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

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.


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.

"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

"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

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

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

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

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

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

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)