Electric Sonex

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 08:12:07 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:09:19 -0700, "Rich S."
wrote:


Lately I hear the bird huggers are ****ed at the tree huggers who
want wind power.

Turns out the wind turbines make efficient bird slicers & dicers.

That's basically an old wives tale.
http://www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/swbirds.html Cats kill a lot more
birds than turbines. Most of the objections to wind power are the
typical NIMBY stuff, with the bird thing thrown in along with anything
else that sounds remotely plausible.

Wayne (16 turbine-years, no sliced birds)


Since when did facts have anything to do with the Enviro-Wacko's reasoning?

Careful now, it wasn't the "enviro-wackos" who were spreading the
chopped-birdies story here. And generally, environmentalists *are* in
favor of wind power. As for energy misinformation in general, it
doesn't matter much that some people fear the three-eyed fish thing,
unless and until some new nuke plant proposals reach the permitting
stage, which has been 5 years off for the last 3 decades. By
comparison, new wind power isn't just pie in the sky, it's available
right now. It's also generally the most cost-effective renewable, and
the least objectionable way to add grid capacity. Yet lots of
otherwise sensible people sometimes stand in the way yipping about
"cuisinarts" etc. Sometimes they block the project, sometimes they
don't. The hell of it is that intermittent sources like wind *could*
supply up to 15% of grid power without extra backup. Doesn't sound
like much until you consider that nukes only supply 20%.

Here are some US poll numbers for various power sources.
http://www.pollingreport.com/energy.htm 47% (and dropping) in favor
of new nukes, and 87% in favor of renewables. Unfortunately, that can
change to 100% of the locals against any particular project.

Here are a couple of examples of current proposals - a small home
project, and a large offshore installation. There are fierce
objections in both cases, and they're mostly *not* from
environmentalists.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/...mill.fight.cnn,
http://www.grist.org/news/powers/200...scom-windmill/

"We have met the enemy, and he is us"

Wayne

wrote:

Wayne (16 turbine-years, no sliced birds)

Coming through Illinois from Oshkosh on the way to St. Louis I saw a huge
windfarm. Also over a dozen truckers each hauling 2 blades heading north
towards there...

wrote:
On Jul 27, 7:32 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:
wrote:

...

USN reactor designs are quite different from civilian reactor
designs for a number of reasons. In Particular, the former
use more highly enriched-fuel to minimize their size. That
is unnecessary for a baseline US utility, and also undesirable
from a proliferation perspective.

...

The thought process is that if we used smaller reactors and stop
designing the damn things everytime one get's built they would be
more affordable. I have no problem with guarding the hell out of
them. It would be cheaper than the way we have done it in the pass.

Using a common design for all nuclear power reactors in
the US would require the elimination of competition between
the companies building them. So long as we have quasi-public
utilities, that won't happen. France has a Socialist economy.

As for proliferation issues, US designs are sold overseas,
to countries like South Korea. Egypt and at one time Iran.
The light water moderated low-enriched Uranium design that
is inherently proliferation-resistant is advantageous and not
really much of an impediment from an engineering standpoint,
to economy. Major design differences for the export market
would be a problem.

FF

I didn't say a thing about not having competion in the market. I don't care
if there are 2 or 200 companies makeing them. I just think it is wasteful
to have each plant designed on a white sheet of paper.

On Jul 31, 2:36 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:
wrote:
On Jul 27, 7:32 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:
wrote:

...

USN reactor designs are quite different from civilian reactor
designs for a number of reasons. In Particular, the former
use more highly enriched-fuel to minimize their size. That
is unnecessary for a baseline US utility, and also undesirable
from a proliferation perspective.

...

The thought process is that if we used smaller reactors and stop
designing the damn things everytime one get's built they would be
more affordable. I have no problem with guarding the hell out of
them. It would be cheaper than the way we have done it in the pass.

Using a common design for all nuclear power reactors in
the US would require the elimination of competition between
the companies building them. So long as we have quasi-public
utilities, that won't happen. France has a Socialist economy.

