Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 76 of 76

Thread: The People of Vermont vs. Nuclear Power

  1. #71
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,687

    Re: The People of Vermont vs. Nuclear Power

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    Your words "a couple of windmills equalling a nuke plant." Only a complete fool would say such a thing. I think the larger windmills are 4-6 megawatt, but I'm not a proponent of Centralized Distribution of Electricity. Inefficient. No storage. It is a continuation of Centralized Collection of Monies and that is why it is subsidized. Subsidize it at in-home not at the Corporate level. Davey does not live in Vermont but believes in democracy and if Vermonters do not want nukes, it is their decision. If such a referendum were proposed in my area, I would vote to not purchase any nuclear power. For that matter, no distributed energies. That probably sounds farfetched to you, but I understand energy. That makes one of us.
    You seem to have an obsession about centralizint anything/everything....
    What education and/or life experience makes you an expert on energy, or decentralization?
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

  2. #72
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:05 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,305

    Re: The People of Vermont vs. Nuclear Power

    Quote Originally Posted by UtahBill View Post
    You seem to have an obsession about centralizint anything/everything....
    What education and/or life experience makes you an expert on energy, or decentralization?

    Decentralization of Energy Distribution Equals Energy Efficiency
    10OCT2007

    What does that mean? The energy used should be produced/generated/collected at the end users location/home/business. Solar energy collected is used to charge batteries for local storage or used directly as heat/hot water/greenhouse. An internal combustion engine drives a dynamo to generate electricity to be used or stored and the waste exhaust heat that contains the original 75% of the energy is captured for central heating or heating of potable water. A windmill is used to generate electricity for battery storage or pump water for storage or use. A night soil generator produces methane for cooking or heating. The wood cook stove or heating unit chimney pipe is tapped to collect wasted heat in water or a change of state material for heat storage capacity. The exhaust system of your car heats a change of state material with wasted hot gases to be tapped when the owner returns home in a reverse change of state heating process and stored or used in the owner’s facility/home/work area.
    These processes all have one thing in common. The decentralization of energy distribution. Power/energy is not shipped to the end user with continual and multiplying losses. For example, the waste heat from a small electric generator becomes the central heating plant for the same home. Seventy five percent (75%) of the gasoline used in internal combustion engines is currently wasted as heat to the atmosphere (global warming). If we can store that heat, bring it home with the car and move the heat into storage in the home, then we could bring the efficiency up considerably. If the home is well insulated and has ventilation control, the final loss to the atmosphere will be minimized. Using solar power, wind power, methane from waste, biomass, and other renewables has always been for local distribution and usage.
    Our current usage patterns for Petroleum and Natural Gas are abominable. We only use about 12-15% of the energy in the fuels and the remainder is lost to the atmosphere as waste heat. Is there any advantage to this decentralization? If we could collectively increase our efficiency and perhaps achieve 50% actual efficiency, we would only use one-third (1/3rd) of the world’s current annual usage of petroleum and natural gas. That would significantly affect the Global Warming scenarios. This efficiency would translate to dollar savings to be spent in the locales saved, benefiting twice from the same efficiency. Many jobs would be created at the local level implementing the energy decentralization efficiencies, thrice benefiting. This is the National/International plan to mitigate Global Warming and promote local economies. Could there be a down side to the decentralization of energy distribution?
    The status quo of centralized energy distribution, such as existing nuclear, coal, petroleum and natural gas utilities, and the refiners/processors delivering current fuels to these status quo utilities would suffer reduced demand. The hue and cry from an entrenched bureaucracy that can afford big media coverage would be deafening. A group that promotes war for energy would certainly not give up easily. Power to the people would be the equivalent of revolutionary behavior to this well bankrolled elite. Think central bankers and large corporatists when you think elite. That would be the people who buy many of your politicians. What are you going to do?

  3. #73
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,687

    Re: The People of Vermont vs. Nuclear Power

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    Decentralization of Energy Distribution Equals Energy Efficiency
    10OCT2007

    What does that mean? The energy used should be produced/generated/collected at the end users location/home/business. Solar energy collected is used to charge batteries for local storage or used directly as heat/hot water/greenhouse. An internal combustion engine drives a dynamo to generate electricity to be used or stored and the waste exhaust heat that contains the original 75% of the energy is captured for central heating or heating of potable water. A windmill is used to generate electricity for battery storage or pump water for storage or use. A night soil generator produces methane for cooking or heating. The wood cook stove or heating unit chimney pipe is tapped to collect wasted heat in water or a change of state material for heat storage capacity. The exhaust system of your car heats a change of state material with wasted hot gases to be tapped when the owner returns home in a reverse change of state heating process and stored or used in the owner’s facility/home/work area.
    These processes all have one thing in common. The decentralization of energy distribution. Power/energy is not shipped to the end user with continual and multiplying losses. For example, the waste heat from a small electric generator becomes the central heating plant for the same home. Seventy five percent (75%) of the gasoline used in internal combustion engines is currently wasted as heat to the atmosphere (global warming). If we can store that heat, bring it home with the car and move the heat into storage in the home, then we could bring the efficiency up considerably. If the home is well insulated and has ventilation control, the final loss to the atmosphere will be minimized. Using solar power, wind power, methane from waste, biomass, and other renewables has always been for local distribution and usage.
    Our current usage patterns for Petroleum and Natural Gas are abominable. We only use about 12-15% of the energy in the fuels and the remainder is lost to the atmosphere as waste heat. Is there any advantage to this decentralization? If we could collectively increase our efficiency and perhaps achieve 50% actual efficiency, we would only use one-third (1/3rd) of the world’s current annual usage of petroleum and natural gas. That would significantly affect the Global Warming scenarios. This efficiency would translate to dollar savings to be spent in the locales saved, benefiting twice from the same efficiency. Many jobs would be created at the local level implementing the energy decentralization efficiencies, thrice benefiting. This is the National/International plan to mitigate Global Warming and promote local economies. Could there be a down side to the decentralization of energy distribution?
    The status quo of centralized energy distribution, such as existing nuclear, coal, petroleum and natural gas utilities, and the refiners/processors delivering current fuels to these status quo utilities would suffer reduced demand. The hue and cry from an entrenched bureaucracy that can afford big media coverage would be deafening. A group that promotes war for energy would certainly not give up easily. Power to the people would be the equivalent of revolutionary behavior to this well bankrolled elite. Think central bankers and large corporatists when you think elite. That would be the people who buy many of your politicians. What are you going to do?
    What am I going to do? stay on the grid. My lot isn't large enough to put on solar, wind, methane, gasoline generator, etc.
    And batteries are poison in a box. Who will recycle the billions of batteries needed?
    BUT, I am conserving. My energy bills are a lot smaller than most of my neighbors.
    Not going to have a greenhouse either, not as long as I can get food at the grocery store.
    We aren't going back to an agrarian society, it just won't work...

    The advantage of a large grid is being able to get power even if the local plant has to shut down for repairs, or a storm knocks it offline.
    A certain amount of centralized grid is a necessity.
    Yes, a lot of energy is wasted during transmission, hard to avoid that.

    Got any idea how much energy would be required to build the systems you want? Will there be a payback within an average lifespan? And how many of us have the funds to do such a thing? Banks won't lend money for that kind of thing, not even local banks.
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

  4. #74
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: The People of Vermont vs. Nuclear Power

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    Decentralization of Energy Distribution Equals Energy Efficiency
    10OCT2007

    What does that mean? The energy used should be produced/generated/collected at the end users location/home/business. Solar energy collected is used to charge batteries for local storage or used directly as heat/hot water/greenhouse. An internal combustion engine drives a dynamo to generate electricity to be used or stored and the waste exhaust heat that contains the original 75% of the energy is captured for central heating or heating of potable water. A windmill is used to generate electricity for battery storage or pump water for storage or use. A night soil generator produces methane for cooking or heating. The wood cook stove or heating unit chimney pipe is tapped to collect wasted heat in water or a change of state material for heat storage capacity. The exhaust system of your car heats a change of state material with wasted hot gases to be tapped when the owner returns home in a reverse change of state heating process and stored or used in the owner’s facility/home/work area.
    These processes all have one thing in common. The decentralization of energy distribution. Power/energy is not shipped to the end user with continual and multiplying losses. For example, the waste heat from a small electric generator becomes the central heating plant for the same home. Seventy five percent (75%) of the gasoline used in internal combustion engines is currently wasted as heat to the atmosphere (global warming). If we can store that heat, bring it home with the car and move the heat into storage in the home, then we could bring the efficiency up considerably. If the home is well insulated and has ventilation control, the final loss to the atmosphere will be minimized. Using solar power, wind power, methane from waste, biomass, and other renewables has always been for local distribution and usage.
    Our current usage patterns for Petroleum and Natural Gas are abominable. We only use about 12-15% of the energy in the fuels and the remainder is lost to the atmosphere as waste heat. Is there any advantage to this decentralization? If we could collectively increase our efficiency and perhaps achieve 50% actual efficiency, we would only use one-third (1/3rd) of the world’s current annual usage of petroleum and natural gas. That would significantly affect the Global Warming scenarios. This efficiency would translate to dollar savings to be spent in the locales saved, benefiting twice from the same efficiency. Many jobs would be created at the local level implementing the energy decentralization efficiencies, thrice benefiting. This is the National/International plan to mitigate Global Warming and promote local economies. Could there be a down side to the decentralization of energy distribution?
    The status quo of centralized energy distribution, such as existing nuclear, coal, petroleum and natural gas utilities, and the refiners/processors delivering current fuels to these status quo utilities would suffer reduced demand. The hue and cry from an entrenched bureaucracy that can afford big media coverage would be deafening. A group that promotes war for energy would certainly not give up easily. Power to the people would be the equivalent of revolutionary behavior to this well bankrolled elite. Think central bankers and large corporatists when you think elite. That would be the people who buy many of your politicians. What are you going to do?
    Quote Originally Posted by UtahBill View Post
    What am I going to do? stay on the grid. My lot isn't large enough to put on solar, wind, methane, gasoline generator, etc.
    And batteries are poison in a box. Who will recycle the billions of batteries needed?
    BUT, I am conserving. My energy bills are a lot smaller than most of my neighbors.
    Not going to have a greenhouse either, not as long as I can get food at the grocery store.
    We aren't going back to an agrarian society, it just won't work...

    The advantage of a large grid is being able to get power even if the local plant has to shut down for repairs, or a storm knocks it offline.
    A certain amount of centralized grid is a necessity.
    Yes, a lot of energy is wasted during transmission, hard to avoid that.

    Got any idea how much energy would be required to build the systems you want? Will there be a payback within an average lifespan? And how many of us have the funds to do such a thing? Banks won't lend money for that kind of thing, not even local banks.

    Personally, I don't think its an "either/or choice". I think we need to do everything we possibly can onsite, and have the grid as a backup but there will be much less load on that grid if we are producing a sizable portion of our power on-site, which is entirely cost effective even with today's techology and knowledge of passive solar design.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  5. #75
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    01-18-13 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,631

    Re: The People of Vermont vs. Nuclear Power

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    I know, I know, you can absolutely assure me that this waste is manageable for thousands of generations. Sheesh, talk about pie in the sky. It is hypocrisy, clearly.
    Clearly not. Ditch the waste on the abyssal plains. Environmentally and geologically stable barren deserts, good for a hundred million years.

  6. #76
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:05 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,305

    Re: The People of Vermont vs. Nuclear Power

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayor Snorkum View Post
    Clearly not. Ditch the waste on the abyssal plains. Environmentally and geologically stable barren deserts, good for a hundred million years.
    A clear example of a synaptic failure. Perhaps you need to change your diet. Sodium or Potassium adjustments are a possibility. I notice that the coast of Japan hadn't had a tsunami in a while, and the salt in underground layers is left from evaporation of past oceans, even thought it might be a few thousand feet underground. Stable is relativity and you see it relative to yourself and your temporary time frame on the planet. Take a look at the big picture with a responsibility to future generations. That would be living and breathing future generations, not worker bees for big corporate. Big corporate's ideal is a robot. Notice it doesn't live and breathe. Get real.

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •