Electric Sonex

[Bill Daniels]

See: http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm#d

Well, it wouldn't work for me but the idea might be developed into a
pre-solo trainer. . A one hour duration could translate into 45 minute
instruction sessions costing $50. Dunno...might work for a flight school.
No cross country, of course. That would require a piston engine.

New lithium phosphate cells can be recharged in 5 minutes - if you have
access to a VERY high amperage charger

Bill Daniels

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Bill Daniels wrote:
> See: http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm#d
>
> Well, it wouldn't work for me but the idea might be developed into a
> pre-solo trainer. . A one hour duration could translate into 45
> minute instruction sessions costing $50. Dunno...might work for a
> flight school. No cross country, of course. That would require a
> piston engine.
> New lithium phosphate cells can be recharged in 5 minutes - if you
> have access to a VERY high amperage charger
>
> Bill Daniels

No if that thing has enough energy stored to fly for 1 hour then assuming
you are talking about daytime VFR flight then the flight can on last 30
minutes.

Sec. 91.151

Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions.

(a) No person may begin a flight in an airplane under VFR conditions unless
(considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough fuel to
fly to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising
speed--
(1) During the day, to fly after that for at least 30 minutes; or
(2) At night, to fly after that for at least 45 minutes.




Now maybe they took the 30 minute reserve into account when they said 1 hour
but I didn't see that any where in the story.

I kind of doubt that the electric engine that is going to be able to power
an aircraft in a commercially usable way is going to come from a company
that's last engine product was a modified VW engine. Unless he has hired a
metric butt load of really sharp folks and has a megabutt load of cash to
throw at the problem.

[Dan Nafe]

In article >,
"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:

>
> No if that thing has enough energy stored to fly for 1 hour then assuming
> you are talking about daytime VFR flight then the flight can on last 30
> minutes.

Thirty minutes in the practice area, then thirty, no, make that twenty
nine, minutes in the pattern. ;->


I love it. We need to stop using ferin' oil, this is the first of many
steps in the right direction.

It raises some interesting things to think about:

Take off weight equals landing weight. (no fuel burn off)
No C.G. shift. (no fuel burn off)
It would be an improved training environment (no engine noise)
The prop makes a good bit of noise.
What if your tiedown spot was all solar cells?
Will FBO's stock charged batteries for cross-country flights?

[Vaughn Simon]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions.
>
> (a) No person may begin a flight in an airplane under VFR conditions unless
> (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough fuel to fly
> to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed--
> (1) During the day, to fly after that for at least 30 minutes; or
> (2) At night, to fly after that for at least 45 minutes.
>

When I was instructing in gliders, it was routine to join the pattern with
(the energy equivalent) of perhaps three minutes of fuel! It always worked.

The difference is knowing precisely how much energy you have available.
The FARs say 30 minutes for airplanes partially because of the inaccuracy of the
average light plane fuel gauge and also because folks actually use their
airplanes to travel from one airport to another. Neither of those factors need
apply to an electric training airplane. First, it would operate from one field.
Second, technology exists to fairly precisely inform the pilot how much energy
remains in the batteries. (add a GPS-informed computer to the mix and you could
always be sure that you had enough energy to return to the field)

Vaughn

[Dan Nafe]

In article >,
"Vaughn Simon" > wrote:

> Second, technology exists to fairly precisely inform the pilot how much
> energy
> remains in the batteries. (add a GPS-informed computer to the mix and you
> could
> always be sure that you had enough energy to return to the field)

[smacks myself on the forehead]

What a great idea!

[[email protected]]

On Jul 24, 8:35 pm, Dan Nafe > wrote:

>
> I love it. We need to stop using ferin' oil, this is the first of many
> steps in the right direction.

Except that way too much electricity is being generated
using oil or natural gas, and the losses of efficiency in first
burning the stuff, then generating electricity, transmitting it long
distances and losing more, then the heat losses in running chargers
and more heat off the batteries, I think we'd end up burning nearly
twice as much as if we just stuck a VW on it.
Coal is more available but is so dirty. Nuclear is really
avaiable but isn't cheap and scares too many folks.

