RE: California power ... unplugged.
Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com> wrote:
The Enviro-Nazis are at it again, demonstrating why no new power plants have been built here, in the past 15 years.
Did you live in SV during the late 70s Roeland? I did and remember its pre-"Enviro-Nazi" smog all too well. Some days you couldn't even see _3_blocks_. I don't suppose the thousands of people who have avoided lung and other cancers because of clean air regulation would rather go back to the way it was to avoid any number of blackouts. Pollution trade-offs aside there's no rational way to blame clean-air regulations for California's power problem. Nor can you blame the states virtually stagnant demand. There is more than enough power and the cost to produce it hasn't changed significantly for decades. What has changed is the market. A) out of state hold-backs forcing spot-market and other prices (though not costs) up mainly thanks to B) Ronald Regan, who dismantled the forward thinking energy policies worked out by Ford and Carter after the (Arab) oil embargo.
Between the enviro-nazis and the no-nukes folks (they *are* different groups), California has been dead-locked on power plant construction for almost 20 years.
Roeland's diatribe should be the tip-off. "Just build more {power plants, freeways, nuclear, etc.}" will only get us more {acid rain sterilized lakes, urban blight, Chernobyl radiated milk, Mexico City smog, ...}.
This, in a population so brainwashed, it actually wants to pay more taxes, even when they are already taxed at the 60% level.
Brainwashed in Morgan Hill perhaps. Anyhow, I hope this manufactured "crisis" will at least get solar, wind, and co-generation back on track before further Regan/Bush anti-environment, pro-business-monopoly, short-sighted policies make life just that much worse for us and those who will be living here 50 and 100 years from now. -- Roger Marquis Roble Systems Consulting http://www.roble.com/
On Sat, 28 Apr 2001, Roger Marquis wrote:
Roeland's diatribe should be the tip-off. "Just build more {power plants, freeways, nuclear, etc.}" will only get us more {acid rain sterilized lakes, urban blight, Chernobyl radiated milk, Mexico City smog, ...}.
Sorry, but nukes are clean and safe. Sure people have died from nukes, but millions have died from producing coal for plants. Why do we build coal plants and not nukes? Because people don't care if OTHERS die, if 100,000 people a year die from digging coal they are not in your community, that is better then the risk to THEM however small. You should look at the numbers of people in the US that die powering coal plants and the number that have died in coal fired plants.
<> Nathan Stratton CTO, Exario Networks, Inc. nathan@robotics.net nathan@exario.net http://www.robotics.net http://www.exario.net
On Sat, 28 Apr 2001, Nathan Stratton wrote:
Roeland's diatribe should be the tip-off. "Just build more {power plants, freeways, nuclear, etc.}" will only get us more {acid rain sterilized lakes, urban blight, Chernobyl radiated milk, Mexico City smog, ...}. Sorry, but nukes are clean and safe. Sure people have died from nukes, but millions have died from producing coal for plants. Why do we build coal plants and not nukes? Because people don't care if OTHERS die, if 100,000 people a year die from digging coal they are not in your community, that is better then the risk to THEM however small. You should look at the numbers of people in the US that die powering coal
On Sat, 28 Apr 2001, Roger Marquis wrote: plants and the number that have died in coal fired plants.
Roger should also compare the amount of radiation released by properly running nuclear plant to the amount of radiation released by coal fired power plants. Coal fired power plants release tons of radioactive thorium and uranium into the air every year. -Dan
On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 07:02:28PM -0700, Dan Hollis wrote:
Roger should also compare the amount of radiation released by properly running nuclear plant to the amount of radiation released by coal fired power plants. Coal fired power plants release tons of radioactive thorium and uranium into the air every year.
Hell, go ahead and compare the amount of radiation released accidentally by every US power plant in total forever, against the amount released by an average coal plant in a year.
All true, but irrelevant to the people with cancer in the Ukraine and elsewhere. Still, having worked in rnd.pge.com back when it was a state of the art department, the consensus there was that small nuclear plants were far safer than the large one's in vogue before 3 mile island (whose core is now encased in concrete for thousands of years). No question nuclear is clean but only if you carefully ignore the danger of depleted uranium. But I digress, that's a problem for future generations (if we're lucky). Roger
Sorry, but nukes are clean and safe. Sure people have died from nukes, but millions have died from producing coal for plants. Why do we build coal plants and not nukes? Because people don't care if OTHERS die, if 100,000 people a year die from digging coal they are not in your community, that is better then the risk to THEM however small.
