Remember me
▼ Content

Ideas of Mine


Ideas of Mine04-02-2018 08:59
Philled
☆☆☆☆☆
(5)
Hello everyone, I've taken my opinion on energy farther and need criticism. Folks around here are too dug into some headline and don't really think for themselves it seems. A little about me - I'm 30, live in the Midwest, and fix jet engines for a living. Always have been fascinated with machines and electricity since I was young - so I grew up and studied in my field.

Our sun is amazing, we receive an immense amount of energy to sustain our planet. But everyone these days seems obsessed with solar power. I can see its uses like off-grid and emergency power source but is it really that efficient? A friend constantly quotes Elon musk as saying, "we have a giant nuke reactor in the sky." Hard not to agree with that, however, isn't he just pitching his products? You can counter his claim by saying that solar is only visible 50% of the year, during then is a mixed bag of being a clear day, cloudy, and/or polluted. Not a great power plant in my opinion. But a decent supplement if it wasn't so expensive. I counter Musk by saying, "well, we have giant solar panels called our oceans, lakes, and rivers." I live mountainous, and the power of running water is phenomenal. Harnessing this power is ancient tech but why don't we do it more? I truely believe hydro power will squash solar and wind. Even if we must flood millions of acres to create the reservoirs. Also, wouldn't that help solve the problem of rising waters on the coastlines from increase in temps? If the world relied on hydro and most of the plants had dams and reservoirs, wouldn't we displace some of this anxiety along with water?

Nukes are my favorite because they are so unbelievably powerful In such a small package. I know it'll never happen but can you imagine if we dismantled nuke weapons and used them for energy instead? What are some of your thoughts ?
04-02-2018 12:00
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1091)
1, I agree that solar power is never going to be a real commercial thing due to the reasons you said.

2, Hydro; all the easy ones have been done. I had an idea for micro hydro power which involved finding tiny streams and using pipes and small dynamos to get say 600W per 10m drop in altitude. That would allow you to get 4 to 10 such dynamos per tiny stream amd on a decent hillside you would perhaps be able to do this 10 or 20 times. I might re-awaken it one day.

The amount of water required to raise of lower the sea level by 1mm is 360 cubic kilometers. The amount of water contained in all the resevoirs in the world is tiny.

3, I don't like nukes. No other thing we do has the capacity to render the planet uninhabitable. That we live in peaceful times is good. But picture a war wandering over a nation which has a few of these things. Picture cruise missiles used to blast open a nuclear plant as a form of strategic economic warfare. If you had to evacuate a large industrial area that would slow you down. Then there would be a revenge strike.

4, I am currently building a wind turbine system which, I hope, will generate power cheaper than coal. Wish me luck. If I get it to work it will make me the richest man ever.
04-02-2018 19:07
Philled
☆☆☆☆☆
(5)
Tim, great ideas! Smaller hydro turbines would probably be less impacting on the rivers ecosystem, and look more appealing, too, which is what people care for most these days it seems.

I think we could make a fully secure nuke plant. Build it inside a mountain, underground. Sure it could be a target but not unless you have massive firepower and a huge set of balls to risk your nations suicide. Even if the enemy were to completely wipe out the entire nation of the US, we have multiple aircraft in the air that operate their mission 24/7/365, and they have the ability to communicate with nuke subs that are below to launch the arsenal. Fighting with the US is suicide. Lately, we've been dragging on this war for many reasons, but I see it as the ability to sharpen our claws,test our weapons, and train our military on the best sub-human filth this world can offer.

I too, have built a windmill, but it doesn't produce much. Mines small, built it from a bad washing machines motor. Re-wired it, and can maybe get 300w on a stormy day. Problem I have with windmills is, they are extracting energy from atmospheric pressure systems. Imagine trying to power a nation on the wind. That's a massive amount of energy to be extracted. Wouldn't that directly change our weather patterns and climate? I bet you could create a desert with enough energy being extracted in certain areas. Why are the environmentalists obsessed with wind, too? Never understood that. They almost never talk about hydro power. Ultimately, I think the world will go strictly hydro, nuke, or geothermal after a decline in oil and coal, probably hundreds of years from now.
04-02-2018 19:52
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
[b]Philled wrote: Imagine trying to power a nation on the wind. That's a massive amount of energy to be extracted. Wouldn't that directly change our weather patterns and climate?
Prof. Mark Jacobson & a gathered team of scientists calculated that 30,000 present day wind turbines would siphon enough energy from the leading edge of hurricanes.... to disrupt them. With future envisioned wind turbines of 50Megawatt drawdown, in excess of 1200 feet high, only 3000 wind turbines would accomplish same. Wind turbine hurricane killers would kill hurricanes... while producing exceeding amounts of electric power.
Good thinking, Philled, that weather patterns could be changed.... in this case, for the better.
Edited on 04-02-2018 19:57
04-02-2018 20:50
Philled
☆☆☆☆☆
(5)
Litesong, thank you for that reference. During huricane Harvey I joked with some friends that wouldn't it be great if we could funnel every hurricane into the gulf and extract it's energy til it's a cloudy day? Of course this would take trillions of dollars to do but is the future of energy, I believe.
04-02-2018 22:04
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(969)
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/offshore-wind-farms-could-knock-down-hurricanes1/

Wow. It's just unbelievable what some people will believe. Mr Jacobson is pulling facts right out of his wind blown ass! He might also consider a quick course in meteorology 101.
04-02-2018 23:31
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5138)
Philled wrote:
Hello everyone, I've taken my opinion on energy farther and need criticism. Folks around here are too dug into some headline and don't really think for themselves it seems. A little about me - I'm 30, live in the Midwest, and fix jet engines for a living. Always have been fascinated with machines and electricity since I was young - so I grew up and studied in my field.

Our sun is amazing, we receive an immense amount of energy to sustain our planet. But everyone these days seems obsessed with solar power. I can see its uses like off-grid and emergency power source but is it really that efficient? A friend constantly quotes Elon musk as saying, "we have a giant nuke reactor in the sky." Hard not to agree with that, however, isn't he just pitching his products? You can counter his claim by saying that solar is only visible 50% of the year, during then is a mixed bag of being a clear day, cloudy, and/or polluted. Not a great power plant in my opinion. But a decent supplement if it wasn't so expensive. I counter Musk by saying, "well, we have giant solar panels called our oceans, lakes, and rivers." I live mountainous, and the power of running water is phenomenal. Harnessing this power is ancient tech but why don't we do it more? I truely believe hydro power will squash solar and wind. Even if we must flood millions of acres to create the reservoirs. Also, wouldn't that help solve the problem of rising waters on the coastlines from increase in temps? If the world relied on hydro and most of the plants had dams and reservoirs, wouldn't we displace some of this anxiety along with water?

Nukes are my favorite because they are so unbelievably powerful In such a small package. I know it'll never happen but can you imagine if we dismantled nuke weapons and used them for energy instead? What are some of your thoughts ?


The nuclear material in a weapon is much higher grade than you find in a thermal reactor for a power plant. You would have to reduce it's purity by quite a bit to make it useful as a thermal style fuel. Putting weapons grade nuclear material into a thermal reactor would just blow up the reactor.

Nice to hear from another aviation mechanic. I too work on planes, including my own, but not professionally. My expertise is toward wood and fiberglass structures and avionics. I prefer small aircraft to working on large ones or jet engines.

Hydroelectric power requires not just mountains, but good places to anchor dams. Not just any mountain will do. It also requires sufficient water to make it all worthwhile. Many mountain streams are fine for small stuff like individual homes or even a small mill, but are insufficient to power much more than that.

Water, as used in plumbing or in a power station, essentially follows the same Ohm's law equations you already know from your status as an AMT.

It currently is not possible to measure sea level rise or a global temperature. We don't have enough instrumentation to produce a sensible statistical analysis. Sea level is referenced to land, which moves, while temperature varies per mile faster than available thermometers can properly measure.


The Parrot Killer
04-02-2018 23:35
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5138)
Tim the plumber wrote:

3, I don't like nukes. No other thing we do has the capacity to render the planet uninhabitable. That we live in peaceful times is good. But picture a war wandering over a nation which has a few of these things. Picture cruise missiles used to blast open a nuclear plant as a form of strategic economic warfare. If you had to evacuate a large industrial area that would slow you down. Then there would be a revenge strike.

I wonder why anyone would bother with such a shot. Nuclear plants are using a low grade fuel to produce their power. Why not just put a weapons grade nuke on the warhead of the cruise missile and send it into a city instead?
Tim the plumber wrote:
4, I am currently building a wind turbine system which, I hope, will generate power cheaper than coal. Wish me luck. If I get it to work it will make me the richest man ever.

Since coal costs $1.96 per million BTU, good luck.


The Parrot Killer
04-02-2018 23:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5138)
Philled wrote:
Litesong, thank you for that reference. During huricane Harvey I joked with some friends that wouldn't it be great if we could funnel every hurricane into the gulf and extract it's energy til it's a cloudy day? Of course this would take trillions of dollars to do but is the future of energy, I believe.


Got an idea on how to extract it, or even how to guide hurricanes this way?

If we could guide a hurricane like this, why send it into the Gulf at all?


The Parrot Killer
04-02-2018 23:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5138)
Philled wrote:
Litesong, thank you for that reference. During huricane Harvey I joked with some friends that wouldn't it be great if we could funnel every hurricane into the gulf and extract it's energy til it's a cloudy day? Of course this would take trillions of dollars to do but is the future of energy, I believe.


Got an idea on how to extract it, or even how to guide hurricanes this way?

If we could guide a hurricane like this, why send it into the Gulf at all?


The Parrot Killer
04-02-2018 23:39
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5138)
GasGuzzler wrote:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/offshore-wind-farms-could-knock-down-hurricanes1/

Wow. It's just unbelievable what some people will believe. Mr Jacobson is pulling facts right out of his wind blown ass! He might also consider a quick course in meteorology 101.


Agreed.


The Parrot Killer
05-02-2018 05:32
Philled
☆☆☆☆☆
(5)
Into the night, good hearing from ya! Yes aircraft are fun, our society has a lot to be greatful for since a lot of tech today was researched and developed just for aircraft in the war effort of the past.

I wasn't trying to imply that a nuke warhead can be transferred straight to a reactor without some type of processing. Point was, we have a LOT of energy out there to harness. Much of it is going to the wrong place, IMO.

In my area, our mountains are pretty sturdy, granite mostly. Build high suspension bridges on them, tunnels through them, military command centers inside them, but not as many hydro plants as there should be. Hoover dam and lake mead is a amazing sight to see and very impressive for its age. We need more of that. Surely there are real solutions to hydros shortcomings. Maybe not politically, but certainly mechanically and logistically.

As far as hurricanes go - wow what a feat of engineering if we could steer them. I'd assume we'd extract its energy at specific areas of the storm and allow it to steer itself.

Of course there isn't a way to currently measure these global temps accurately. I've never considered myself a believer or denier in climate change. We all know it's going to change. Nothing in life is constant. It seems any genuine care about the environment has turned into a way to scam others. It's hard to believe that anyone truely cares. Coworker of mine, big liberal, talks about CO2 and greenhouses gasses, NASA and their charts, how dirty oil is. But works on jets like me, has 3 cars, 2 of them he modified the pollution control systems, one of them he put a turbo on to race (i own a classic race car so don't get me wrong here). He sold one car a couple weeks ago but had to change the a/c condenser, he didn't deplete the refrigerant properly, just cracked the line open and vented it. I called him out on it, he said it was too expensive and there are millions of cars with carbon emissions out there so it doesn't really matter. Hes selling that car to buy a Tesla. I just had to laugh. I told him it was a doctor killer like the Beechcraft bonanza. Boy he didn't talk much after that.
05-02-2018 07:14
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5138)
Philled wrote:
Into the night, good hearing from ya! Yes aircraft are fun, our society has a lot to be greatful for since a lot of tech today was researched and developed just for aircraft in the war effort of the past.

Quite true. The aircraft was king in WW2 and a very important part of war after that. The radar, the jet engine, practically anything to do with modern avionics including GPS came out war and aircraft. Even the modern computer's initial design came out of war (from codebreaking).

What Cessna, Piper and Beechcraft did to produce our current fleet of small aircraft is an amazing bit of productivity. That stuff is still flying around today! My Cessna 150 qualifies as an antique aircraft in airshows now.
Philled wrote:
I wasn't trying to imply that a nuke warhead can be transferred straight to a reactor without some type of processing. Point was, we have a LOT of energy out there to harness. Much of it is going to the wrong place, IMO.

No one likes nuclear weapons. They are an unfortunate necessity however. One has to admit they HAVE kept the peace between major nations for quite a long time. The little skirmishes we've had since then are nothing compared to world war.

Nuclear fuel is actually pretty easy to come by for the nuclear power stations. They use so little of it they really are not short of fuel. They have all they need, even if they build a lot more power stations. The problem is a political one. People look at a single event like 3-mile island, Chernobyl, or the Fukushima No. 2 plant destruction and figure that nuclear power is too dangerous, even though no one died or suffered radiation sickness from either 3-mile island or Fukishima. Chernobyl had some casualties, but the Russians were being extraordinarily stupid in how they designed, build, and operated that thing.

Modern plants are safe and use very little fuel for the power they produce. Some nations have committed major levels of power production to nuclear and have had no problems with them. Stuff like 3-mile island can't happen anymore with such designs. Fukishima No. 2 was a modern reactor, and it was destroyed by a tidal wave, not by a reactor failure, and it STILL didn't kill anybody.

Even the nuclear waste from today's plants can be reprocessed as fuel for a different kind of reactor, that can generate sufficient power from the leftover energy in the used fuel. The waste product of THAT kind of plant is safe enough to almost dispose of it as regular solid waste. It wouldn't take much storage time before it would be.

Philled wrote:
In my area, our mountains are pretty sturdy, granite mostly. Build high suspension bridges on them, tunnels through them, military command centers inside them, but not as many hydro plants as there should be. Hoover dam and lake mead is a amazing sight to see and very impressive for its age. We need more of that. Surely there are real solutions to hydros shortcomings. Maybe not politically, but certainly mechanically and logistically.

Hydro needs LOTS of water AND mountains. Hoover dam is across the mighty Colorado. Grand Coulee here in Washington is across the Columbia river. Waterfalls are a good source of hydro, which is why Niagra falls, and Snoqualmie falls here in Washington are also both power stations.

Mountain streams CAN generate sufficient power for a home or even a small community. It takes both volume and pressure to generate power. Plumbing actually follows Ohm's law.

Philled wrote:
As far as hurricanes go - wow what a feat of engineering if we could steer them. I'd assume we'd extract its energy at specific areas of the storm and allow it to steer itself.

Extraction would be tiny compared to the power of the storm (even a regular storm). It would require a continuous storm to be much use. ALL storms blow themselves out. They are self destructive.

Question for you: Do you have a pilot's license as well? If so, is it an instrument rating? I hold a private instrument single engine land w/tailwheel and weightshift endorsements.
Philled wrote:
Of course there isn't a way to currently measure these global temps accurately.

That at least settles that.
Philled wrote:
I've never considered myself a believer or denier in climate change. We all know it's going to change.

I don't. The reason is that 'climate' is generally defined along the lines of 'weather over a long time' in most dictionaries. Since there is no such thing as a global weather, there is no such thing as a global climate.

I have found that the guys pushing 'global warming' or 'climate change' cannot even define what these phrases actually mean without resorting to circular definitions. To me these are just buzzwords...meaningless.

Philled wrote:
Nothing in life is constant.

There ARE such things as universal constants of nature. They appear in various equations that appear from theories of science.
Philled wrote:
It seems any genuine care about the environment has turned into a way to scam others.

Unfortunately true. Ecology used to actually make people aware of some problem developing and suggest ways to clean it up. Unfortunately, it got hijacked by the Marxists and they are using it to push their agenda (Marxism) instead.

You have probably noticed, that whatever the 'ecological issue' they happen to be pushing these days, whether it's ozone holes, global cooling, global warming, climate change, or whatever the hell they call it now, the 'solution' is always the same. Shut down industry and punish their 'evil' owners.

It's just Marxism.

Philled wrote:
It's hard to believe that anyone truely cares.

There ARE people who truly care. Most people actually do. They have been marginalized along with the rest. It's unfortunate. They can't get their message out anymore. There's too much political noise.
Philled wrote:
Coworker of mine, big liberal, talks about CO2 and greenhouses gasses, NASA and their charts, how dirty oil is. But works on jets like me, has 3 cars, 2 of them he modified the pollution control systems,

Sounds like a real hypocrite. Doesn't he realize what those pollution control systems do?
Philled wrote:
one of them he put a turbo on to race (i own a classic race car so don't get me wrong here). He sold one car a couple weeks ago but had to change the a/c condenser, he didn't deplete the refrigerant properly, just cracked the line open and vented it.

I have no problem with that. CFC's do not destroy ozone. You can put R-12 or R134a refrigerant into a tank of ozone and it won't decompose any faster than a control tank of ozone with no additive.

Ozone is created by shoving energy into oxygen. In the stratosphere, it is created by the Sun. As long as you have oxygen and sunlight, you WILL have ozone. We couldn't destroy the ozone layer even if we wanted to.

Philled wrote:
I called him out on it, he said it was too expensive

It is. It's a stupid regulation to require extraction by 'legal' methods. The whole scare came out DuPont losing a patent and using the government to maintain monopoly status (the only way a monopoly can survive). The greased the right palms with the Feds, and forced everyone into the NEW refrigerant 134a, which IS patented by DuPont. Eventually, other moron government officials followed the lead of the United States, thinking they were actually saving the ozone layer.

Anybody that works with radio knows what the ozone layer is and what it does. Their radios often depend on it.
Philled wrote:
and there are millions of cars with carbon emissions out there so it doesn't really matter.

True, there are millions of cars, each producing CO2 from hydrocarbon and oxygen in the atmosphere. CO2 also absorbs infrared frequencies that happen to be near frequencies emitted by some of the Earth's surface. It's just another way for the surface to cool itself by heating the atmosphere. CO2 is incapable of warming the planet. Only additional energy can do that.

Philled wrote:
Hes selling that car to buy a Tesla. I just had to laugh. I told him it was a doctor killer like the Beechcraft bonanza. Boy he didn't talk much after that.


It's a testament to Beechcraft as to the number of those 'forked tail doctor killers' they built. We still have a couple on our airfield, despite how many of them have been destroyed!

They actually fly pretty well, if you pay attention to them. They do have a tendency to Dutch roll a little as they fly, though. I've flown them. They are actually a nice plane, once you get used to it's weird tail oscillation. There's not a lot of room for sloppiness, which is why it kills so many doctors. They have more money than skill. The stall is sharp and hard in those things. It's a pretty clean wing.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 05-02-2018 07:15
05-02-2018 12:51
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Philled wrote:
Into the night, good hearing from ya! Yes aircraft are fun, our society has a lot to be greatful for since a lot of tech today was researched and developed just for aircraft in the war effort of the past.

I wasn't trying to imply that a nuke warhead can be transferred straight to a reactor without some type of processing. Point was, we have a LOT of energy out there to harness. Much of it is going to the wrong place, IMO.

In my area, our mountains are pretty sturdy, granite mostly. Build high suspension bridges on them, tunnels through them, military command centers inside them, but not as many hydro plants as there should be. Hoover dam and lake mead is a amazing sight to see and very impressive for its age. We need more of that. Surely there are real solutions to hydros shortcomings. Maybe not politically, but certainly mechanically and logistically.

As far as hurricanes go - wow what a feat of engineering if we could steer them. I'd assume we'd extract its energy at specific areas of the storm and allow it to steer itself.

Of course there isn't a way to currently measure these global temps accurately. I've never considered myself a believer or denier in climate change. We all know it's going to change. Nothing in life is constant. It seems any genuine care about the environment has turned into a way to scam others. It's hard to believe that anyone truely cares. Coworker of mine, big liberal, talks about CO2 and greenhouses gasses, NASA and their charts, how dirty oil is. But works on jets like me, has 3 cars, 2 of them he modified the pollution control systems, one of them he put a turbo on to race (i own a classic race car so don't get me wrong here). He sold one car a couple weeks ago but had to change the a/c condenser, he didn't deplete the refrigerant properly, just cracked the line open and vented it. I called him out on it, he said it was too expensive and there are millions of cars with carbon emissions out there so it doesn't really matter. Hes selling that car to buy a Tesla. I just had to laugh. I told him it was a doctor killer like the Beechcraft bonanza. Boy he didn't talk much after that.


Philled,
1st off, Philly wasn't supposed to win without Wentz. After all, Philly got rid of and then got Foles back.

As for nuclear war heads, waste from nuclear reactors is being reprocessed so it can be fuel again. They might be able to modify the process to use nuclear weapons as fuel.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/fuel-recycling/processing-of-used-nuclear-fuel.aspx
05-02-2018 23:04
Wake
★★★★★
(3336)
James_ wrote:
Philled wrote:
Into the night, good hearing from ya! Yes aircraft are fun, our society has a lot to be greatful for since a lot of tech today was researched and developed just for aircraft in the war effort of the past.

I wasn't trying to imply that a nuke warhead can be transferred straight to a reactor without some type of processing. Point was, we have a LOT of energy out there to harness. Much of it is going to the wrong place, IMO.

In my area, our mountains are pretty sturdy, granite mostly. Build high suspension bridges on them, tunnels through them, military command centers inside them, but not as many hydro plants as there should be. Hoover dam and lake mead is a amazing sight to see and very impressive for its age. We need more of that. Surely there are real solutions to hydros shortcomings. Maybe not politically, but certainly mechanically and logistically.

As far as hurricanes go - wow what a feat of engineering if we could steer them. I'd assume we'd extract its energy at specific areas of the storm and allow it to steer itself.

Of course there isn't a way to currently measure these global temps accurately. I've never considered myself a believer or denier in climate change. We all know it's going to change. Nothing in life is constant. It seems any genuine care about the environment has turned into a way to scam others. It's hard to believe that anyone truely cares. Coworker of mine, big liberal, talks about CO2 and greenhouses gasses, NASA and their charts, how dirty oil is. But works on jets like me, has 3 cars, 2 of them he modified the pollution control systems, one of them he put a turbo on to race (i own a classic race car so don't get me wrong here). He sold one car a couple weeks ago but had to change the a/c condenser, he didn't deplete the refrigerant properly, just cracked the line open and vented it. I called him out on it, he said it was too expensive and there are millions of cars with carbon emissions out there so it doesn't really matter. Hes selling that car to buy a Tesla. I just had to laugh. I told him it was a doctor killer like the Beechcraft bonanza. Boy he didn't talk much after that.


Philled,
1st off, Philly wasn't supposed to win without Wentz. After all, Philly got rid of and then got Foles back.

As for nuclear war heads, waste from nuclear reactors is being reprocessed so it can be fuel again. They might be able to modify the process to use nuclear weapons as fuel.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/fuel-recycling/processing-of-used-nuclear-fuel.aspx


Philled is correct that solar power won't turn into much except as a last resort. So far the return on power isn't what it requires to manufacture, install and maintain the solar farms. This doesn't mean that it is useless since where they are installed can reduce the hugely expensive long distance power lines that hydro requires with an ever increasing cost of copper.

Hydro-electric installations, particularly small ones, are very damaging to the environment. But this is the solar power that actually has a positive manufacturing cost to power output ratio. Unfortunately all of the hydro sites are taken and

Windmills are still questionable in my mind. I talked more about it to my brother who used to run the Altamont maintenance crew with also installed new windmills of the older type. He believes that the larger one's should be better even though they replace a block of 20 of the older style. The new Altamont windmills have 90 foot blades. This means 8100 feet of swept area though probably only 1/3rd of that is productive. The 90 foot blades revolving at what appears to be 1 1/2 seconds per revolution by eye estimation in a good wind would put the tip velocity at some 120 ft/sec or a little over 80 mph. The older windmills were The older ones had 30' blades and turned at perhaps 10 rpm in a good wind. This made the tip speed about the same.

Nuclear power is not only the most efficient and the most environmentally friendly. The modern designs are safer and generate fewer polluting byproducts.
06-02-2018 00:06
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1091)
Philled wrote:
Tim, great ideas! Smaller hydro turbines would probably be less impacting on the rivers ecosystem, and look more appealing, too, which is what people care for most these days it seems.

I think we could make a fully secure nuke plant. Build it inside a mountain, underground. Sure it could be a target but not unless you have massive firepower and a huge set of balls to risk your nations suicide. Even if the enemy were to completely wipe out the entire nation of the US, we have multiple aircraft in the air that operate their mission 24/7/365, and they have the ability to communicate with nuke subs that are below to launch the arsenal. Fighting with the US is suicide. Lately, we've been dragging on this war for many reasons, but I see it as the ability to sharpen our claws,test our weapons, and train our military on the best sub-human filth this world can offer.

I too, have built a windmill, but it doesn't produce much. Mines small, built it from a bad washing machines motor. Re-wired it, and can maybe get 300w on a stormy day. Problem I have with windmills is, they are extracting energy from atmospheric pressure systems. Imagine trying to power a nation on the wind. That's a massive amount of energy to be extracted. Wouldn't that directly change our weather patterns and climate? I bet you could create a desert with enough energy being extracted in certain areas. Why are the environmentalists obsessed with wind, too? Never understood that. They almost never talk about hydro power. Ultimately, I think the world will go strictly hydro, nuke, or geothermal after a decline in oil and coal, probably hundreds of years from now.


1, If the war were to wander over the place of the nuclear power plant and the bad guys decieded that they needed to use dirty bombs to not lose and die all the mountain over it would not do any good.

2, The small hydro thing would be nice, it would not use any dams just small collection grills in the stream-lets and pipes containing the water down to the turbine which thus has high pressure water to work. It would. however, never be more than a few percent of the energy we want. say 3% max.

3, The energy taken out of the wind is utterly tiny compared to the amount of energy in the total wind of the planet. Even tiny compared the wind over a single county. Human power is so small compared to nature. The mountains will always be far more of a wind break than anything humanity builds.

4, Geothermal is a reasonable idea. The USA can use Yellow stone for all it's power and Europe can use either Iceland or Etna or both.
06-02-2018 00:13
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1091)
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:

3, I don't like nukes. No other thing we do has the capacity to render the planet uninhabitable. That we live in peaceful times is good. But picture a war wandering over a nation which has a few of these things. Picture cruise missiles used to blast open a nuclear plant as a form of strategic economic warfare. If you had to evacuate a large industrial area that would slow you down. Then there would be a revenge strike.