Dan

[Bill Daniels]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jul 24, 8:35 pm, Dan Nafe > wrote:
>
>>
>> I love it. We need to stop using ferin' oil, this is the first of many
>> steps in the right direction.
>
> Except that way too much electricity is being generated
> using oil or natural gas, and the losses of efficiency in first
> burning the stuff, then generating electricity, transmitting it long
> distances and losing more, then the heat losses in running chargers
> and more heat off the batteries, I think we'd end up burning nearly
> twice as much as if we just stuck a VW on it.
> Coal is more available but is so dirty. Nuclear is really
> avaiable but isn't cheap and scares too many folks.
>
> Dan
>
The beauty of electricity is its flexibility not its efficiency - although
it can be efficient too. The source can be solar cells, wind, hydro,
nuclear or conventional coal fired generators. Whatever the source, the
pollution can be tightly controlled. No matter the source, delivery is the
same.

Nuclear power is steadilly attracting supporters from the environmentallist
ranks. It's the least poluting, least disruptive power source available.
Solar, wind and biofuels will me massively harmful to the environment if
scaled up to meet a large fraction of the demand. To meet total electric
demand, a solar plant would have to be the size of Texas as would the farm
land needed to produce an equivalent demand for biofuels. When the greenies
do their math homework, nuclear starts looking good to them.

Obviously, the problem with electric airplanes is range. It's doubtful if
electricity storage will ever reach the energy density of gasoline. One
thing that amazes me is that electrons weight almost nothing. A charged
battery, for all practical purposes, weighes the same charged or not - the
energy the battery contains weighs nothing. It seems like the boffins could
figure out a way to pressurize a container with electrons.

There are already electric self-launch gliders you can buy. The battery
pack provides more than an hour of power with the capability to climb 10,000
feet. For a glider, that's easilly a two hour flight without lift.

Bill Daniels

[cavelamb himself[_2_]]

wrote:
> On Jul 24, 8:35 pm, Dan Nafe > wrote:
>
>
>>I love it. We need to stop using ferin' oil, this is the first of many
>>steps in the right direction.
>
>
> Except that way too much electricity is being generated
> using oil or natural gas, and the losses of efficiency in first
> burning the stuff, then generating electricity, transmitting it long
> distances and losing more, then the heat losses in running chargers
> and more heat off the batteries, I think we'd end up burning nearly
> twice as much as if we just stuck a VW on it.
> Coal is more available but is so dirty. Nuclear is really
> avaiable but isn't cheap and scares too many folks.
>
> Dan
>

I can almost envision a coal fired Sonex.

Fill the baggage compartment with coal and the "passenger" gets a
shovel...

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Bill Daniels wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> On Jul 24, 8:35 pm, Dan Nafe > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I love it. We need to stop using ferin' oil, this is the first of
>>> many steps in the right direction.
>>
>> Except that way too much electricity is being generated
>> using oil or natural gas, and the losses of efficiency in first
>> burning the stuff, then generating electricity, transmitting it long
>> distances and losing more, then the heat losses in running chargers
>> and more heat off the batteries, I think we'd end up burning nearly
>> twice as much as if we just stuck a VW on it.
>> Coal is more available but is so dirty. Nuclear is really
>> avaiable but isn't cheap and scares too many folks.
>>
>> Dan
>>
> The beauty of electricity is its flexibility not its efficiency -
> although it can be efficient too. The source can be solar cells,
> wind, hydro, nuclear or conventional coal fired generators. Whatever
> the source, the pollution can be tightly controlled. No matter the
> source, delivery is the same.
>
> Nuclear power is steadilly attracting supporters from the
> environmentallist ranks. It's the least poluting, least disruptive
> power source available. Solar, wind and biofuels will me massively
> harmful to the environment if scaled up to meet a large fraction of
> the demand. To meet total electric demand, a solar plant would have
> to be the size of Texas as would the farm land needed to produce an
> equivalent demand for biofuels. When the greenies do their math
> homework, nuclear starts looking good to them.
> Obviously, the problem with electric airplanes is range. It's
> doubtful if electricity storage will ever reach the energy density of
> gasoline. One thing that amazes me is that electrons weight almost
> nothing. A charged battery, for all practical purposes, weighes the
> same charged or not - the energy the battery contains weighs nothing.
> It seems like the boffins could figure out a way to pressurize a
> container with electrons.
> There are already electric self-launch gliders you can buy. The
> battery pack provides more than an hour of power with the capability
> to climb 10,000 feet. For a glider, that's easilly a two hour flight
> without lift.
> Bill Daniels


We are along way from even getting close to a replacement for gasoline in
aircraft or for that matter cars where weight isn't near as critical. BUT,
if we would stop using petroleum products in everything other than the
transportation sector we would reduce their use by 25%. And doing that would
be huge.

Many of the steps being taken now are nothing but "feel good" moves that
really don't reduce the amount of petroleum used just move some of the use
out of the public eye. In fact many of the current fuel saving programs
probably increase the net use of petroleum. Add to that the fact that we are
now replacing fuel with what should be food and you are just begging for
real problems in the future.

I think it is funny that the environmentalists are getting back on the Nuke
bandwagon, since it was mainly they that stopped construction of new nuclear
power plants in the first place. Nuclear energy is safe. The US Navy has
proved that. I've often wondered how large an area could be powered with the
reactor from a nuclear powered carrier? One of the big problems with
commercial nuke plants is that they almost always started each plant from
scratch on a clean sheet of paper. Think how much less it would cost if we
had an assembly line of small reactors. Yes I realize there is the issue of
what to do with the waste. The answer to that is reprocess until you can't
reprocess any more then shoot what's left into the sun. It would be like one
guy ****ing in the ocean.

[Peter Dohm]

>
>
> We are along way from even getting close to a replacement for gasoline in
> aircraft or for that matter cars where weight isn't near as critical. BUT,
> if we would stop using petroleum products in everything other than the
> transportation sector we would reduce their use by 25%. And doing that
would
> be huge.

IMHO, the 25% figure is very low--by more than an order of magnetude.

>
> Many of the steps being taken now are nothing but "feel good" moves that
> really don't reduce the amount of petroleum used just move some of the use
> out of the public eye. In fact many of the current fuel saving programs
> probably increase the net use of petroleum. Add to that the fact that we
are
> now replacing fuel with what should be food and you are just begging for
> real problems in the future.
>

Very true. BTW, I have heard that's what really brought down the Japanese
war machine in WWII.

> I think it is funny that the environmentalists are getting back on the
Nuke
> bandwagon, since it was mainly they that stopped construction of new
nuclear
> power plants in the first place. Nuclear energy is safe. The US Navy has
> proved that. I've often wondered how large an area could be powered with
the
> reactor from a nuclear powered carrier? One of the big problems with
> commercial nuke plants is that they almost always started each plant from
> scratch on a clean sheet of paper. Think how much less it would cost if we
> had an assembly line of small reactors. Yes I realize there is the issue
of
> what to do with the waste. The answer to that is reprocess until you can't
> reprocess any more then shoot what's left into the sun. It would be like
one
> guy ****ing in the ocean.
>

It certainly is interestng to find the greenies coming to their senses--if
true.

In any case, there are plenty of uses for thermal energy that is not hot
enough to generate high pressure steam--so nuclear "waste" could easily have
a second, and even a third, usefull life before the first reprocessing
becomes necessary.

Peter

[Peter Dohm]

"cavelamb himself" > wrote in message
link.net...
> wrote:
> > On Jul 24, 8:35 pm, Dan Nafe > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I love it. We need to stop using ferin' oil, this is the first of many
> >>steps in the right direction.
> >
> >
> > Except that way too much electricity is being generated
> > using oil or natural gas, and the losses of efficiency in first
> > burning the stuff, then generating electricity, transmitting it long
> > distances and losing more, then the heat losses in running chargers
> > and more heat off the batteries, I think we'd end up burning nearly
> > twice as much as if we just stuck a VW on it.
> > Coal is more available but is so dirty. Nuclear is really
> > avaiable but isn't cheap and scares too many folks.
> >
> > Dan
> >
>
> I can almost envision a coal fired Sonex.
>
> Fill the baggage compartment with coal and the "passenger" gets a
> shovel...
>
I have a somewhat visual sense of humor, and that's FUNNY!

Peter

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Peter Dohm wrote:
>> We are along way from even getting close to a replacement for
>> gasoline in aircraft or for that matter cars where weight isn't near
>> as critical. BUT, if we would stop using petroleum products in
>> everything other than the transportation sector we would reduce
>> their use by 25%. And doing that would be huge.
>
> IMHO, the 25% figure is very low--by more than an order of magnetude.


Thank God I didn't pull that fugure out of my ass. :)

http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/infosheets/petroleumproducts.html

Now since I spent a total of 2 minutes reading that page I may have mis-read
it.

[Vaughn Simon]

"Dan Nafe" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Vaughn Simon" > wrote:
>
>>... (add a GPS-informed computer to the mix and you
>> could
>> always be sure that you had enough energy to return to the field)
>
> [smacks myself on the forehead]
>
> What a great idea!

Yes it is a great idea, but not mine. Such computers have been used on
gliders for years.

Vaughn

[Peter Dohm]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Peter Dohm wrote:
> >> We are along way from even getting close to a replacement for
> >> gasoline in aircraft or for that matter cars where weight isn't near
> >> as critical. BUT, if we would stop using petroleum products in
> >> everything other than the transportation sector we would reduce
> >> their use by 25%. And doing that would be huge.
> >
> > IMHO, the 25% figure is very low--by more than an order of magnetude.
>
>
> Thank God I didn't pull that fugure out of my ass. :)
>
> http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/infosheets/petroleumproducts.html
>
> Now since I spent a total of 2 minutes reading that page I may have
mis-read
> it.
>
>
Wow, I stand corrected--even though I suppose that I could still argue that
the combination of petroleum and natural gas could bring that number up from
25% to nearly 50%.

Of course, that still just makes me a bigger booster of diesel power for
automobiles.

Peter

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Bill Daniels" > wrote

> One thing that amazes me is that electrons weight almost nothing. A charged
> battery, for all practical purposes, weighes the same charged or not - the
> energy the battery contains weighs nothing. It seems like the boffins could
> figure out a way to pressurize a container with electrons.

They can, but they would have to transport back from the future, from the
Starship Enterprise, to give us some of their plasma !!! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote

> I think it is funny that the environmentalists are getting back on the Nuke
> bandwagon, since it was mainly they that stopped construction of new nuclear
> power plants in the first place.

I had not heard that they were back on the nuke bandwagon.

Could you point me at some reading along those lines?
--
Jim in NC

[Vaughn Simon]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> I had not heard that they were back on the nuke bandwagon.
>
> Could you point me at some reading along those lines?

"
"For years, environmentalists have attacked nuclear power. However, one of the
co-founders of Greenpeace believes times have changed. "

"Patrick Moore, Ph.D., environmentalist: "Nuclear is one of the safest
industries in this country, and it's time that environmental activists recognize
the facts around the fact that much nuclear energy is not only safe, but it's
also clean." "

From: "Change in Attitude About Nuclear Power"
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=business&id=4185762

Vaughn


> --
> Jim in NC

[Bill Daniels]

"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I had not heard that they were back on the nuke bandwagon.
>>
>> Could you point me at some reading along those lines?
>
> "
> "For years, environmentalists have attacked nuclear power. However, one of
> the co-founders of Greenpeace believes times have changed. "
>
> "Patrick Moore, Ph.D., environmentalist: "Nuclear is one of the safest
> industries in this country, and it's time that environmental activists
> recognize the facts around the fact that much nuclear energy is not only
> safe, but it's also clean." "
>
> From: "Change in Attitude About Nuclear Power"
> http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=business&id=4185762
>
> Vaughn
>
>
>> --
>> Jim in NC
>

It's fair to say THINKING enviromentalists are crossing over to the nuke
side one-by-one. The ones that just say what they were told to say are
still spouting the old propaganda.

My concern is not with nuclear power technology, it's with the nuclear
industry. That industry might as well have the motto: "Extend foot, aim,
fire". The safety recond of US civillian nuclear power and that of many
countries isn't all that great.

Question 1: Can nuclear power be safe? Answer: The US Navy and the French do
it safely so, yes, it can be safe.

Question 2: Can your local power and light company operate a nuke safely?
Answer: "No way! They can't even prevent blackouts."

So, what to do?

Here's my suggestion. Task the US Navy with operating all US nukes using
only uniformed, nuclear trained, Navy personel subject to the UCMJ. The
Navy's orders - "Do it right, regardless". Task the US Marine Corp with
plant security. Orders? "Kill intruders, then ask questions." The Navy run
nukes would sell electric power to the incumbent utilities who would
distribute it and collect the bills - two things they are fairly good at.

I've slept on a nuclear powered Navy ship and felt very comfortable about
it. The Navy has the tradition of Adm. Rickover's obsession with safety.
I've never been that comfortable with civillian nukes. A publically held
utility run by executives compensated with stock options just has too much
incentive to cut costs.

Bill Daniels

[Vaughn Simon]

"Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote in message
. ..
>
> I've slept on a nuclear powered Navy ship and felt very comfortable about it.

I am an ex-Navy nuclear power plant operator, so I have also slept a night
or two on a Navy nuke ship (submarine actually).

I am not nearly as down on the civilian plants as you are. In ways, their
operations are safer (or at least easier) than those the of the Navy because
they tend to operate at a constant power for months at a time. They have (for
example) no such thing as a fast scram recovery procedure, and, being attached
firmly to the ground, don't have to deal with the pitch, roll and vibration of
operating at sea. Furthermore, they use injected fission poisons so that they
can operate with the rods pulled out, resulting in safer core power
distributions and giving them a tremendous shutdown margin for emergencies.

> The Navy has the tradition of Adm. Rickover's obsession with safety.

Yes, they do. The nuke Nave has roving squads of examiners that descend on
ships without notice and, after a white glove inspection, will drill the crew
beyond mercy. Failing an inspection can be a career-ending event, especially
for the Captain, XO, and Engineering Officer.

> A publically held utility run by executives compensated with stock options
> just has too much incentive to cut costs.

That is a concern, and not just for the nuclear power industry. We threw
out some canned goods today that my wife found on the government recall list.

Vaughn

[GeorgeB]

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 15:33:13 -0400, "Peter Dohm"
> wrote:

>> ... we would reduce their use by 25%. And doing that
>would
>> be huge.
>
>IMHO, the 25% figure is very low--by more than an order of magnetude.
>

this i gotta see ... reduce by 250% means generate 150%. Exactly what
conservation system will do that? The samd ones that give 100 HP on 2
gallons/hour?

I love those who feel we can get something for nothing ... but have
yet seen one that worked. Perpetual motion with energy supplied ...

[[email protected]]

On Jul 25, 8:40 am, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:

> Obviously, the problem with electric airplanes is range. It's doubtful if
> electricity storage will ever reach the energy density of gasoline. One
> thing that amazes me is that electrons weight almost nothing. A charged
> battery, for all practical purposes, weighes the same charged or not - the
> energy the battery contains weighs nothing. It seems like the boffins could
> figure out a way to pressurize a container with electrons.


Batteries don't store electrons. They store energy in the form of
chemical changes. Every electron that leaves a battery via the
negative terminal is replaced by another coming in the positive
terminal.
In a lead-acid battery, lead and lead peroxide react with sulfuric
acid and end up as lead sulfate and water. Two electrons are released
for every lead peroxide/sulfuric acid molecule reaction, and two are
absorbed by the lead sulfate/water result. When we recharge the
battery, we're forcing electrons backward through it, converting the
lead sulfate and water back to lead, lead peroxide and sulfuric acid.
So there's no weight change because there are no atoms coming or
going, and no electrons leaving that aren't replaced. Just a molecular
change within the battery.
The lead sulfate eventually wrecks the battery. Not all of it
is converted back to lead and lead peroxide, and it gradually
accumulates on the plates and reduces their effectiveness. Time for a
new battery.

