Ethanol Mandate for Iowa?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
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).


You're nuts.

I only had to look at the nearest nuke plants to prove that wrong. Arkansas
Nuclear One was built in 1974 and its license is good until 2034. That's 60
years of which they've already used 31. Unit Two was activated in 1980, 25
years ago and it's license is good until 2018 that's 18 years.

This is also a good example of how regulation has killed the industry two
almost identical plants were built side by side. the one activated under
1976 law has a 60 year license. The one activated in 1980 only has a 38 year
license. You can't tell me that they learned something that would cause the
reduction that was a real problem and not reduce the length of the older
license.

Unit 1
Unit
2

Owner:
Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
Entergy Arkansas, Inc.

Reactor Type:
Pressurized Water Reactor
Pressurized Water Reactor

Reactor Manufacturer:
Babcock and Wilcox
Combustion Engineering

Turbine Generator Manufacturer:
Westinghouse
General Electric

Architect/Engineer:
Bechtel Power
Bechtel Power

Commercial Operation Date:
December 1974
March 1980

Maximum Dependable Capacity:
836 MW
858 MW

License Expiration Date:
5/20/34
7/17/18

The original license for Unit 1 expired in 2014 and was extended to 2034
in 2001. The extension for Unit 2 is under review.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear.../statesar.html

"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote in message
newsey_e.88762$7f5.28081@okepread01...

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
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).


You're nuts.

I only had to look at the nearest nuke plants to prove that wrong.
Arkansas Nuclear One was built in 1974 and its license is good until
2034. That's 60 years of which they've already used 31. Unit Two was
activated in 1980, 25 years ago and it's license is good until 2018
that's 18 years.

This is also a good example of how regulation has killed the industry
two almost identical plants were built side by side. the one activated
under 1976 law has a 60 year license. The one activated in 1980 only
has a 38 year license. You can't tell me that they learned something
that would cause the reduction that was a real problem and not reduce
the length of the older license.

Unit
1

Unit 2

Owner:
Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
Entergy Arkansas, Inc.

Reactor Type:
Pressurized Water Reactor
Pressurized Water Reactor

Reactor Manufacturer:
Babcock and Wilcox
Combustion Engineering

Turbine Generator Manufacturer:
Westinghouse
General Electric

Architect/Engineer:
Bechtel Power
Bechtel Power

Commercial Operation Date:
December 1974
March 1980

Maximum Dependable Capacity:
836 MW
858 MW

License Expiration Date:
5/20/34
7/17/18

Well that makes me feel better. So let's ignore my statement about
regulation. It still proves the plants last longer than 25 years.



"sfb" wrote in message news:woy_e.6103$il4.2486@trnddc04...
The original license for Unit 1 expired in 2014 and was extended to 2034
in 2001. The extension for Unit 2 is under review.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear.../statesar.html

"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote in message
newsey_e.88762$7f5.28081@okepread01...

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
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).


You're nuts.

I only had to look at the nearest nuke plants to prove that wrong.
Arkansas Nuclear One was built in 1974 and its license is good until
2034. That's 60 years of which they've already used 31. Unit Two was
activated in 1980, 25 years ago and it's license is good until 2018
that's 18 years.

This is also a good example of how regulation has killed the industry two
almost identical plants were built side by side. the one activated under
1976 law has a 60 year license. The one activated in 1980 only has a 38
year license. You can't tell me that they learned something that would
cause the reduction that was a real problem and not reduce the length of
the older license.

Unit 1

Unit 2

Owner:
Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
Entergy Arkansas, Inc.

Reactor Type:
Pressurized Water Reactor
Pressurized Water Reactor

Reactor Manufacturer:
Babcock and Wilcox
Combustion Engineering

Turbine Generator Manufacturer:
Westinghouse
General Electric

Architect/Engineer:
Bechtel Power
Bechtel Power

Commercial Operation Date:
December 1974
March 1980

Maximum Dependable Capacity:
836 MW
858 MW

License Expiration Date:
5/20/34
7/17/18

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 10:46:36 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote in tVy_e.89573$7f5.31631@okepread01::

It still proves the plants last longer than 25 years.

Here are two that have lasted only 20 years:
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?

"Montblack" wrote in message
...
("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.


I agree completely, almost. Use the McNukes for electrical generation on a
city by city basis. We have the ability to build very small, very efficient
reactors. We do it all the time and if you live near a Naval base there is
one or more floating out there in the harbor.

Stop using fossil fuels for electric power and all that oil in the ground IN
THE US will last many many lifetimes.

("Gig 601XL Builder" wrote)
I agree completely, almost. Use the McNukes for electrical generation on a
city by city basis. We have the ability to build very small, very
efficient reactors. We do it all the time and if you live near a Naval
base there is one or more floating out there in the harbor.


I almost completely agree with you too.

Still SMALLER though! Not city by city, but smaller (think KFC or Taco Bell
size).

Single large users would each have one - Twin Cities Ford Assembly Plant
would have one - if they didn't already have a power-producing dam on the
Mississippi River. Bio-Diesel/Ethanol plants would have one. Steel plant
gets one. Mall of America would have a McNuke Plant. Etc, etc.

Twin Cities (50 miles x 50 miles) might have approx. 20 or 30 of these
things humming along. Also, no 'line loss' is not an insignificant gain to
factor in - with my McNuke Plant (MacArthur Fellows 'genius grant') plan.

Maybe I've only taken a bite out of 20% of the need for juice in the Twin
Cities, but it's a 20% that wasn't there yesterday.

IMHO, it's easier to keep a handle on construction costs when the
cookie-cutter plants are so small (tiny) ...and private industry is buying
the darn things.


Montblack

"Montblack" wrote in message
...
("Gig 601XL Builder" wrote)
I agree completely, almost. Use the McNukes for electrical generation on
a city by city basis. We have the ability to build very small, very
efficient reactors. We do it all the time and if you live near a Naval
base there is one or more floating out there in the harbor.


I almost completely agree with you too.

Still SMALLER though! Not city by city, but smaller (think KFC or Taco
Bell size).

Single large users would each have one - Twin Cities Ford Assembly Plant
would have one - if they didn't already have a power-producing dam on the
Mississippi River. Bio-Diesel/Ethanol plants would have one. Steel plant
gets one. Mall of America would have a McNuke Plant. Etc, etc.

Twin Cities (50 miles x 50 miles) might have approx. 20 or 30 of these
things humming along. Also, no 'line loss' is not an insignificant gain to
factor in - with my McNuke Plant (MacArthur Fellows 'genius grant') plan.

Maybe I've only taken a bite out of 20% of the need for juice in the Twin
Cities, but it's a 20% that wasn't there yesterday.

IMHO, it's easier to keep a handle on construction costs when the
cookie-cutter plants are so small (tiny) ...and private industry is buying
the darn things.


You could well be right. I have no idea how much electricity can be produced
by a reactor in say a Ohio class sub. But what ever is done it needs to be
the same few designs used everywhere.

Back when they were building new nuke plants they were pretty much starting
from scratch on each one. That is just plain silly.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

You could well be right. I have no idea how much electricity can be produced
by a reactor in say a Ohio class sub. But what ever is done it needs to be
the same few designs used everywhere.

Not a good idea. The Navy uses weapons grade fissionables in its reactors. This
lets it keep the reactors nice and compact and reduces the need for the military
to buy multiple types of material. Commercial power plants use material that is
approximately 4% as pure as weapons grade. It's a lot safer.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

George Patterson writes:

You could well be right. I have no idea how much electricity can be produced
by a reactor in say a Ohio class sub. But what ever is done it needs to be
the same few designs used everywhere.

Not a good idea. The Navy uses weapons grade fissionables in its reactors. This
lets it keep the reactors nice and compact and reduces the need for the military
to buy multiple types of material. Commercial power plants use material that is
approximately 4% as pure as weapons grade. It's a lot safer.

Sheesh...you guys want everything - small size, tamper resistance, safety...
http://www.llnl.gov/str/JulAug04/Smith.html

--kyler

Still SMALLER though! Not city by city, but smaller (think KFC or
Taco Bell size).


You'd have this little nagging issue of it being a highly desireable
terrorist target.