As for proliferation issues, US designs are sold overseas,
to countries like South Korea. Egypt and at one time Iran.
The light water moderated low-enriched Uranium design that
is inherently proliferation-resistant is advantageous and not
really much of an impediment from an engineering standpoint,
to economy. Major design differences for the export market
would be a problem.

FF

I didn't say a thing about not having competion in the market. I don't care
if there are 2 or 200 companies makeing them. I just think it is wasteful
to have each plant designed on a white sheet of paper.

If they are, it is because the customer wants their next power plant
to be a certain way and the A/E's bid accordingly using as much
commonality with previous designs as possible.

Back when I was in the industry, a couple of utilities were having
more than one plant built to essentially the same design. I'm
pretty sure South Korea has several near-identical plants.

--

FF

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jul 31, 2:36 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:
wrote:
On Jul 27, 7:32 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:
wrote:

...

USN reactor designs are quite different from civilian reactor
designs for a number of reasons. In Particular, the former
use more highly enriched-fuel to minimize their size. That
is unnecessary for a baseline US utility, and also undesirable
from a proliferation perspective.

...

The thought process is that if we used smaller reactors and stop
designing the damn things everytime one get's built they would be
more affordable. I have no problem with guarding the hell out of
them. It would be cheaper than the way we have done it in the pass.

Using a common design for all nuclear power reactors in
the US would require the elimination of competition between
the companies building them. So long as we have quasi-public
utilities, that won't happen. France has a Socialist economy.

As for proliferation issues, US designs are sold overseas,
to countries like South Korea. Egypt and at one time Iran.
The light water moderated low-enriched Uranium design that
is inherently proliferation-resistant is advantageous and not
really much of an impediment from an engineering standpoint,
to economy. Major design differences for the export market
would be a problem.

FF

I didn't say a thing about not having competion in the market. I don't
care
if there are 2 or 200 companies makeing them. I just think it is
wasteful
to have each plant designed on a white sheet of paper.

If they are, it is because the customer wants their next power plant
to be a certain way and the A/E's bid accordingly using as much
commonality with previous designs as possible.

Back when I was in the industry, a couple of utilities were having
more than one plant built to essentially the same design. I'm
pretty sure South Korea has several near-identical plants.

--

FF

I have heard rumors that there are three standard and approved designs.

However, it is not my occupational specialty and it has never been my
industry; so I really don't know.

Peter

On Jul 31, 8:51 pm, "Peter Dohm" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...

On Jul 31, 2:36 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:
wrote:
On Jul 27, 7:32 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:
wrote:

...

USN reactor designs are quite different from civilian reactor
designs for a number of reasons. In Particular, the former
use more highly enriched-fuel to minimize their size. That
is unnecessary for a baseline US utility, and also undesirable
from a proliferation perspective.

...

The thought process is that if we used smaller reactors and stop
designing the damn things everytime one get's built they would be
more affordable. I have no problem with guarding the hell out of
them. It would be cheaper than the way we have done it in the pass.

Using a common design for all nuclear power reactors in
the US would require the elimination of competition between
the companies building them. So long as we have quasi-public
utilities, that won't happen. France has a Socialist economy.

As for proliferation issues, US designs are sold overseas,
to countries like South Korea. Egypt and at one time Iran.
The light water moderated low-enriched Uranium design that
is inherently proliferation-resistant is advantageous and not
really much of an impediment from an engineering standpoint,
to economy. Major design differences for the export market
would be a problem.

FF

I didn't say a thing about not having competion in the market. I don't
care
if there are 2 or 200 companies makeing them. I just think it is
wasteful
to have each plant designed on a white sheet of paper.

If they are, it is because the customer wants their next power plant
to be a certain way and the A/E's bid accordingly using as much
commonality with previous designs as possible.

Back when I was in the industry, a couple of utilities were having
more than one plant built to essentially the same design. I'm
pretty sure South Korea has several near-identical plants.

--

FF

I have heard rumors that there are three standard and approved designs.

However, it is not my occupational specialty and it has never been my
industry; so I really don't know.


Here in the United States all commerical nuclear power plants are
either
boiling water reactors (BWR) or pressurized water reactors (PWR).

There is lot more to 'design' than that broad dichotomy. No two
power plants are exactly alike.

--

FF