If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Electric Sonex
On Jul 26, 3:22 pm, " wrote:
The first episode of The Simpsons didn't air until 12/17/89. A quick look shows the last increase in the number of operating reactors happened between before 1990. I think there was some bad info out there before The Simpsons. ------------------------------------------------------------------ So it must of been Palo Verde instead of San Onofre. Like I said, I don't watch TV. But the same message applies: the bulk of American 'intelligence' regarding nuclear power is based on a cartoon. Meaning no offense to you personally, but I just don't believe it. If you show me a survey in which 90% of the respndents said they got their nuclear power information from the Simpsons I'll show you a survey in which 90% of the respondents decided to play on joke on the survey takers. Or maybe the survey was multiple choice. For instance: From what source did you learn most of what you know about nuclear power? a) International Journal of Modern Physics E (IJMPE) b) World NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS 2005-06, 15/08/2006, Australian Uranium Information Centre c) ^ NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS INFORMATION, by IAEA, 15/06/2005 d) The Simpsons. I used to work in Radwaste. Well, not literally. -- FF |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Electric Sonex
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Electric Sonex
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message ... Cool, maybe you can answer my question. If one of the Navy Nukes were set up and run at a continuous power how much electricity could the plant provide. That is like asking how much power a Boeing 777 could supply. On a nuclear submarine the turbines that drive the generators are small compared to the turbines that drive the prop. Vaughn |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Electric Sonex
"Vaughn Simon" wrote in message ... "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message ... Cool, maybe you can answer my question. If one of the Navy Nukes were set up and run at a continuous power how much electricity could the plant provide. That is like asking how much power a Boeing 777 could supply. On a nuclear submarine the turbines that drive the generators are small compared to the turbines that drive the prop. Vaughn From all I've heard, that is a passable analogy. I've also heard that aircraft carriers are the ones that can really generate the electric power--and even there, the electric power is probably small compared to the porpeller drive power. Peter |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Electric Sonex
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:46:53 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote: wrote: the same message applies: the bulk of American 'intelligence' regarding nuclear power is based on a cartoon. The point is that the Simpsons were not that well known when the last reactors were going online. It's taken almost 20 years for the Simpsons to become such a well known show and there is probably no legit statistical group that could 90% of it even EVER watched the Simpsons. T0 my knowledge the Simpsons never even made it into the top 20 shows in any sweeps period. Somebody either yanked the polster's leg or they yanked yours. I'd be willing to bet that you are just mis-remembering something from 20 years ago. Regardless, the underlying theory that additional plants aren't built because of negative public opinion, is hooey. They aren't built because investors don't like taking risks that have the potential to go monstrously wrong. http://www.brookings.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb138.htm As for the those who claim that the public is irrationally timid, most of *them* probably haven't heard of the debacle at Davis-Besse. http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs...190340/-1/NEWS The root causes of that - aging equipment, profit motive, industry-friendly regulation, and complacency, are probably lurking industry-wide. Every plant owner, operator, and regulator will deny that, but so did First Energy and the NRC before the sh*t hit the fan. You'd think that at least the one company getting all the attention would have learned their lesson. Instead they're still telling their insurance company one thing, and regulators another. http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaind...560.xml&coll=2 The Simpson's three-eyed fish thing is off the wall, but the Monte Burns characterization might not be too far off. :-) Wayne |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Electric Sonex
On Jul 26, 5:23 pm, "Vaughn Simon"
wrote: "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in ... Cool, maybe you can answer my question. If one of the Navy Nukes were set up and run at a continuous power how much electricity could the plant provide. That is like asking how much power a Boeing 777 could supply. On a nuclear submarine the turbines that drive the generators are small compared to the turbines that drive the prop. Are you sure the props aren't always driven by electric motors? -- FF |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Electric Sonex
Meaning no offense to you personally, but I just don't believe it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Neither did we :-) At that time licenses had been issued for about thirty nuke plants in addition to those already under construction. I don't think a single one of them was ever funded. I'm sure there were other factors besides being brain-washed by a cartoon but when I heard about it at a weekly status meeting I recall the odd looks I got when I asked what he meant by 'the Simpsons.' During that same period I recall the tree-huggers getting in a tizzie over a coal fired plant in the midwest when the utility erected hyperbolic cooling towers. (All that radioactive steam, you know.) Turns out, the typical American isn't quite as bright as most people think. Just look at the people we elect to high office :-) I recently heard a fellow touting the glories of solar & wind over the horrors of those terrible old tea-kettles. It took only a moment to figure out his numbers were based on a photo-voltaic array that was 100% efficient. ( His wind turbines were equally efficient. And the wind apparently blew all the time :-) Trying to interject a whiff of reality into such discussions is treated with polite condescension at best. After all, everyone knows wind & solar is good, whereas nukes are evil. What I find remarkable is that such massive ignorance is often the product of a college education. Some recently published texts continue to cite the Carrizo Plains PV project as the cutting edge of solar technology despite the fact that facility was dismantled years ago after its output fell so low it couldn't even power its own tracking needs let alone feed anything into the grid. (A fact you can confirm using satellite photos available on the internet. But of course, that can't be right :-) I hear Crystal Power is a good investment. That, and Electric Aeroplanes :-) -R.S.Hoover |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Electric Sonex
wrote in message ups.com... Are you sure the props aren't always driven by electric motors? I am no expert on the current fleet, but I can only name two American nuclear submarines with that setup. One is a midget research sub and the other was scrapped decades ago. Vaughn |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Electric Sonex
On Jul 26, 2:40 am, "Bill Daniels" bildan@comcast-dot-net wrote:
Obviously, the problem with electric airplanes is range. It's doubtful if electricity storage will ever reach the energy density of gasoline. One thing that amazes me is that electrons weight almost nothing. A charged battery, for all practical purposes, weighes the same charged or not - the energy the battery contains weighs nothing. It seems like the boffins could figure out a way to pressurize a container with electrons. Did you know that just as many electrons leave the battery as go back into it? It's strange but true that electrical devices don't actually consume electrons and yet they get their energy from the electrons... Cheers Mark |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Electric Sonex
In article
, "Vaughn Simon" wrote: "Dan Nafe" wrote in message ... In article , "Vaughn Simon" wrote: ... (add a GPS-informed computer to the mix and you could always be sure that you had enough energy to return to the field) [smacks myself on the forehead] What a great idea! Yes it is a great idea, but not mine. Such computers have been used on gliders for years. Vaughn I'll bet the sailplane systems use the GPS as a pseudo-Air Data Computer, too. (To account for winds aloft and help avoid landing out) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
High-wing Sonex??? | Montblack | Home Built | 9 | April 8th 06 03:34 PM |
Static thrust for Sonex with 54" prop | Mel | Home Built | 3 | November 2nd 05 12:31 AM |
Electric DG | Robbie S. | Owning | 0 | March 19th 05 03:20 AM |
Spicer Sonex/Jabiru | [email protected] | Home Built | 1 | January 4th 05 02:39 PM |