XPost: sci.skeptic, alt.solar.thermal, sac.politics   
   XPost: sci.chem.electrochem.battery   
   From: bruces42@hotmail.com   
      
   On 03/13/2017 06:30 PM, Stéphane Duceppe wrote:   
   > In article    
   > Tzortzakakis Dimitrios  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> On 13/3/2017 5:37 μμ, BruceS wrote:   
   >>> On 03/12/2017 06:01 AM, Alan McKinley wrote:   
   >>>> In article    
   >>>> Sylvia Else  wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> On 12/03/2017 6:09 AM, BruceS wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> Before all the fracking made natural gas so cheap, coal was the most   
   >>>>>> economical fuel over here.  Many blame Obama's opposition to coal for   
   >>>>>> its decline, but the real cause is simple economics.  At some point,   
   >>>>>> the natural gas supply will start getting more expensive, and coal will   
   >>>>>> be king again.  With Australia having such supplies, I'm surprised it   
   >>>>>> doesn't burn more coal.  Surely with rolling blackouts, there's a   
   >>>>>> market.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Rolling blackouts are caused by a lack of peak supply, for which coal is   
   >>>>> singularly inappropriate. Such supply is traditionally provided by   
   >>>>> either gas or diesel generation. The problem is that with solar and wind   
   >>>>> taking the peak supply when it suits them, the economics of building   
   >>>>> peak generation are seriously undermined. Essentially, the market has   
   >>>>> been broken by government requirements that renewables be allowed to   
   >>>>> supply when they can. So some government intervention is required to   
   >>>>> fix it.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Governments get caught up in stupid political red tape and the   
   >>>> end result is something based on methods and technology that is   
   >>>> no longer optimal.   
   >>>   
   >>> Yes, it sounds like the usual government screwup.  Solar and wind   
   >>> should never be counted on for supply.  AIUI, here we always have   
   >>> reliable backup to match any claimed production ability of those.  We   
   >>> have some large wind farms in areas that are fairly consistently windy,   
   >>> but still don't count on them.  Things like coal provides a solid,   
   >>> dependable level of power (yes, not quickly adjustable) and things like   
   >>> natural gas easily handle sudden need.   
   >>>   
   >>>>>>> Adding to the problem is that to appease the environmentalists, gas is   
   >>>>>>> now being used for base-load, because it has lower CO2 emissions. Even   
   >>>>>>> leaving aside the insufficiency of gas supply, the known gas reserves   
   >>>>>>> are nothing like as big as the coal reserves.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> That's the same over here, with hundreds of years of coal reserves, but   
   >>>>>> at the moment it's cheaper to burn natural gas.  Of course, the   
   >>>>>> coal-fired plants are still operating, just at lower levels.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> We could, of course, process and use our huge uranium reserves in   
   >>>>>>> nuclear plants, rather than shipping the ore overseas. But the NIMBY   
   >>>>>>> effect applies, and in Australia BY seems to mean "within a couple of   
   >>>>>>> thousand kilometres."   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> I'd like to see more nuclear plants, preferably of a better design than   
   >>>>>> is usual for the U.S.  Canada's "CANDU" design seems like a good one.   
   >>>>>> Nuclear power has some serious advantages if treated properly.  I for   
   >>>>>> one would much rather have a nuke nearby than a coal or oil plant.  I   
   >>>>>> just checked, and it looks like we've only ever had one in Colorado,   
   >>>>>> and that's been shut down for years.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Provided they don't leak, nukes actually release less radiation into the   
   >>>>> environment that coal plant does, because there's a small amount of   
   >>>>> uranium in the coal, and it ends up in the ash.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> But when they do leak they can't always be controlled until   
   >>>> substantial harm is done to large geographical regions.   
   >>>   
   >>> The biggest nuclear accident in the U.S., Three Mile Island, never did   
   >>> any real harm.  The highest radiation levels released were less than   
   >>> the background radiation levels in places like my state, CO.  The   
   >>> disasters of Chernobyl and Fukushima did release a lot of radiation,   
   >>> but it's hard to make any generalization from such a small sample set.   
   >>>   
   >>>> Just a personal observation, but it seems the nuke problems are   
   >>>> always in the larger facilities.   
   >>>   
   >>> It seems to me the big problems are from poor designs that aren't   
   >>> updated as we learn more.  There isn't much accountability when a   
   >>> disaster does happen, and the damage easily crosses political   
   >>> boundaries.  Then there's the problem of waste disposal.   
   >> You can't compare US nuclear reactors to soviet ones, as the latter   
   >> didn't even have a containment building, were boiling water reactors,   
   >> had a graphit moderator, the fuel elements were exchanged on the fly   
   >> (without shutting the reactor down, obviously).Also after the accident   
   >> on the 4th unit, the other 3 units continued in normal operation until,   
   >> I think 2000 when they were shut down for good. Also in Fukushima the   
   >> company who build the rector tried to cut corners to increase profits.   
   >> For a couple of bad apples we shouldn't denigrate peaceful nuclear   
   >> energy.   
      
   You'll notice that I'm not claiming the plants with the catastrophic   
   failures indicate a fundamental problem with all other plants.  They   
   were, as I indicated, bad designs (or if you will, bad   
   implementations).  Unfortunately, they are hardly unique, as there are   
   many plants out there with bad designs or implementations.  When   
   corrupt individuals "cut corners" or otherwise ignore safety, the   
   results can be disastrous.  I'm in favor of safer nuclear plants,   
   though with some reservations.   
      
    >> IMHO I prefer nuclear energy than more nuclear bombs.   
      
   You may want to look up the term "false dichotomy".   
      
   > Nuclear energy is a billion year cleanup problem, and that is   
   > assuming it can all be contained safely that long.   
      
   Agreed, essentially, although that can be "containment" rather than   
   "cleanup".  Yet another problem with our (U.S.) nuke plants is that   
   they only use a small fraction of the fuel, leaving the rest as high   
   level waste.  That's very bad for efficiency, but far worse for the   
   containment problem.   
      
   > Environmental damage from coal, oil and gas can be recovered in   
   > less than a century, usually a few decades.  Recovery does not   
   > include cleaning up mines, that is a separate issue.   
   >   
   > If you want to help stop global warming, insulate in summer,   
   > don't heat your home in the winter.  Wear more clothing.   
      
   I have plenty of money to keep the thermostat wherever I want it, but   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)