I wonder why anyone would bother with such a shot. Nuclear plants are using a low grade fuel to produce their power. Why not just put a weapons grade nuke on the warhead of the cruise missile and send it into a city instead?
Tim the plumber wrote:
4, I am currently building a wind turbine system which, I hope, will generate power cheaper than coal. Wish me luck. If I get it to work it will make me the richest man ever.

Since coal costs $1.96 per million BTU, good luck.


Chernobyl managed to make a large area uninhabitable. The same for the Japanese one. This is without anybody making a real explosion of the thing.

You only get to have a proper nuke explosion, atom bomb, if you have the power of a state. Even then it is hard. That capacity for investment usually means that the state in question is sensable enough not to do it. It is the desperate chancers that will be more tricky.

Recently IS used small drones to attack the Russian air base in Syria. If they had had any sense they would have used the same guidance systems attached to larger light aircraft style flying bombs. Petrol powered planes with lots of explosives in them.

Imagine 50 VI's with decent drone guidance attacking a nuclear power station.
06-02-2018 00:50
Wake
★★★★★
(3336)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Philled wrote:
Tim, great ideas! Smaller hydro turbines would probably be less impacting on the rivers ecosystem, and look more appealing, too, which is what people care for most these days it seems.

I think we could make a fully secure nuke plant. Build it inside a mountain, underground. Sure it could be a target but not unless you have massive firepower and a huge set of balls to risk your nations suicide. Even if the enemy were to completely wipe out the entire nation of the US, we have multiple aircraft in the air that operate their mission 24/7/365, and they have the ability to communicate with nuke subs that are below to launch the arsenal. Fighting with the US is suicide. Lately, we've been dragging on this war for many reasons, but I see it as the ability to sharpen our claws,test our weapons, and train our military on the best sub-human filth this world can offer.

I too, have built a windmill, but it doesn't produce much. Mines small, built it from a bad washing machines motor. Re-wired it, and can maybe get 300w on a stormy day. Problem I have with windmills is, they are extracting energy from atmospheric pressure systems. Imagine trying to power a nation on the wind. That's a massive amount of energy to be extracted. Wouldn't that directly change our weather patterns and climate? I bet you could create a desert with enough energy being extracted in certain areas. Why are the environmentalists obsessed with wind, too? Never understood that. They almost never talk about hydro power. Ultimately, I think the world will go strictly hydro, nuke, or geothermal after a decline in oil and coal, probably hundreds of years from now.


1, If the war were to wander over the place of the nuclear power plant and the bad guys decieded that they needed to use dirty bombs to not lose and die all the mountain over it would not do any good.

2, The small hydro thing would be nice, it would not use any dams just small collection grills in the stream-lets and pipes containing the water down to the turbine which thus has high pressure water to work. It would. however, never be more than a few percent of the energy we want. say 3% max.

3, The energy taken out of the wind is utterly tiny compared to the amount of energy in the total wind of the planet. Even tiny compared the wind over a single county. Human power is so small compared to nature. The mountains will always be far more of a wind break than anything humanity builds.

4, Geothermal is a reasonable idea. The USA can use Yellow stone for all it's power and Europe can use either Iceland or Etna or both.


Tim, modern nuclear power plants simply die if the containment facilities are broken. Even the Takashima plant shut down. The trouble was their design required full cooling until the plant was all the way down. So one of the three containment facilities ruptured from thermal expansion because the coolant pipes were burst. From what people claim you'd think that the Earth had ended. But one mile from the plant the radiations rapidly dropped to twice normal background radiation from X-rays from the Sun.

There is a lot of worry about the continuing discharge of radioactive water because the break is underwater now and the plant is still cooling down and radioactive components are still molten and leaking out in the water. The levels of radiation there are too high for human's to get near and they have been trying several methods none of which have been particularly successful. I have heard that the latest plan is to pour an enclosing cement barrier over the whole reactor that burst but that seems entirely inappropriate to me. Once it cools enough it can be disassembled and cleaned up properly.

I will repeat - small hydro generates almost no energy and causes massive environmental damage. Remember that you're blocking off streams where trout and salmon breed and where there are thousands of species of small fish preyed upon by the larger breeds. We have a rather large creek here - almost a small river. They put in flood control dams on them and the entire salmon run in that part of the bay disappeared completely. This river would be fed by the waters coming out of the surrounding hills and the small to medium sized creeks. You used to be able to stand by the side of these creeks in spawning season and see the Salmon swim through the clear deep parts and then jump the steps. That's all stopped since then. They've installed so many dams and reservoired so much water that there isn't enough water moving through the creeks to even let spawning fish in.

They cried about the Delta Smelt that needed water to survive. BS, they have survived the dry and wet seasons for time immemorial. But then they kill off major food species. I haven't even heard of Salmon being taken in or around the bay in decades. Striped bass used to be common in the bay. I can't even remember the last time I saw one on a party boat. Without the freshwater washing all the pollution out of the bay we aren't even taking any significant amount of anchovies. So the bird populations are much reduced.

There is real environmentalism and the surreal environmentalism of AGW.
06-02-2018 01:13
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5138)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:

3, I don't like nukes. No other thing we do has the capacity to render the planet uninhabitable. That we live in peaceful times is good. But picture a war wandering over a nation which has a few of these things. Picture cruise missiles used to blast open a nuclear plant as a form of strategic economic warfare. If you had to evacuate a large industrial area that would slow you down. Then there would be a revenge strike.

I wonder why anyone would bother with such a shot. Nuclear plants are using a low grade fuel to produce their power. Why not just put a weapons grade nuke on the warhead of the cruise missile and send it into a city instead?
Tim the plumber wrote:
4, I am currently building a wind turbine system which, I hope, will generate power cheaper than coal. Wish me luck. If I get it to work it will make me the richest man ever.

Since coal costs $1.96 per million BTU, good luck.


Chernobyl managed to make a large area uninhabitable.

Nope. Just a small area, despite the extremely stupid way the Russians built and operated the thing.
Tim the plumber wrote:
The same for the Japanese one.

An even smaller area. That damage was caused by a tidal wave, not a reactor malfunction.
Tim the plumber wrote:
This is without anybody making a real explosion of the thing.

They don't explode (except as a steam explosion).
Tim the plumber wrote:
You only get to have a proper nuke explosion, atom bomb, if you have the power of a state.

The fuel in a power plant reactor isn't good enough to have a nuclear explosion. It would vaporize itself before it got anywhere. The only risk is a steam explosion.
Tim the plumber wrote:
Even then it is hard. That capacity for investment usually means that the state in question is sensable enough not to do it. It is the desperate chancers that will be more tricky.

For nuclear weapons, this is essentially correct. If, say, North Korea just 'lobs one out there', is it because Russia gave them the technology to do it? Is it really Russia using a puppet government to just 'lob one out there'?

Do you think Russia is going to take the chance getting caught at that? Do you think North Korea really developed all this stuff on their own?

Remember who was behind North Korea during the Korean War. Stalin ran the whole thing, using both North Koreans and later Chinese troops to mask Russian involvement.

Tim the plumber wrote:
Recently IS used small drones to attack the Russian air base in Syria. If they had had any sense they would have used the same guidance systems attached to larger light aircraft style flying bombs. Petrol powered planes with lots of explosives in them.

Armchair generals. You are not in command, dude.
Tim the plumber wrote:
Imagine 50 VI's with decent drone guidance attacking a nuclear power station.


Not much. Attacking a nuclear power station with a bunch of editors running in drones isn't going to make much of an impression.

There are lot of meanings for 'VI'. Which one are you using?

Assuming an enemy is going to attack a nuclear power station, the probable result (assuming they breached the core containment and the reactor itself, causing massive nuclear material to be spread across the landscape), is to make the land useless for either side. We don't have it, you don't have it. No one can have it. I doubt it would have a significant impact on the outcome of the war, yet it would require significant risk and capability to be wasted on such a target.


The Parrot Killer
06-02-2018 01:51
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1091)
V one. As in WWII pulse jet flying bomb. But a little more guidnce to make proper explosions happen at the nuclear power plant not steam explosions.

I recon that would be worse, or could be worse, than a tidal wave especially if the civil authorities were out of the question due to war.

Do you think all the former Soviet states are stable?

Edited on 06-02-2018 01:51
06-02-2018 02:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5138)
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Philled wrote:
Tim, great ideas! Smaller hydro turbines would probably be less impacting on the rivers ecosystem, and look more appealing, too, which is what people care for most these days it seems.

I think we could make a fully secure nuke plant. Build it inside a mountain, underground. Sure it could be a target but not unless you have massive firepower and a huge set of balls to risk your nations suicide. Even if the enemy were to completely wipe out the entire nation of the US, we have multiple aircraft in the air that operate their mission 24/7/365, and they have the ability to communicate with nuke subs that are below to launch the arsenal. Fighting with the US is suicide. Lately, we've been dragging on this war for many reasons, but I see it as the ability to sharpen our claws,test our weapons, and train our military on the best sub-human filth this world can offer.

I too, have built a windmill, but it doesn't produce much. Mines small, built it from a bad washing machines motor. Re-wired it, and can maybe get 300w on a stormy day. Problem I have with windmills is, they are extracting energy from atmospheric pressure systems. Imagine trying to power a nation on the wind. That's a massive amount of energy to be extracted. Wouldn't that directly change our weather patterns and climate? I bet you could create a desert with enough energy being extracted in certain areas. Why are the environmentalists obsessed with wind, too? Never understood that. They almost never talk about hydro power. Ultimately, I think the world will go strictly hydro, nuke, or geothermal after a decline in oil and coal, probably hundreds of years from now.


1, If the war were to wander over the place of the nuclear power plant and the bad guys decieded that they needed to use dirty bombs to not lose and die all the mountain over it would not do any good.

2, The small hydro thing would be nice, it would not use any dams just small collection grills in the stream-lets and pipes containing the water down to the turbine which thus has high pressure water to work. It would. however, never be more than a few percent of the energy we want. say 3% max.

3, The energy taken out of the wind is utterly tiny compared to the amount of energy in the total wind of the planet. Even tiny compared the wind over a single county. Human power is so small compared to nature. The mountains will always be far more of a wind break than anything humanity builds.

4, Geothermal is a reasonable idea. The USA can use Yellow stone for all it's power and Europe can use either Iceland or Etna or both.


Tim, modern nuclear power plants simply die if the containment facilities are broken. Even the Takashima plant shut down. The trouble was their design required full cooling until the plant was all the way down. So one of the three containment facilities ruptured from thermal expansion because the coolant pipes were burst. From what people claim you'd think that the Earth had ended. But one mile from the plant the radiations rapidly dropped to twice normal background radiation from X-rays from the Sun.

X rays don't strike the surface of the Earth from the Sun. They are completely filtered out by the atmosphere.
Wake wrote:
There is a lot of worry about the continuing discharge of radioactive water because the break is underwater now and the plant is still cooling down and radioactive components are still molten and leaking out in the water.

The fuel is not molten. It has solidified. They still refer to the remains as the 'molten' fuel colloquially.
Wake wrote:
The levels of radiation there are too high for human's to get near and they have been trying several methods none of which have been particularly successful. I have heard that the latest plan is to pour an enclosing cement barrier over the whole reactor that burst but that seems entirely inappropriate to me. Once it cools enough it can be disassembled and cleaned up properly.

It HAS cooled. The problem is that it's underwater and under a lot of debris. Also, the melt has solidified on the remains of the structure of the reactor.
Wake wrote:
I will repeat - small hydro generates almost no energy

Bull. Small hydro powers homes and even cities.
Wake wrote:
and causes massive environmental damage.

Bull. Seattle's main source of power comes from a hydro station that most people don't even know is there until you show it to them. There is no dam.
Wake wrote:
Remember that you're blocking off streams where trout and salmon breed

Bull. Salmon can get through on properly designed fish ladders without a problem. Trout don't need to pass dams.
Wake wrote:
and where there are thousands of species of small fish preyed upon by the larger breeds.

There's always a bigger fish.
Wake wrote:
We have a rather large creek here - almost a small river. They put in flood control dams on them and the entire salmon run in that part of the bay disappeared completely.

In that part of the bay??? You are talking about a river, aren't you?
Wake wrote:
This river would be fed by the waters coming out of the surrounding hills and the small to medium sized creeks. You used to be able to stand by the side of these creeks in spawning season and see the Salmon swim through the clear deep parts and then jump the steps. That's all stopped since then.

Perhaps you are referring to badly designed dams.
Wake wrote:
They've installed so many dams and reservoired so much water that there isn't enough water moving through the creeks to even let spawning fish in.

You'd be surprise what spawning fish will do.
Wake wrote:
They cried about the Delta Smelt that needed water to survive. BS, they have survived the dry and wet seasons for time immemorial. But then they kill off major food species. I haven't even heard of Salmon being taken in or around the bay in decades.

May I suggest a couple of good salmon fishing charters in the Bay area?
Wake wrote:
Striped bass used to be common in the bay. I can't even remember the last time I saw one on a party boat.

Maybe you should stop partying and look in the water.
Wake wrote:
Without the freshwater washing all the pollution out of the bay we aren't even taking any significant amount of anchovies. So the bird populations are much reduced.

I don't see any reduction of birds in the Bay area.
Wake wrote:
There is real environmentalism and the surreal environmentalism of AGW.

I think BOTH are surreal to you. You should get out more and explore your own town.


The Parrot Killer
06-02-2018 02:20
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5138)
Tim the plumber wrote:
V one. As in WWII pulse jet flying bomb. But a little more guidnce to make proper explosions happen at the nuclear power plant not steam explosions.

Ah. Well, a load of 50 of those things would make a mess of a nuclear plant. That's for sure. But I ask again, why attack one? It makes the land around the plant useless for everyone, including the attacker.
Tim the plumber wrote:
I recon that would be worse, or could be worse, than a tidal wave especially if the civil authorities were out of the question due to war.

Probably not. While it would make a mess, you don't have the problems of the kind of destruction the tidal wave caused to the surrounding area.
Tim the plumber wrote:
Do you think all the former Soviet states are stable?

No. Then again, I don't think the Soviet Union itself is particularly stable. Communism can only survive by stealing from others. Sooner or later you run out of people to steal from. Communism is a parasite of capitalism.

Now if you want to live in abject fear that someone is going to start a nuclear war for the hell of it, that's your business. You seem to forget that if someone opens up with nuclear weapons, they will be destroyed by return fire in short order.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 06-02-2018 02:22
07-02-2018 19:07
Philled
☆☆☆☆☆
(5)
Wow lots of cool info here. Seems like we'll have a diverse energy platform for the future. IMO it'll be nukes, hydro, and oil/gas that'll be the major contributors.

Wake, i highly doubt all the hydro sites are taken. We have a mountain range that spans from New Mexico to canada. If there is a will there is a way. I disagee that wind energy cannot significantly alter weather. Extract enough energy and things will change.

Into the night, I don't have a pilot license, just an A&P. Maybe one day, but right now I'm full of hobbies and time with family. It has been on my mind tho. Absolutely agree that the Marxists have hijacked the environmental movement and turned it into extremism. My buddy - who should have depleted his a/c system properly, high price tag or not, didn't do it. Shows the level of hypocrisy some people have. Only when it's convenient or when their party is watching will they care it seems. Zero integrity on many levels. I feel it's necessary for conservatives/republicans, whatever you want to call them, to retake the environmental movement back to further progress. How they do that will be an uphill battle - fighting propaganda and extremists the entire way. Maybe at the end, the environment will be helped. Meanwhile, I'll keep buying hunting/fishing licenses and pack out trash from the tourists, teens, hippies, and the homeless every year.
07-02-2018 19:57
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(969)
So, I never want to ever be the one that says "no, it can't be done". That's not what made America great again. But, if you think a few thousand wind turbines can weaken a hurricane so significantly, please explain how 5,000-8,000 foot mountains failed to disrupt these western Mexico hurricanes below dangerous levels before making landfall.

Very cool website...https://coast.noaa.gov/hurricanes/
Attached image:


Edited on 07-02-2018 20:03
07-02-2018 20:07
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(969)
Western Mexico elevation
Attached image:

07-02-2018 21:24
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1091)
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
V one. As in WWII pulse jet flying bomb. But a little more guidnce to make proper explosions happen at the nuclear power plant not steam explosions.

Ah. Well, a load of 50 of those things would make a mess of a nuclear plant. That's for sure. But I ask again, why attack one? It makes the land around the plant useless for everyone, including the attacker.
Tim the plumber wrote:
I recon that would be worse, or could be worse, than a tidal wave especially if the civil authorities were out of the question due to war.

Probably not. While it would make a mess, you don't have the problems of the kind of destruction the tidal wave caused to the surrounding area.
Tim the plumber wrote:
Do you think all the former Soviet states are stable?

No. Then again, I don't think the Soviet Union itself is particularly stable. Communism can only survive by stealing from others. Sooner or later you run out of people to steal from. Communism is a parasite of capitalism.

Now if you want to live in abject fear that someone is going to start a nuclear war for the hell of it, that's your business. You seem to forget that if someone opens up with nuclear weapons, they will be destroyed by return fire in short order.


My point is that if a Syria style war happens anywhere where there are nuclear power plants then there is likely to be a lot of fall out, both politically and radiation wise.

Why have them around at all? We don't need them. Haveas few as you can get away with.

