down the road before today's profits, not at all. Heck, not even the good 20 years down the road. There is no proven storage method that will last forever.
|
|
dianartemis
Well-Known Member
God made me and started laughing
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:43:10 GMT -5
Posts: 1,722
|
Post by dianartemis on Mar 15, 2011 14:03:55 GMT -5
My biggest concern w/ nuclear energy is the waste. It's extremely unsafe. And extremely is an understatement. If we can figure out what can be done with the waste, or a way to use the rods more effectively and for a longer period of time, I'll rethink it. The end product of a nuke plant keeps me from supporting them as energy sources.
|
|
schildi
Well-Known Member
3718 and no text
Joined: Jan 14, 2011 1:38:58 GMT -5
Posts: 1,799
|
Post by schildi on Mar 15, 2011 14:06:12 GMT -5
My biggest concern w/ nuclear energy is the waste. It's extremely unsafe. And extremely is an understatement. If we can figure out what can be done with the waste, or a way to use the rods more effectively and for a longer period of time, I'll rethink it. The end product of a nuke plant keeps me from supporting them as energy sources. Agreed. I stated the very same several times. That part is a much bigger concern than the blow up accident.
|
|
dianartemis
Well-Known Member
God made me and started laughing
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:43:10 GMT -5
Posts: 1,722
|
Post by dianartemis on Mar 15, 2011 14:13:22 GMT -5
To my knowledge, we don't currently have a shielding method that will last as long as what is currently needed. Which means that those rods will have to be repackaged every 20 to 30 years. This makes it even more likely that an accident can happen due to human involvement.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 11:13:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2011 14:23:55 GMT -5
Schildi - how long until the material is "inert"? What about gathering it all up every 5-10 years and shooting it into the sun? Will we have the capacity to do so? And I think it wouldn't effect the sun? schildi may know more about this than I do, but it depends on the material used. However, for a lot of the material used in nuclear reactors the shelf-life is generally in the thousands of years. Edit: As far as shooting the material in the sun, that's actually been talked about in the science community. I don't know what they came up with whether it would be a viable solution or what potential problems that could create. It's an interesting idea if it would work. The biggest problem I would see happening is if the rocket taking it to space were to malfunction and blow up before it got out of the atmosphere or out of the planets orbit.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 11:13:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2011 14:27:47 GMT -5
My biggest concern w/ nuclear energy is the waste. It's extremely unsafe. And extremely is an understatement. If we can figure out what can be done with the waste, or a way to use the rods more effectively and for a longer period of time, I'll rethink it. The end product of a nuke plant keeps me from supporting them as energy sources. I agree with this and also what schildi has said in the previous posts above this. Waste storage is the bigger problem to me than actual reactor implementation. When the reactor is running it's relatively safe unless there's a catastrophic event. It's when the fuel rod is spent and you're looking to dispose of the fuel-rod that you run in to the biggest problems. See.....I'm not saying that nuclear power is the be all/end all, but I think it should be considered in the energy production talks.
|
|