Perhaps you just need some properly built nuclear plants. :) Ontario has 3 nuclear plants that generator 40% of the province's power and these things are pretty much the safest nukes in the world. Last time I took a tour of one, they said they were building similar plants for other countries. Perhaps you Yanks want to buy some Canadian built technology, eh? http://www.opg.com/newgen/nuclear/nuclear.asp -- James S. Smith The first time I ever administered Exchange 5.5 was Feb 21st, 2001. The last time I ever wanted to touch Exchange 5.5 was Feb 21st, 2001 On Sat, 28 Apr 2001, Roger Marquis wrote:
All true, but irrelevant to the people with cancer in the Ukraine and elsewhere. Still, having worked in rnd.pge.com back when it was a state of the art department, the consensus there was that small nuclear plants were far safer than the large one's in vogue before 3 mile island (whose core is now encased in concrete for thousands of years).
No question nuclear is clean but only if you carefully ignore the danger of depleted uranium. But I digress, that's a problem for future generations (if we're lucky).
Roger
Sorry, but nukes are clean and safe. Sure people have died from nukes, but millions have died from producing coal for plants. Why do we build coal plants and not nukes? Because people don't care if OTHERS die, if 100,000 people a year die from digging coal they are not in your community, that is better then the risk to THEM however small.
Well said, good form. "James S. Smith" <jssmith@mobshop.com> wrote:
Perhaps you just need some properly built nuclear plants. :) Ontario has 3 nuclear plants that generator 40% of the province's power and these things are pretty much the safest nukes in the world. Last time I took a tour of one, they said they were building similar plants for other countries. Perhaps you Yanks want to buy some Canadian built technology, eh?
http://www.opg.com/newgen/nuclear/nuclear.asp
-- James S. Smith
On Sat, 28 Apr 2001, Roger Marquis wrote:
No question nuclear is clean but only if you carefully ignore the danger of depleted uranium. But I digress, that's a problem for future generations (if we're lucky).
Here is this wacky view point again... nuclear power plants don't manufacture uranium. It's not like the uranium used didn't exist before it was mined. Would you consider building a housing track in the middle of a yellow cake uranium mineral deposit environmentally safe because it is naturally occurring? This is the "naturally occurring must be good" falacy. Take radon gas for example, though I digress... Point is, either way future generations will have the same amount of uranium or less. I've allways found it hypocritical how antinuclear people support coal burning power plants that release more material into the air than nuclear power plants output. I find it an interesting example of human social studies. This being considered, I've been wondering about whether Internet industry lobbying organizations like CIX or the CISPA should have a energy policy. My cynical side says that economic darwinism will ensure that people that don't have an energy policy will end up in businesses that don't rely on power. i.e. You don't like power plants? Don't worry, in a little more time you won't have to worry about a job that depends as much on electricity. California has allways had a large amount of fruit picking jobs. ;) Heh, when the availability and price of electricity start affecting decisions involving your operations, you are being an ostritch if you don't atleast examine the possible solutions and develop and opinion. Mike. :)
Roger
Sorry, but nukes are clean and safe. Sure people have died from nukes, but millions have died from producing coal for plants. Why do we build coal plants and not nukes? Because people don't care if OTHERS die, if 100,000 people a year die from digging coal they are not in your community, that is better then the risk to THEM however small.
+------------------- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C -------------------+ | Mike Leber Direct Internet Connections Voice 510 580 4100 | | Hurricane Electric Web Hosting Colocation Fax 510 580 4151 | | mleber@he.net http://www.he.net | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Pal, wacky point of view, huh? ;-) You're way off base with your hypothesis about waste products of nuclear power. And I'm by no means "Green" or whatever else you'd like to call the treehuggers. Sure they manufacture Usomething from another Usomethingelse. They are uniquely different elements and if you don't recognize that, you need to go check out yourself. It's interesting stuff, and you mighty learn something. Uranium, and the isotopes derived from the naturally occuring one, is only one of the elements of cause serious concern. It doesn't take much physics and chemistry and biology knowledge to fully understand the complex of problems. The point isn't Uwhatever, the point is the series of waste products generated during the entire lifecycle of the reactor. This includes what is generated during the course of the operation of the reactor and has to be disassembled from time to time for routine maintainence to keep the reactor safe as well as at the end of the life of a reactor (yes, they have limited lifetimes). Anything which has been exposed to those amounts of neutron flux common in such plants is not something you want to live on. If you factor it all in for the lifecycle of power generation method x, nuclear power is considerably more expensive than any other power generation method presently in use. There are plenty of studies that prove this point, check your favorite public library for the study and backup materials. Or, you can just stay ignorant and not consider the entire lifecycle and claim that nuclear power is cheaper, better, bla bla bla. Fairy tales do serve their purpose, I suppose. Did you know that Chernobyl has to be burried in concrete for the next 25k years (earliest halflife time of the elements burried in the plant)? Where were you or your ancestors 25k years ago? Simply the facts around proper storage for very long periods of time (25k years or more) should be a hint at the problems around nuclear waste, even though it isn't an exhaustive one. I would strongly recommend you do your homework before broadcasting such nonsense. I'm sure I'll just get yet another pointless flame back, but you're so wrong that I couldn't restraint myself not saying something about all this nonsense. I suppose it will never cease to amaze me what sort of things are born out of ignorance... Anyways, back to our regularly scheduled flamewars... Cheers, Chris On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 11:19:54AM -0700, Mike Leber wrote:
On Sat, 28 Apr 2001, Roger Marquis wrote:
No question nuclear is clean but only if you carefully ignore the danger of depleted uranium. But I digress, that's a problem for future generations (if we're lucky).
Here is this wacky view point again... nuclear power plants don't manufacture uranium. It's not like the uranium used didn't exist before it was mined. Would you consider building a housing track in the middle of a yellow cake uranium mineral deposit environmentally safe because it is naturally occurring?
This is the "naturally occurring must be good" falacy. Take radon gas for example, though I digress...
Point is, either way future generations will have the same amount of uranium or less.
I've allways found it hypocritical how antinuclear people support coal burning power plants that release more material into the air than nuclear power plants output. I find it an interesting example of human social studies.
This being considered, I've been wondering about whether Internet industry lobbying organizations like CIX or the CISPA should have a energy policy. My cynical side says that economic darwinism will ensure that people that don't have an energy policy will end up in businesses that don't rely on power. i.e. You don't like power plants? Don't worry, in a little more time you won't have to worry about a job that depends as much on electricity. California has allways had a large amount of fruit picking jobs. ;)
Heh, when the availability and price of electricity start affecting decisions involving your operations, you are being an ostritch if you don't atleast examine the possible solutions and develop and opinion.
Mike. :)
Roger
Sorry, but nukes are clean and safe. Sure people have died from nukes, but millions have died from producing coal for plants. Why do we build coal plants and not nukes? Because people don't care if OTHERS die, if 100,000 people a year die from digging coal they are not in your community, that is better then the risk to THEM however small.
+------------------- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C -------------------+ | Mike Leber Direct Internet Connections Voice 510 580 4100 | | Hurricane Electric Web Hosting Colocation Fax 510 580 4151 | | mleber@he.net http://www.he.net | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
-- Christian Kuhtz <ck@arch.bellsouth.net> -wk, <ck@gnu.org> -hm Sr. Architect, Engineering & Architecture, BellSouth.net, Atlanta, GA, U.S. "I speak for myself only.""
On Sun, 29 Apr 2001, Christian Kuhtz wrote:
If you factor it all in for the lifecycle of power generation method x, nuclear power is considerably more expensive than any other power generation method presently in use.
I find this unlikely since Canada is considering selling power to the western US and they use nuclear. Or they are just stupid?
Did you know that Chernobyl has to be burried in concrete for the next 25k years (earliest halflife time of the elements burried in the plant)? Where were you or your ancestors 25k years ago?
Does the fact that Bhopal occured mean that we shouldn't have chemical processing plants anywhere in the world?
Simply the facts around proper storage for very long periods of time (25k years or more) should be a hint at the problems around nuclear waste, even though it isn't an exhaustive one.
This is solved, although rather boringly. Volumetrically, waste takes up less space than the original mined material. You wouldn't build houses on either. Both are buried materials. How long does it take for a mountain range to move? longer than 25k years.
I'm sure I'll just get yet another pointless flame back, but you're so wrong that I couldn't restraint myself not saying something about all this nonsense.
No flame here. Back to the operational aspect. So, on balance you feel coal is less harmful. That is fine. Others disagree. In any case not building power plants isn't a choice. California already ranks 48th lowest in power consumption per capita. So, now that you must chose, what type will you build? Chosing not to build power plants in this case is effectively quitting the game/getting out of the Internet business since you are already at 100% capacity. If you are in the western US this will effect you, whether you form an opinion or not. Mike.
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 11:19:54AM -0700, Mike Leber wrote:
On Sat, 28 Apr 2001, Roger Marquis wrote:
No question nuclear is clean but only if you carefully ignore the danger of depleted uranium. But I digress, that's a problem for future generations (if we're lucky).
Here is this wacky view point again... nuclear power plants don't manufacture uranium. It's not like the uranium used didn't exist before it was mined. Would you consider building a housing track in the middle of a yellow cake uranium mineral deposit environmentally safe because it is naturally occurring?
This is the "naturally occurring must be good" falacy. Take radon gas for example, though I digress...
Point is, either way future generations will have the same amount of uranium or less.
I've allways found it hypocritical how antinuclear people support coal burning power plants that release more material into the air than nuclear power plants output. I find it an interesting example of human social studies.
This being considered, I've been wondering about whether Internet industry lobbying organizations like CIX or the CISPA should have a energy policy. My cynical side says that economic darwinism will ensure that people that don't have an energy policy will end up in businesses that don't rely on power. i.e. You don't like power plants? Don't worry, in a little more time you won't have to worry about a job that depends as much on electricity. California has allways had a large amount of fruit picking jobs. ;)
Heh, when the availability and price of electricity start affecting decisions involving your operations, you are being an ostritch if you don't atleast examine the possible solutions and develop and opinion.
Mike. :)
Roger
Sorry, but nukes are clean and safe. Sure people have died from nukes, but millions have died from producing coal for plants. Why do we build coal plants and not nukes? Because people don't care if OTHERS die, if 100,000 people a year die from digging coal they are not in your community, that is better then the risk to THEM however small.
+------------------- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C -------------------+ | Mike Leber Direct Internet Connections Voice 510 580 4100 | | Hurricane Electric Web Hosting Colocation Fax 510 580 4151 | | mleber@he.net http://www.he.net | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
-- Christian Kuhtz <ck@arch.bellsouth.net> -wk, <ck@gnu.org> -hm Sr. Architect, Engineering & Architecture, BellSouth.net, Atlanta, GA, U.S. "I speak for myself only.""
+------------------- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C -------------------+ | Mike Leber Direct Internet Connections Voice 510 580 4100 | | Hurricane Electric Web Hosting Colocation Fax 510 580 4151 | | mleber@he.net http://www.he.net | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
I don't see any reasonable issue in this discussion. Coal and GAS power plants use limited organic resources and will be replaced by the other power sources including nuclear ones; heat plants (coal ones) provide much more enviromental pollution; nuclear wastes are limited in size and the problem how to store them can be solved by many ways. So, the countries which contribute into nuclear power today will have a benefits, and other will pay to this countries by some way. And so, it's terrible mistake (it's why I hate green people being one of them by some mean) to stop the builting and investigation of the nuclear power plants. No one see any other way out of the current situation, and all we (or green ones) can do is to move the problem (limited organic resources) to the next generation. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christian Kuhtz" <ck@arch.bellsouth.net> To: "Mike Leber" <mleber@he.net> Cc: <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2001 3:11 PM Subject: Re: California power ... unplugged.
Pal,
wacky point of view, huh? ;-)
You're way off base with your hypothesis about waste products of nuclear power. And I'm by no means "Green" or whatever else you'd like to call the treehuggers.
Sure they manufacture Usomething from another Usomethingelse. They are uniquely different elements and if you don't recognize that, you need to go check out yourself. It's interesting stuff, and you mighty learn something. Uranium, and the isotopes derived from the naturally occuring one, is only one of the elements of cause serious concern. It doesn't take much physics and chemistry and biology knowledge to fully understand the complex of problems.
The point isn't Uwhatever, the point is the series of waste products generated during the entire lifecycle of the reactor. This includes what is generated during the course of the operation of the reactor and has to be disassembled from time to time for routine maintainence to keep the reactor safe as well as at the end of the life of a reactor (yes, they have limited lifetimes). Anything which has been exposed to those amounts of neutron flux common in such plants is not something you want to live on.
If you factor it all in for the lifecycle of power generation method x, nuclear power is considerably more expensive than any other power generation method presently in use.
There are plenty of studies that prove this point, check your favorite public library for the study and backup materials.
Or, you can just stay ignorant and not consider the entire lifecycle and claim that nuclear power is cheaper, better, bla bla bla. Fairy tales do serve their purpose, I suppose.
Did you know that Chernobyl has to be burried in concrete for the next 25k years (earliest halflife time of the elements burried in the plant)? Where were you or your ancestors 25k years ago?
Simply the facts around proper storage for very long periods of time (25k years or more) should be a hint at the problems around nuclear waste, even though it isn't an exhaustive one.
I would strongly recommend you do your homework before broadcasting such nonsense.
I'm sure I'll just get yet another pointless flame back, but you're so wrong that I couldn't restraint myself not saying something about all this nonsense.
I suppose it will never cease to amaze me what sort of things are born out of ignorance...
Anyways, back to our regularly scheduled flamewars...
Cheers, Chris
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 11:19:54AM -0700, Mike Leber wrote:
On Sat, 28 Apr 2001, Roger Marquis wrote:
No question nuclear is clean but only if you carefully ignore the danger of depleted uranium. But I digress, that's a problem for future generations (if we're lucky).
Here is this wacky view point again... nuclear power plants don't manufacture uranium. It's not like the uranium used didn't exist before it was mined. Would you consider building a housing track in the middle of a yellow cake uranium mineral deposit environmentally safe because it is naturally occurring?
This is the "naturally occurring must be good" falacy. Take radon gas for example, though I digress...
Point is, either way future generations will have the same amount of uranium or less.
I've allways found it hypocritical how antinuclear people support coal burning power plants that release more material into the air than nuclear power plants output. I find it an interesting example of human social studies.
This being considered, I've been wondering about whether Internet industry lobbying organizations like CIX or the CISPA should have a energy policy. My cynical side says that economic darwinism will ensure that people that don't have an energy policy will end up in businesses that don't rely on power. i.e. You don't like power plants? Don't worry, in a little more time you won't have to worry about a job that depends as much on electricity. California has allways had a large amount of fruit picking jobs. ;)
Heh, when the availability and price of electricity start affecting decisions involving your operations, you are being an ostritch if you don't atleast examine the possible solutions and develop and opinion.
Mike. :)
Roger
Sorry, but nukes are clean and safe. Sure people have died from nukes, but millions have died from producing coal for plants. Why do we build coal plants and not nukes? Because people don't care if OTHERS die, if 100,000 people a year die from digging coal they are not in your community, that is better then the risk to THEM however small.
+------------------- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C -------------------+ | Mike Leber Direct Internet Connections Voice 510 580 4100 | | Hurricane Electric Web Hosting Colocation Fax 510 580 4151 | | mleber@he.net http://www.he.net | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
-- Christian Kuhtz <ck@arch.bellsouth.net> -wk, <ck@gnu.org> -hm Sr. Architect, Engineering & Architecture, BellSouth.net, Atlanta, GA, U.S. "I speak for myself only.""
On Sun, 29 Apr 2001, Alexei Roudnev wrote:
limited organic resources and will be replaced by the other power sources including nuclear ones; heat plants (coal ones) provide much more enviromental pollution; nuclear wastes are limited in size and the problem how to store them can be solved by many ways.
Just a short note to make sure everyone stays at least HALF on track here. Nuclear plants generate power by HEATING water to run turbines. As such, the only difference between a nuclear plant and a coal or gas plant is the heat source. --- John Fraizer EnterZone, Inc
On Sun, 29 Apr 2001, Alexei Roudnev wrote:
limited organic resources and will be replaced by the other power sources including nuclear ones; heat plants (coal ones) provide much more enviromental pollution; nuclear wastes are limited in size and the problem how to store
Not only - yopu did forgot about CO2 and other air pollutions. But we got far from nanog issueas, are we? ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Fraizer" <nanog@Overkill.EnterZone.Net> To: "Alexei Roudnev" <alex@relcom.EU.net> Cc: <nanog@merit.edu> Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2001 11:48 PM Subject: Re: California power ... unplugged. them
can be solved by many ways.
Just a short note to make sure everyone stays at least HALF on track here. Nuclear plants generate power by HEATING water to run turbines. As such, the only difference between a nuclear plant and a coal or gas plant is the heat source.
--- John Fraizer EnterZone, Inc
Sorry, but nukes are clean and safe. Sure people have died from nukes, but millions have died from producing coal for plants. Why do we build
Hear in the land of the Tennessee Valley Authority, home to Oak Ridge and power producing nuke plants, electricity is plentiful, but a large percentage of it is Hydro and Coal. Nuke plants are expensive to build and operate, mostly due to red tape and 'job program' hiring practices. Either way... there is both electricity and connectivity here, lots of fiber on the railroad tracks. To bad Tennessee taxes and tax practices on telecommunications and internet services make me wish I was elsewhere. My point... Nuke plants are expensive. Check out Watts Bar Nuclear Plant. It sets records for costs of construction and operation. We need more power/heat efficient equipment, efficient cooling systems and better designed buildings. Luckily, the equipment is getting smaller, and used less energy for more functionality and power. --Mike--
participants (11)
-
Alexei Roudnev -
Christian Kuhtz -
Dan Hollis -
Dee McKinney -
James S. Smith -
John Fraizer -
mike harrison -
Mike Leber -
Nathan Stratton -
Roger Marquis -
Shawn McMahon