It is not so much the threat of nuclear war but of normal messy war wandering over places wth the poison of uranium in large active concentrated amounts that is the problem.
07-02-2018 21:43
Wake
★★★★★
(3336)
Philled wrote:
Wow lots of cool info here. Seems like we'll have a diverse energy platform for the future. IMO it'll be nukes, hydro, and oil/gas that'll be the major contributors.

Wake, i highly doubt all the hydro sites are taken. We have a mountain range that spans from New Mexico to canada. If there is a will there is a way. I disagee that wind energy cannot significantly alter weather. Extract enough energy and things will change.

Into the night, I don't have a pilot license, just an A&P. Maybe one day, but right now I'm full of hobbies and time with family. It has been on my mind tho. Absolutely agree that the Marxists have hijacked the environmental movement and turned it into extremism. My buddy - who should have depleted his a/c system properly, high price tag or not, didn't do it. Shows the level of hypocrisy some people have. Only when it's convenient or when their party is watching will they care it seems. Zero integrity on many levels. I feel it's necessary for conservatives/republicans, whatever you want to call them, to retake the environmental movement back to further progress. How they do that will be an uphill battle - fighting propaganda and extremists the entire way. Maybe at the end, the environment will be helped. Meanwhile, I'll keep buying hunting/fishing licenses and pack out trash from the tourists, teens, hippies, and the homeless every year.


We pretty much agree on future power sources but rather than oil and gas I see a recurrence of coal which has a higher energy content per kg than the other two.

I think that you would be amazed at how much of the nations rivers and even streams are already dammed and able to produce power (though there are many that are presently being used for reservoirs for drinking water.)

There are so many dams on the Mississippi, that the river doesn't even flow properly anymore. If you go up into the Rockies you'll discover that there are places that appear to have enough water flow for hydroelectric power that do not. I stood beneath a water fall almost 1,000 feet high and while it looked like a huge amount to water, when you followed it down you couldn't even find the creek it fed. And if you followed it down to the river - that river was dammed.

Remember again that I said that these hydroelectric dams are entirely destructive of the aquatic lifeforms. It is now so bad in California that most rivers do not even TRY to provide any type of fish ladders because there are no fish to use them. Salmon are now mostly raised in fish farms.

I think you misunderstood me or thought that I said something that was actually said by someone else. There is NO WAY that wind farms can effect even the wind direction and strength let alone the weather. People that would say that have NEVER even seen a wind farm.

Conservatives are those that actually led the environmentalist movement until it attracted so many nutcases that most dropped out. It sure as hell wasn't teenage college kids that stopped the smog in LA or saved the whales. Hell, most people are unaware of what saved the whales. It was a combination of Japan ignoring the whaling regulations and taking Catchalots (Sperm Whales) and the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere causing blooming in the plankton in the oceans. The increasing plankton means increasing krill which feeds upon it which filter feeding whales (the majority of species of whales) feed upon. Cathalots go into feeding frenzies around filter feeders - they are carnivores that can chase very large pods of filter feeders for 25 or more miles killing indiscriminately. Their calls can be heard a hundred miles away and call all other carnivores to get in on the action. They will kill 10 or more times as much as they need to feed and this greatly reduced the entire whale population when we had commercial whaling on a large scale.

The problem in America isn't with generating power. This is the problem on the rest of the globe. And the IPCC intended to stop developing nations from developing. Looks like they are now SOL.
07-02-2018 21:57
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5138)
Philled wrote:
Wow lots of cool info here. Seems like we'll have a diverse energy platform for the future. IMO it'll be nukes, hydro, and oil/gas that'll be the major contributors.

Wake, i highly doubt all the hydro sites are taken. We have a mountain range that spans from New Mexico to canada. If there is a will there is a way. I disagee that wind energy cannot significantly alter weather. Extract enough energy and things will change.

Into the night, I don't have a pilot license, just an A&P. Maybe one day, but right now I'm full of hobbies and time with family. It has been on my mind tho. Absolutely agree that the Marxists have hijacked the environmental movement and turned it into extremism. My buddy - who should have depleted his a/c system properly, high price tag or not, didn't do it. Shows the level of hypocrisy some people have. Only when it's convenient or when their party is watching will they care it seems. Zero integrity on many levels. I feel it's necessary for conservatives/republicans, whatever you want to call them, to retake the environmental movement back to further progress. How they do that will be an uphill battle - fighting propaganda and extremists the entire way. Maybe at the end, the environment will be helped. Meanwhile, I'll keep buying hunting/fishing licenses and pack out trash from the tourists, teens, hippies, and the homeless every year.


Fortunately, the environment is already being helped...by engineers. Private industry has come up with many improved ways of burning fuel more efficiently. Look at the jet engines you work on through the years and see how much they've improved during that time. The reciprocating engines in cars have made some great improvements. My Cessna 150 is still stuck on 1940's engine technology because the FAA says that what I have to use. There's a reason so many are building their own aircraft and putting modern automotive engines in them.

It's the simple stuff...developed by private industry and engineers...that reduce the smog, reduce the noise, reduce the soot, improve the miles per gallon (or miles per pound) of a vehicle.

The only thing I've seen from the government is getting in the way.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 07-02-2018 21:57
07-02-2018 22:09
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5138)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
V one. As in WWII pulse jet flying bomb. But a little more guidnce to make proper explosions happen at the nuclear power plant not steam explosions.

Ah. Well, a load of 50 of those things would make a mess of a nuclear plant. That's for sure. But I ask again, why attack one? It makes the land around the plant useless for everyone, including the attacker.
Tim the plumber wrote:
I recon that would be worse, or could be worse, than a tidal wave especially if the civil authorities were out of the question due to war.

Probably not. While it would make a mess, you don't have the problems of the kind of destruction the tidal wave caused to the surrounding area.
Tim the plumber wrote:
Do you think all the former Soviet states are stable?

No. Then again, I don't think the Soviet Union itself is particularly stable. Communism can only survive by stealing from others. Sooner or later you run out of people to steal from. Communism is a parasite of capitalism.

Now if you want to live in abject fear that someone is going to start a nuclear war for the hell of it, that's your business. You seem to forget that if someone opens up with nuclear weapons, they will be destroyed by return fire in short order.


My point is that if a Syria style war happens anywhere where there are nuclear power plants then there is likely to be a lot of fall out, both politically and radiation wise.

It wouldn't be fallout, as there was no nuclear explosion. The contamination, however, that you refer to would be localized around the area of the plant. It would not affect a large area.
Tim the plumber wrote:
Why have them around at all?

They are efficient, their waste is minimal, and they can be built and run safely. Accidents in these plants generally cause equipment damage, they rarely kill or hurt anyone.
Tim the plumber wrote:
We don't need them.

Who are you to say what we need? There is a market demand for electrical power. Nuclear power is one supplier to that market.
Tim the plumber wrote:
Haveas few as you can get away with.

Who are you to decide what type of power suppliers will be built to satisfy the market?
Tim the plumber wrote:
It is not so much the threat of nuclear war but of normal messy war wandering over places wth the poison of uranium in large active concentrated amounts that is the problem.

This fear is based on a paradox. If uranium is concentrated, it isn't over a large area. If it is over a large area, it is not concentrated.

If an enemy blows up a nuclear plant and then has his soldiers march through the rubble. I'll only encourage it! I wish all our enemies were that stupid!


The Parrot Killer
07-02-2018 22:27
Wake
★★★★★
(3336)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
V one. As in WWII pulse jet flying bomb. But a little more guidnce to make proper explosions happen at the nuclear power plant not steam explosions.

Ah. Well, a load of 50 of those things would make a mess of a nuclear plant. That's for sure. But I ask again, why attack one? It makes the land around the plant useless for everyone, including the attacker.
Tim the plumber wrote:
I recon that would be worse, or could be worse, than a tidal wave especially if the civil authorities were out of the question due to war.

Probably not. While it would make a mess, you don't have the problems of the kind of destruction the tidal wave caused to the surrounding area.
Tim the plumber wrote:
Do you think all the former Soviet states are stable?

No. Then again, I don't think the Soviet Union itself is particularly stable. Communism can only survive by stealing from others. Sooner or later you run out of people to steal from. Communism is a parasite of capitalism.

Now if you want to live in abject fear that someone is going to start a nuclear war for the hell of it, that's your business. You seem to forget that if someone opens up with nuclear weapons, they will be destroyed by return fire in short order.


My point is that if a Syria style war happens anywhere where there are nuclear power plants then there is likely to be a lot of fall out, both politically and radiation wise.

Why have them around at all? We don't need them. Haveas few as you can get away with.

It is not so much the threat of nuclear war but of normal messy war wandering over places wth the poison of uranium in large active concentrated amounts that is the problem.


1. Syria style wars would NOT have happened without the deep state which makes fortunes off of them. The Syrian people were not threatened by their own government who was democratically elected. They did appear to be leaning more and more to a specific sect of Islam but perhaps that was because of Obama who was funding "moderate rebels". And who were these moderates? The Taliban and al Qaeda.

2. Our own Deep State is who is passing out the rediculous idea that the modern Russia is a world threat. They DID take a stand when Obama and the EU attempted to take the Ukraine into the EU. This was a direct threat to the Russian borders and the Ukrainian extremists were a clear threat to Russians who had lived in the Ukraine for generations. Aside from the Military/Industrial Complex that President Eisenhower warned us about, Russia and China should and could be our friends. We have far more to gain with a peaceful world than one on a war footing.

3. Nuclear power supplies the cheapest and by FAR the cleanest source of energy known. Furthermore we are not very far from Fusion power and that would offer 10 times the energy for equal costs and breaking the containment facility would not release anything more radioactive than Helium 2 with a half life of some 10^-9th seconds.
07-02-2018 22:30
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5138)
Wake wrote:
Philled wrote:
Wow lots of cool info here. Seems like we'll have a diverse energy platform for the future. IMO it'll be nukes, hydro, and oil/gas that'll be the major contributors.

Wake, i highly doubt all the hydro sites are taken. We have a mountain range that spans from New Mexico to canada. If there is a will there is a way. I disagee that wind energy cannot significantly alter weather. Extract enough energy and things will change.

Into the night, I don't have a pilot license, just an A&P. Maybe one day, but right now I'm full of hobbies and time with family. It has been on my mind tho. Absolutely agree that the Marxists have hijacked the environmental movement and turned it into extremism. My buddy - who should have depleted his a/c system properly, high price tag or not, didn't do it. Shows the level of hypocrisy some people have. Only when it's convenient or when their party is watching will they care it seems. Zero integrity on many levels. I feel it's necessary for conservatives/republicans, whatever you want to call them, to retake the environmental movement back to further progress. How they do that will be an uphill battle - fighting propaganda and extremists the entire way. Maybe at the end, the environment will be helped. Meanwhile, I'll keep buying hunting/fishing licenses and pack out trash from the tourists, teens, hippies, and the homeless every year.


We pretty much agree on future power sources but rather than oil and gas I see a recurrence of coal which has a higher energy content per kg than the other two.

I think that you would be amazed at how much of the nations rivers and even streams are already dammed and able to produce power (though there are many that are presently being used for reservoirs for drinking water.)

There are so many dams on the Mississippi, that the river doesn't even flow properly anymore.

What is 'properly'? the Mississippi River still flows, in case you haven't noticed.
Wake wrote:
If you go up into the Rockies you'll discover that there are places that appear to have enough water flow for hydroelectric power that do not. I stood beneath a water fall almost 1,000 feet high and while it looked like a huge amount to water, when you followed it down you couldn't even find the creek it fed. And if you followed it down to the river - that river was dammed.

Remember again that I said that these hydroelectric dams are entirely destructive of the aquatic lifeforms. It is now so bad in California that most rivers do not even TRY to provide any type of fish ladders because there are no fish to use them.

So you have no fish in the fish ladders because you don't build fish ladders???
Wake wrote:
Salmon are now mostly raised in fish farms.

Plenty of salmon in the Bay area. Some are wild, some were farmed.
Wake wrote:
I think you misunderstood me or thought that I said something that was actually said by someone else. There is NO WAY that wind farms can effect even the wind direction and strength let alone the weather. People that would say that have NEVER even seen a wind farm.

True.
Wake wrote:
Conservatives are those that actually led the environmentalist movement until it attracted so many nutcases that most dropped out.

Somewhat true. The environmentalist movement DID have a lot of conservatives, but they also had more liberal types that actually DID work with the conservatives for a common purpose. Today, it is the 'nutcases', which actually are the Marxists. Instead of helping industry find ways to be cleaner, they just want to destroy the 'evil' industries and their 'evil' managers and owners.
Wake wrote:
It sure as hell wasn't teenage college kids that stopped the smog in LA or saved the whales. Hell, most people are unaware of what saved the whales. It was a combination of Japan ignoring the whaling regulations and taking Catchalots (Sperm Whales) and the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere causing blooming in the plankton in the oceans.

Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere does not cause the plankton to bloom.

The whales were saved by Big Oil. With cheap fuel sources for oil lamps and the like, we don't need to hunt the whales anymore.
Wake wrote:
The problem in America isn't with generating power. This is the problem on the rest of the globe.

It isn't a problem for the rest of the globe either. Generating power is easy. Anyone can do it if they have the will to do so. All one needs to do is take the prevalent resources they have and convert them to power.

Wake wrote:
And the IPCC intended to stop developing nations from developing.

True. Their attitude is a Marxist one. They want to destroy industry, and dictate to the world how their economies should be run.
Wake wrote:
Looks like they are now SOL.

Why do you say this? The idealisms that caused WW2 are still there. They are still growing and becoming more polarized. Communism, fascism, capitalism, religion, antisemitism, militant atheism, they are all still there. Marxism, especially in the forms of fascism, are becoming more and more popular among many across the world. They believe in the promised Utopia. They have never lived under it.


The Parrot Killer
10-02-2018 23:00
Wake
★★★★★
(3336)
Into the Night wrote:
X rays don't strike the surface of the Earth from the Sun. They are completely filtered out by the atmosphere.

The fuel is not molten. It has solidified. They still refer to the remains as the 'molten' fuel colloquially.

It HAS cooled. The problem is that it's underwater and under a lot of debris. Also, the melt has solidified on the remains of the structure of the reactor.

Bull. Small hydro powers homes and even cities.

Bull. Seattle's main source of power comes from a hydro station that most people don't even know is there until you show it to them. There is no dam.

Bull. Salmon can get through on properly designed fish ladders without a problem. Trout don't need to pass dams.

There's always a bigger fish.

In that part of the bay??? You are talking about a river, aren't you?

Perhaps you are referring to badly designed dams.

You'd be surprise what spawning fish will do.

May I suggest a couple of good salmon fishing charters in the Bay area?

Maybe you should stop partying and look in the water.

I don't see any reduction of birds in the Bay area.

I think BOTH are surreal to you. You should get out more and explore your own town.


Nightmare - you are really stupid and every time you post you have to show it almost like you're bragging about it. Approximately half of background radiation is from radon gas which is escaping from the Earth's core. A tiny bit more is from other naturally occurring radioactive elements. The rest is almost entirely in the form of X-radiation generated by cosmic rays - accelerated H or He nuclei that strike atom inside the atmosphere knocking an electron free and generating X-radiation.

The nuclear fuel inside of the Fukushima power plant is molten because the fuel remains slightly active and generates enough heat to maintain that. Without cooling they have no way of reducing this reaction.

Tell us all - what do you believe "small hydro" to be? Powering a CITY??? Tell us how you can harness "small hydro" and waste water over a fish ladder? I wonder exactly how your mind works when you can't for one second think.

Your engineering skills really show just how stupid you are. You don't need to dam rivers with enough flow. The flow rate of the Columbia makes dams unnecessary unless the amount of power necessary exceeds the power of the flow.

Since you haven't one single bit of knowledge of how to design a dam perhaps you ought to just call them a damn. I am enough of a naturalist to know a great deal more about fish and their spawning habits than some jackass that doesn't know that trout will move towards the clean water of the sources of rivers. You aren't even bright enough to know that very few dams contain fish ladders for two reasons - they waste water that is used to generate energy and fish ladders do not work well.

You don't see any reduction of birds on the bay? What in the hell would you know about it?

"Key findings from the report include:

Most bird populations are stable while others are still struggling.
Riparian [streamside] birds and two endangered species [CA Least Tern and Western Snowy Plover] have increased.
Grassland and coastal scrub [low shrub] birds are declining due to loss and alteration of habitat.
The state-listed California Clapper Rail, the iconic SF Bay tidal marsh bird, still struggles because of habitat loss, predator pressure, and invasive species. Sea level rise and strong storms will make it even harder for rails to persist as they are pushed into marginal, exposed habitat.
All habitat types harbor species that are declining. Species to watch in addition to the California Clapper rail are: Western Sandpiper, Forster's Tern, Caspian Tern, Black-crowned Night Heron, Snowy Egret, Canvasback, Northern Pintail, scaup and scoters."

You really have a mouth for an ignorant fool. I was born and lived 18 years 3 blocks from the Oakland Estuary and watched the disappearance of the birds in LARGE number. While on the San Francisco waterfront seagulls of three species are still fairly stable the rest of the bay is a dead zone.

Tell us again about the birds you ignorant fool.

And I want you to tell us WHAT Salmon charters operate inside the bay? You don't even have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

I simply cannot believe how you can flaunt your ignorance about virtually every matter on this site and not realize that you don't know anything you're talking about.
10-02-2018 23:33
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(183)
[quote]Wake wrote:

The fuel is not molten.


