Ethanol Mandate for Iowa?

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

The problem is if you use a gallon of Ethanol to produce 0.99 gallons of
Ethanol all of the fuel produced will go into production and you are going
to have to add .01 petro just to break even.

then could it still have a practical use as a means of storing
energy instead? I mean, producing ethanol using the output of
say nuclear plants (ok, replace that with wind mills or whatever
takes your fancy if 'nuclear' is against your religion); it was
my (probably mistaken) understanding that the output of a nuclear
plant could not easily be throttled up or down...

any recommendation about some good reading on the subject of
alternative fuel technologies?

--Sylvain

("Sylvain" wrote)
then could it still have a practical use as a means of storing
energy instead? I mean, producing ethanol using the output of
say nuclear plants (ok, replace that with wind mills or whatever
takes your fancy if 'nuclear' is against your religion); it was
my (probably mistaken) understanding that the output of a nuclear
plant could not easily be throttled up or down...


100% my idea also.

About NP being throttled up or down:
First: STOP trying to replace the Hoover Dam with each Nuclear Power plant
built! (Had to say that)

Each ethanol plant would have two small (tiny tiny tiny) McNuke Plants.
Tiny! If one is down, the other one chugs along.

Second: Chugging along - Store the surplus energy like an old lighthouse -
wind up the weight, release the weight. If each McNuke plant had a number of
large, in ground, weight tubes to 'work on' when the ethanol plant was down,
that would solve that problem. It would smooth out the spikes and allow the
McNuke plant to be CS -- constant speed. Sell to the grid if you have too
much stored capacity at the end of the month, quarter, whatever.

Third: Have an ethanol generator (for back up) to the Atomic Lighthouse
design - in case you get in a bind some afternoon. "Accounting sold too much
power at 'peak' prices again today, so we're short on 2nd shift ...again!"

Is there a way to make a buck from these fantastic ideas? A MacArthur
Fellows Program "genius grant?" Anything? g

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4051423

http://www.macfound.org/programs/fel/fel_overview.htm


Montblack

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 02:26:36 -0500, "Montblack"
wrote in
::

First: STOP trying to replace the Hoover Dam with each Nuclear Power plant
built!

Nuke plants have a finite life of about 25 years, unlike the Hoover
Dam which was built in the early '30s. (still operating after 70
years). When you factor in the cost of storing spent fuel and
decommissioning nuke plants (sawing them up and burying the pieces),
the cost of energy is marginally competitive, and the hazardous legacy
is significant.

Nuke plants have a finite life of about 25 years

Odd. How do we explain all the 1950s and '60s nuke plants that are still
merrily producing gigawatts of energy today?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 13:58:53 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote in
xkx_e.372108$x96.4355@attbi_s72::

Nuke plants have a finite life of about 25 years

Odd. How do we explain all the 1950s and '60s nuke plants that are still
merrily producing gigawatts of energy today?

I find it difficult to believe what you contend. Have you a source
for your assertion?

Here are mine:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear...sanonofre.html

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electri...l/external.pdf
Regulators view the requirements that utilities consider
externalities in their comparisons of all supply-side and
demand-side options as analogous to providing a level
playing field to both sources. Accordingly, the approach
to incorporating externalities within the IRP
process is grounded in the belief that power generation
imposes substantial environmental and societal burdens
that are not taken into account either in the traditional
least-cost planning and resource selection process or by
the prevailing regulatory controls. Another compelling
argument is the real possibility that environmental
controls will tend to become more stringent in the
future. Prudence, therefore, dictates that externality
considerations be taken into account at the time of
resource selection to avert the possibility of incurring
significant financial costs at a future date, given the 30-
or 40-year life span of power plants.


Additionally, how can it other than completely irresponsible to
construct nuclear reactors without having a secure means of for
storing the spent fuel for the required millennia?

Nuke plants have a finite life of about 25 years

Odd. How do we explain all the 1950s and '60s nuke plants that are still
merrily producing gigawatts of energy today?

I find it difficult to believe what you contend. Have you a source
for your assertion?

Um, well, these aren't quite the '50s and '60s vintage, but Zion Nuclear
Power Plant in Zion, IL, was built in 1970. It's still chugging along 35
years later.

And the Duane Arnold Nuclear Power Plant, which produces almost 10% of the
power needed in Iowa, has been running since 1974 -- 31 years ago.

