Electric Sonex

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.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Look up 'HTGR.'

Very modest little plants that don't even need an operator. I think
Gulf (General Atomics) holds the patents. We ran one for 15 years in
Colorado When the working fluid is helium there's nothing to become
irradiated. This 'packaged power' philosophy is probably the way the
Chinese will go.

-R.S.Hoover

wrote:
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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
-

Look up 'HTGR.'

Very modest little plants that don't even need an operator. I think
Gulf (General Atomics) holds the patents. We ran one for 15 years in
Colorado When the working fluid is helium there's nothing to become
irradiated. This 'packaged power' philosophy is probably the way the
Chinese will go.

-R.S.Hoover

This looks like an excellent idea to me.

http://gt-mhr.ga.com/

"Rich S." wrote in message
. ..
wrote in message
ups.com...
(snip)
After all, everyone knows wind & solar is good, whereas nukes
are evil.

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.

Rich S.


Hee hee. I really must pay more attention to the news!

Peter

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


That has always been a problem with high aspect ratio, low rpm wind
turbines. When the air is foggy (or even especially moist) the impact
of the blades causes the water vapor to condense. The liquid water is
then slung off the blade in the arc of its rotation. Where it
collects on the ground it promotes growth that attracts birds which in
turn attracts raptors to feed upon the birds. Unfortunately a
stooping hawk is a classic case of tunnel vision and they often fly
into the arc of the turbine. Of course, that makes the area safer for
the ground-foragers whose numbers tend to increase, which attracts
raptors from even farther away... as well as scavengers to feed upon
the slice & diced hawks. Interesting cycle. Here in California the
wind farm in Altamont Pass (E. of San Francisco ) is the main killing
ground but the other wind farms are doing their best to catch up.

But of course, that can't be right. After all, everyone know wind
power is environmentally friendly :-)

-R.S.Hoover

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)

wrote in message
...
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)

Wayne ............

My wife and I toured the wind farms in Eastern Washington two years ago and
spoke with the landowners and neighbors of the machinery. Without exception,
they *all* welcomed the presence of these machines. One farmer who, until
wind power arrived, was poor as a churchmouse, moved me with his tearful
description of how he now will be able to send his children to college.

Far from NIMBY, there are open arms waiting, and hoping, that their land
will be found suitable.

Old age also kills birds, but that does not mean that the killoff of raptors
by turbines is not significant. You know what they say about statistics!
My cat also loves an afternoon snack with either Chip or Dale. Yum!

Rich S.

wrote in message
...
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)

Thank you so much for giving me a second opening, after I couldn't resist
the opportunity for a bit of amusement...

Wind power, in various forms, has a long and honored history in irrigation,
milling, transportation, and even in recovery of land from the seas in
Holland and Denmark--and probably other places. So obviously, simply on the
basis of parsimony and in the same manner as solar power, it will always
make sense in a lot of places and for a lot of applications.

However, wind power will always be subject to calm days, blanketing, and
less than optimal wind direction--and peak production will only rarely
coincide with peak demand. From all that I have heard and read, as an
addition to a power grid, wind power is no panacea and probably increases
the amplifitude of fluctuations from the baseline power requirement of
electric utilities. The benefit to a modern overall power grid is probably
trivial, even while the wind power providers are very well compensated.

In short, if utilities only purchased backfeeds during periods of peak
demand, then their payments for wind and solar power would be far more
sensible.

Peter

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 07:09:05 -0700, "
wrote:

"
"For years, environmentalists have attacked nuclear power. However, one of the
co-founders of Greenpeace believes times have changed. "

"Patrick Moore, Ph.D., environmentalist: "Nuclear is one of the safest
industries in this country, and it's time that environmental activists recognize
the facts around the fact that much nuclear energy is not only safe, but it's
also clean." "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm ex-Navy, worked for Bechtel's nuclear power division for a while.
If you're bright enough to pour **** out of a boot you knew the tree-
huggers had their facts all wrong when it came to nukes, which are
mother's milk compared to coal. The nuclear power industry hired a
firm to do a survey to try and learn where all the bum dope was coming
in order to formulate a strategy to counteract it.

Ever measure the radiation level at the bottom of those tall stacks at
a coal fired plant?

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?

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