The nuclear fuel inside of the Fukushima power plant is molten /quote]

Might check out this website:http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/f1/pla/index-e.html
11-02-2018 06:50
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' stutterin' stutterin' filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time(plus 1) threatener wake-me-up" wiffed: Windmills are still questionable... Altamont windmills have 90 foot blades...... The older ones had 30' blades....
Wind turbine puffer, "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' stutterin' stutterin' filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time(plus 1) threatener wake-me-up" still got its brakes on. Present longest turbine blades are almost 90.... meters in length. With water towers, the turbine tips can tap wind energy at 800 feet off the ground AND store excess wind energy IN pumped water storage tanks.... ON the turbine support. Future wind turbines will be higher than the Empire State Bldg., with turbine blade lengths, 150-200 meters. Max. power will be ~ 50Megawatts, able to power 1000+ homes. Many construction problems loom.
11-02-2018 16:40
Wake
★★★★★
(3336)
still learning wrote:
[quote]Wake wrote:

The fuel is not molten.


The nuclear fuel inside of the Fukushima power plant is molten /quote]

Might check out this website:http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/f1/pla/index-e.html


"On November 30, 2017, deficiencies were found in parts of the cables leading inside the pedestal below the Unit 3 Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV), for three of the nine thermometers installed at the bottom section. Those three thermometers are considered to be broken because they were unable to measure the temperature there. Therefore, thermometers (temperature (1), temperature (2) and temperature (3) as above) have been excluded for monitoring the operational limit of being within 80 degrees at the RPV bottom section, as defined by Article 18 (Reactor water injection system) of the Specifications for Specified Nuclear Facility in Implementation Plan III. Monitoring is being carried out by the remaining six thermometers.
○Data may change or be missing due to equipment failure or regular inspections."

There are no thermometers in the center sections of the containment. The fact that this area is still molten really cannot be doubted. The radiation levels there are still high enough that it is plain that something is going on and it will until the radiation from Unit 1 is reduced to the undetectable levels.

Do you even know what that data means?
11-02-2018 19:59
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5138)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
X rays don't strike the surface of the Earth from the Sun. They are completely filtered out by the atmosphere.

The fuel is not molten. It has solidified. They still refer to the remains as the 'molten' fuel colloquially.

It HAS cooled. The problem is that it's underwater and under a lot of debris. Also, the melt has solidified on the remains of the structure of the reactor.

Bull. Small hydro powers homes and even cities.

Bull. Seattle's main source of power comes from a hydro station that most people don't even know is there until you show it to them. There is no dam.

Bull. Salmon can get through on properly designed fish ladders without a problem. Trout don't need to pass dams.

There's always a bigger fish.

In that part of the bay??? You are talking about a river, aren't you?

Perhaps you are referring to badly designed dams.

You'd be surprise what spawning fish will do.

May I suggest a couple of good salmon fishing charters in the Bay area?

Maybe you should stop partying and look in the water.

I don't see any reduction of birds in the Bay area.

I think BOTH are surreal to you. You should get out more and explore your own town.


Nightmare - you are really stupid and every time you post you have to show it almost like you're bragging about it.

Starting your response with the usual insults.
Wake wrote:
Approximately half of background radiation is from radon gas which is escaping from the Earth's core.

Radon is one source, true. The radium is also a source.
Wake wrote:
A tiny bit more is from other naturally occurring radioactive elements.

Radium IS a naturally occurring radioactive element dumbass. So are some isotopes of uranium, iodine, and even carbon.
Wake wrote:
The rest is almost entirely in the form of X-radiation generated by cosmic rays - accelerated H or He nuclei that strike atom inside the atmosphere knocking an electron free and generating X-radiation.

Not the source of cosmic rays. X-rays to not reach the surface of the Earth, and they aren't generated by cosmic rays striking the upper atmosphere.
Wake wrote:
The nuclear fuel inside of the Fukushima power plant is molten because the fuel remains slightly active and generates enough heat to maintain that.

The fuel has spread out. It is not longer in sufficiently small volume to remain molten.
Wake wrote:
Without cooling they have no way of reducing this reaction.

It is underwater. It is being cooled by water. It's pretty good at that, you know.
Wake wrote:
Tell us all - what do you believe "small hydro" to be? Powering a CITY???

You could pay attention to what I described it to be: homes and possibly a small town.
Wake wrote:
Tell us how you can harness "small hydro" and waste water over a fish ladder?

Easy. Build it that way. People have done that around here and it works fine.
Wake wrote:
I wonder exactly how your mind works when you can't for one second think.

Another insult stream.
Wake wrote:
Your engineering skills really show just how stupid you are. You don't need to dam rivers with enough flow.

Generally you do. You need an elevation drop to harness a river for power. Dams localize that drop in one location so you can build a bigger power plant in one location.
Wake wrote:
The flow rate of the Columbia makes dams unnecessary unless the amount of power necessary exceeds the power of the flow.

Very inefficient. Spreading out the power generation systems all along the river (to accomplish the same goal) means destroying much more habitat, plus a much more complex distribution system for what you generate.

Remember dams are not built to generate electricity. They are built to control water flow. Electricity generation is a bonus.

Wake wrote:
Since you haven't one single bit of knowledge of how to design a dam perhaps you ought to just call them a damn.

I know what they are for and how to anchor them. I know how to instrument their power plants and water flow control systems. I know the different materials a dam is constructed of and why. Perhaps I know a bit more about dams than you do.
Wake wrote:
I am enough of a naturalist to know a great deal more about fish and their spawning habits

Apparently not.
Wake wrote:
than some jackass that doesn't know that trout will move towards the clean water of the sources of rivers.

WRONG. Trout move to where their food supply is, and to where they can spawn safely without currents washing away their eggs. Trout actually help to CLEAN rivers.
Wake wrote:
You aren't even bright enough to know that very few dams contain fish ladders for two reasons - they waste water that is used to generate energy and fish ladders do not work well.

Trout do not need fish ladders. They are pretty happy where they are. Only salmon need fish ladders. Not all dams require fish ladders.

The primary purpose of a dam is not to generate electricity. It's to control water flow.
Wake wrote:
You don't see any reduction of birds on the bay?

Not particularly.
Wake wrote:
What in the hell would you know about it?

What I see when I am down there.
Wake wrote:
...deleted Holy Quote...

I see you have a lot of faith in your government. I don't trust them any further than I could throw them.
Wake wrote:
You really have a mouth for an ignorant fool. I was born and lived 18 years 3 blocks from the Oakland Estuary and watched the disappearance of the birds in LARGE number.

Funny how I haven't noticed it. I think you are making it up.
Wake wrote:
While on the San Francisco waterfront seagulls of three species are still fairly stable the rest of the bay is a dead zone.

Birds have moved around on the bay to avoid population increases, but they are still there. Seagulls actually benefit from city life.
Wake wrote:
Tell us again about the birds you ignorant fool.

Just did. You wouldn't believe it anyway. You actually trust the government to tell the truth.
Wake wrote:
And I want you to tell us WHAT Salmon charters operate inside the bay? You don't even have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

May I suggest a good telephone book? There are three of them.

Salmon charters do not operate in side bays and harbors. They operate just outside of them near the ocean reefs, where salmon like to hang out. Apparently you are unaware of the life of salmon.
Wake wrote:
I simply cannot believe how you can flaunt your ignorance about virtually every matter on this site and not realize that you don't know anything you're talking about.

Yet another insult stream. Ignored.


The Parrot Killer
11-02-2018 20:41
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5138)
Wake wrote:
still learning wrote:
[quote]Wake wrote:

The fuel is not molten.


The nuclear fuel inside of the Fukushima power plant is molten /quote]

Might check out this website:http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/f1/pla/index-e.html


"On November 30, 2017, deficiencies were found in parts of the cables leading inside the pedestal below the Unit 3 Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV), for three of the nine thermometers installed at the bottom section. Those three thermometers are considered to be broken because they were unable to measure the temperature there. Therefore, thermometers (temperature (1), temperature (2) and temperature (3) as above) have been excluded for monitoring the operational limit of being within 80 degrees at the RPV bottom section, as defined by Article 18 (Reactor water injection system) of the Specifications for Specified Nuclear Facility in Implementation Plan III. Monitoring is being carried out by the remaining six thermometers.
○Data may change or be missing due to equipment failure or regular inspections."

There are no thermometers in the center sections of the containment. The fact that this area is still molten really cannot be doubted. The radiation levels there are still high enough that it is plain that something is going on and it will until the radiation from Unit 1 is reduced to the undetectable levels.

Do you even know what that data means?


The fuel is not molten. There are pictures of it taken by robots. They measured the temperature of the surrounding water too. It has cooled and crusted on the previous structures of the reactor. It still puts out enough heat to make the water hot, but not enough to remain molten.

No fuel is still molten at any of the 1, 2, 3, or 4 reactors.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate Ideas of Mine:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The Data Mine22804-05-2018 22:56
Why trafn no longer moderates the Sharing Ideas sub-forum.302-11-2015 18:26
Greetings and welcome to Sharing Ideas!202-11-2015 14:42
Climate change: Search of right ideas123-08-2013 19:23
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact