Ethanol Mandate for Iowa?

("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

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
I've heard somewhere that the thermal depolymerization plant in
Carthage, MO. runs off its own output and generates 500bbl of light oil
per day off 200 tons of turkey offal from the nearby Butterball turkey
packaging factory.

Recycling is a good thing, no doubt.

But that's not anywhere close to answer the question of being
self-sufficient. Even ignoring the question of the energy required to
produce the turkeys, that project's own web site
(http://www.res-energy.com/faq/index.asp) does not suggest that they are
self-sufficient. They say nothing about using their own output as their
energy source (nor are the figures you quote actual numbers...they are
*anticipated*, which is another word for "hoped for").

Pete

"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.

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.

JohnH wrote:
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.

wouldn't the decentralization of power generation make it all
the more difficult for said terrorists to make an impact?

--Sylvain

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?

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.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:efx_e.372089$x96.299337@attbi_s72...
You absolutely MUST make the economic argument and NOT the "it'll be
too expensive for me to play with my toys" complaint.

Thanks, Blanche -- good point.

Flying farmers are a fairly big deal in this state -- and Rep. Nussle is well aware of the financial impact of the
airport.

Well, he's been told anyway. As a politician, he may conveniently "forget" these things, from time to time.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"


Don't the farmers have a lot to gain by using (making corn for) ethanol?

"sfb" wrote in message news:36i_e.6709$WT3.2933@trnddc03...
Jay, maybe one of your friendly Iowa neighbors who wanted to screw you for buzzing his house with your noisy airplane
raised the prices by 90%, but 22% was the average in the state of Iowa. On 9/1, the average price of a gallon of
unleaded regular gasoline in Iowa was $2.47. It peaked at $3.03 and fell back to $2.61.

http://iowastategasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx

The US DOE and EPA has a site that reports gasoline prices in the US. We found it very useful putting together a trip
earlier this year.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/gasprices/states/



Which is exactly why ethanol is being phased in as a fuel source in this country. Has anyone been watching Brazil?
Apparently they have reduced their dependence on foreign oil to something less than 50% of their total consumption by
going over to alcohol, in some cases running 100%. The ethanol is pumped right alongside the gasoline. They make it from
sugar cane, very effective....

..Blueskies. wrote:




Don't the farmers have a lot to gain by using (making corn for) ethanol?

Only when the corn is heavily subsidized. A farmer cannot make a profit
from selling the corn outright to an ethanol producer. The fact is
there are so many ethanol plants up and running and so many more being
built or planned that the price of ethanol will continue to plummet.