These took about 8 seconds to find on Yahoo. Both seem to be running beyond
your purported 25 year life span.

Additionally, how can it other than completely irresponsible to
construct nuclear reactors without having a secure means of for
storing the spent fuel for the required millennia?

I believe we've got geologically stable salt mines set to store all the
nuclear by-products that our nuke plants have created. Unfortunately,
environmentalists (through the courts) have been foolishly forcing the power
companies to continue storing on-site at each nuclear power plant. Talk
about a disaster waiting to happen...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 04:30:06 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote in
i5K_e.410799$xm3.180028@attbi_s21::

Nuke plants have a finite life of about 25 years

Odd. How do we explain all the 1950s and '60s nuke plants that are still
merrily producing gigawatts of energy today?

I find it difficult to believe what you contend. Have you a source
for your assertion?

Um, well, these aren't quite the '50s and '60s vintage, but Zion Nuclear
Power Plant in Zion, IL, was built in 1970. It's still chugging along 35
years later.

And the Duane Arnold Nuclear Power Plant, which produces almost 10% of the
power needed in Iowa, has been running since 1974 -- 31 years ago.

So you were only off by 20 years or 57% of the nuclear plant's current
life span. I thought you were incorrect.

These took about 8 seconds to find on Yahoo. Both seem to be running beyond
your purported 25 year life span.

San Onofre 1 and 2 were shutdown after only 20 years of operation, so
25 years was a bit optimistic in that case.

Additionally, how can it be other than completely irresponsible to
construct nuclear reactors without having a secure means of for
storing the spent fuel for the required millennia?

I believe we've got geologically stable salt mines set to store all the
nuclear by-products that our nuke plants have created. Unfortunately,
environmentalists (through the courts) have been foolishly forcing the power
companies to continue storing on-site at each nuclear power plant.

So you feel that protecting the environment is foolish?

Who will oversee those nuclear dump sites for thousands of years? Even
the Roman empire failed to last that long.

What would you estimate the cost of transporting radioactive waste
might be? The potential for a spill?

Talk about a disaster waiting to happen...

Fortunately, prudent environmentalists have averted disaster so far...

So while allure of cheap nuclear power entices the uninformed, its
true costs, including the long and short term hazards it poses to the
environment, transportation of radioactive materials and byproducts,
the cost of decommissioning plants, and the cost of standing vigil
over the dump site for thousands of years, make nuclear power
expensive indeed.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:i5K_e.410799$xm3.180028@attbi_s21...

Um, well, these aren't quite the '50s and '60s vintage, but Zion Nuclear
Power Plant in Zion, IL, was built in 1970. It's still chugging along 35
years later.

SNIP
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"


Actually the reactors at Zion were shut down many years ago. It was over
economics and politics. The plant (generators) is being used as an exciter
at the North end of ComEds grid. The NRC license may still be in effect, but
the reactors are not running. It has been a number of years since I left
ComEd but Zion 1 & 2 were mothballed when I did leave. I'd find it hard to
belive they were restarted.

Dresden Unit #1 was down for refuel when TMI happened, I was working in the
RX building when I first got the news. In the aftermath, it was determined
that Unit #1 did not produce sufficient power to pay for the new
modifications required for startup post TMI. The unit was turned into a test
lab and the results of those tests are responsible for extending the life
span of BWRs. Units 2 and 3 were also co-labrats to Unit 1, in that the
findings of Unit 1 tests were verified in real time on them. The biggest
life extension was the injection of hydrogen which drastically reduced the
oxidation of the steel.

Just a little nuke trivia,

Marty

Jay Honeck wrote:

Odd. How do we explain all the 1950s and '60s nuke plants that are still
merrily producing gigawatts of energy today?

There aren't any left from the 50s, unless some of the old Soviet stuff is still
on line. There's aren't very many from the 60s, either, and only one of them is
in this country.

The oldest one in the UK was put on line in 1956. It closed in 2004. The first
plant in the U.S. went on line in 1954, but it's been closed for years.

The oldest one still operating in the U.S. just snuck in under the wire of the
60s - it went on line December 31, 1969. Its license expires in 2009.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 02:26:36 -0500, "Montblack"
wrote in
::


First: STOP trying to replace the Hoover Dam with each Nuclear Power plant
built!


Nuke plants have a finite life of about 25 years,


So every nuke plant will be decommissioned and torn down after 25 years?
Bull****.