Dan

[Stella Starr]

wrote:

> Coal is more available but is so dirty.

The imagination tries to picture a coal-fired plane. One pilot, one
shoveler.
No more worries about Blue Ice falling from the sky, but those clinkers
from the steam boiler keep 'em stepping to get out of the way!

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Morgans wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote
>
>> I think it is funny that the environmentalists are getting back on
>> the Nuke bandwagon, since it was mainly they that stopped
>> construction of new nuclear power plants in the first place.
>
> I had not heard that they were back on the nuke bandwagon.
>
> Could you point me at some reading along those lines?

http://www.ecolo.org/

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Vaughn Simon wrote:

>
> I am an ex-Navy nuclear power plant operator, so I have also slept
> a night or two on a Navy nuke ship (submarine actually).
>
> I am not nearly as down on the civilian plants as you are. In
> ways, their operations are safer (or at least easier) than those the
> of the Navy because they tend to operate at a constant power for
> months at a time. They have (for example) no such thing as a fast
> scram recovery procedure, and, being attached firmly to the ground, don't
> have to deal with the pitch, roll and vibration of operating at
> sea. Furthermore, they use injected fission poisons so that they can
> operate with the rods pulled out, resulting in safer core power
> distributions and giving them a tremendous shutdown margin for
> emergencies.

Cool, maybe you can answer my question. If one of the Navy Nukes were set up
and run at a continuous power how much electricity could the plant provide.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

wrote:

> The lead sulfate eventually wrecks the battery. Not all of it
> is converted back to lead and lead peroxide, and it gradually
> accumulates on the plates and reduces their effectiveness. Time for a
> new battery.
>
> Dan

Which is the problem that has yet to be dealt with as far as the
"environmental friendliness" of all the new hybrid cars. What are they going
to do with the old used batteries?

[[email protected]]

"
> "For years, environmentalists have attacked nuclear power. However, one of the
> co-founders of Greenpeace believes times have changed. "
>
> "Patrick Moore, Ph.D., environmentalist: "Nuclear is one of the safest
> industries in this country, and it's time that environmental activists recognize
> the facts around the fact that much nuclear energy is not only safe, but it's
> also clean." "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm ex-Navy, worked for Bechtel's nuclear power division for a while.
If you're bright enough to pour **** out of a boot you knew the tree-
huggers had their facts all wrong when it came to nukes, which are
mother's milk compared to coal. The nuclear power industry hired a
firm to do a survey to try and learn where all the bum dope was coming
in order to formulate a strategy to counteract it.

Turns out over 90% of those intelligent, college-educated tree-
huggers, got their nuclear 'education' from a television cartoon show
called 'The Simpsons.'

Network television didn't come along until I was in my teens and I
never caught the habit, had never heard of 'The Simpsons' until I saw
the report. Indeed, most didn't believe it... until a second firm
came up with similar results.

Given enough money a properly conducted propaganda campaign can
convince people of literally ANYTHING. But the estimated cost of
altering the public's cartoon-based misconceptions about nuclear power
was on the order of several BILLION 1980-era dollars and the nuclear
power industry budget for PR was less than a million. Ergo, no more
nuke plants in the USA.

Newton Minow was right :-)

-R.S.Hoover

[Charles Vincent]

Vaughn Simon wrote:

> I am an ex-Navy nuclear power plant operator, so I have also slept a night
> or two on a Navy nuke ship (submarine actually).
>
> I am not nearly as down on the civilian plants as you are. In ways, their
> operations are safer (or at least easier) than those the of the Navy because
> they tend to operate at a constant power for months at a time.

It also seems that a lot of the executives and the operating personnel
at US nuclear facilities are ex Navy bubbleheads as well. I believe
the first Nuclear plant on the grid was a Navy sub that was connected to
the Philadelphia grid and run for some time, but I can't find a
reference for that now. Another factoid, the US Navy is the fifteenth
largest utility in the US, although they buy most of their power rather
than generate it themselves.

Charles

[Gig 601XL Builder]

wrote:
> Turns out over 90% of those intelligent, college-educated tree-
> huggers, got their nuclear 'education' from a television cartoon show
> called 'The Simpsons.'
>
> Network television didn't come along until I was in my teens and I
> never caught the habit, had never heard of 'The Simpsons' until I saw
> the report. Indeed, most didn't believe it... until a second firm
> came up with similar results.
>
> Given enough money a properly conducted propaganda campaign can
> convince people of literally ANYTHING. But the estimated cost of
> altering the public's cartoon-based misconceptions about nuclear power
> was on the order of several BILLION 1980-era dollars and the nuclear
> power industry budget for PR was less than a million. Ergo, no more
> nuke plants in the USA.
>
> Newton Minow was right :-)
>
> -R.S.Hoover

The first episode of The Simpsons didn't air until 12/17/89. A quick look
shows the last increase in the number of operating reactors happened between
before 1990. I think there was some bad info out there before The Simpsons.

[[email protected]]

> The first episode of The Simpsons didn't air until 12/17/89. A quick look
> shows the last increase in the number of operating reactors happened between
> before 1990. I think there was some bad info out there before The Simpsons.
------------------------------------------------------------------

So it must of been Palo Verde instead of San Onofre. Like I said, I
don't watch TV. But the same message applies: the bulk of American
'intelligence' regarding nuclear power is based on a cartoon.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Another point folks fail to appreciate is that civilian tea-kettles
are operated 'way down the curve compared to Navy reactors. Plus,
being shore-based they are hardened to an extent that's difficult to
understand. Up on the turbine deck of SONGS-2 Japanese and Korean
engineers would actually giggle and take pictures of each other
standing beside a 10x10 I-beam stanchion supporting a 1" high-pressure
instrument line, which is what it takes to guarantee Richter 9
survivability. (As a point of interest, the Japanese have recently
learned what happens when they fail to build to worse-case standards.)

-R.S.Hoover

[[email protected]]

On Jul 26, 7:37 am, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
wrote:
> wrote:
> > The lead sulfate eventually wrecks the battery. Not all of it
> > is converted back to lead and lead peroxide, and it gradually
> > accumulates on the plates and reduces their effectiveness. Time for a
> > new battery.
>
> > Dan
>
> Which is the problem that has yet to be dealt with as far as the
> "environmental friendliness" of all the new hybrid cars. What are they going
> to do with the old used batteries?

Same as they do now: break them up, retrieve the plastic,
acid and lead compounds, refine everything and make new batteries.

Dan

[[email protected]]

On Jul 26, 3:22 pm, " > wrote:
> > The first episode of The Simpsons didn't air until 12/17/89. A quick look
> > shows the last increase in the number of operating reactors happened between
> > before 1990. I think there was some bad info out there before The Simpsons.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> So it must of been Palo Verde instead of San Onofre. Like I said, I
> don't watch TV. But the same message applies: the bulk of American
> 'intelligence' regarding nuclear power is based on a cartoon.

Meaning no offense to you personally, but I just don't believe it.

If you show me a survey in which 90% of the respndents said they
got their nuclear power information from the Simpsons I'll show
you a survey in which 90% of the respondents decided to play on
joke on the survey takers.

Or maybe the survey was multiple choice. For instance:

>From what source did you learn most of what you know about
nuclear power?

a) International Journal of Modern Physics E (IJMPE)

b) World NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS 2005-06, 15/08/2006,
Australian Uranium Information Centre

c) ^ NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS INFORMATION, by IAEA, 15/06/2005

d) The Simpsons.

I used to work in Radwaste. Well, not literally.

--

FF

[Gig 601XL Builder]

wrote:
>> The first episode of The Simpsons didn't air until 12/17/89. A quick
>> look shows the last increase in the number of operating reactors
>> happened between before 1990. I think there was some bad info out
>> there before The Simpsons.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> So it must of been Palo Verde instead of San Onofre. Like I said, I
> don't watch TV. But the same message applies: the bulk of American
> 'intelligence' regarding nuclear power is based on a cartoon.
>

The point is that the Simpsons were not that well known when the last
reactors were going online. It's taken almost 20 years for the Simpsons to
become such a well known show and there is probably no legit statistical
group that could 90% of it even EVER watched the Simpsons. T0 my knowledge
the Simpsons never even made it into the top 20 shows in any sweeps period.

Somebody either yanked the polster's leg or they yanked yours.

I'd be willing to bet that you are just mis-remembering something from 20
years ago.

[Vaughn Simon]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
>
> Cool, maybe you can answer my question. If one of the Navy Nukes were set up
> and run at a continuous power how much electricity could the plant provide.

That is like asking how much power a Boeing 777 could supply. On a nuclear
submarine the turbines that drive the generators are small compared to the
turbines that drive the prop.

Vaughn


>
>

[Peter Dohm]

"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Cool, maybe you can answer my question. If one of the Navy Nukes were
set up
> > and run at a continuous power how much electricity could the plant
provide.
>
> That is like asking how much power a Boeing 777 could supply. On a
nuclear
> submarine the turbines that drive the generators are small compared to the
> turbines that drive the prop.
>
> Vaughn
>
>
From all I've heard, that is a passable analogy. I've also heard that
aircraft carriers are the ones that can really generate the electric
power--and even there, the electric power is probably small compared to the
porpeller drive power.

Peter

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:46:53 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:

wrote:
>>the same message applies: the bulk of American
>> 'intelligence' regarding nuclear power is based on a cartoon.
>>
>
>The point is that the Simpsons were not that well known when the last
>reactors were going online. It's taken almost 20 years for the Simpsons to
>become such a well known show and there is probably no legit statistical
>group that could 90% of it even EVER watched the Simpsons. T0 my knowledge
>the Simpsons never even made it into the top 20 shows in any sweeps period.
>
>Somebody either yanked the polster's leg or they yanked yours.
>
>I'd be willing to bet that you are just mis-remembering something from 20
>years ago.

Regardless, the underlying theory that additional plants aren't built
because of negative public opinion, is hooey. They aren't built
because investors don't like taking risks that have the potential to
go monstrously wrong.
http://www.brookings.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb138.htm

As for the those who claim that the public is irrationally timid, most
of *them* probably haven't heard of the debacle at Davis-Besse.
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040519/NEWS17/405190340/-1/NEWS
The root causes of that - aging equipment, profit motive,
industry-friendly regulation, and complacency, are probably lurking
industry-wide. Every plant owner, operator, and regulator will deny
that, but so did First Energy and the NRC before the sh*t hit the fan.
You'd think that at least the one company getting all the attention
would have learned their lesson. Instead they're still telling their
insurance company one thing, and regulators another.
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1179218063175560.xml&coll=2
The Simpson's three-eyed fish thing is off the wall, but the Monte
Burns characterization might not be too far off. :-)

Wayne

[[email protected]]

On Jul 26, 5:23 pm, "Vaughn Simon" >
wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in ...
>
>
>
> > Cool, maybe you can answer my question. If one of the Navy Nukes were set up
> > and run at a continuous power how much electricity could the plant provide.
>
> That is like asking how much power a Boeing 777 could supply. On a nuclear
> submarine the turbines that drive the generators are small compared to the
> turbines that drive the prop.
>

Are you sure the props aren't always driven by electric motors?

--

FF

[[email protected]]

>
> Meaning no offense to you personally, but I just don't believe it.
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neither did we :-)

At that time licenses had been issued for about thirty nuke plants in
addition to those already under construction. I don't think a single
one of them was ever funded. I'm sure there were other factors
besides being brain-washed by a cartoon but when I heard about it at a
weekly status meeting I recall the odd looks I got when I asked what
he meant by 'the Simpsons.'

During that same period I recall the tree-huggers getting in a tizzie
over a coal fired plant in the midwest when the utility erected
hyperbolic cooling towers. (All that radioactive steam, you know.)

Turns out, the typical American isn't quite as bright as most people
think. Just look at the people we elect to high office :-)

I recently heard a fellow touting the glories of solar & wind over the
horrors of those terrible old tea-kettles. It took only a moment to
figure out his numbers were based on a photo-voltaic array that was
100% efficient. ( His wind turbines were equally efficient. And the
wind apparently blew all the time :-) Trying to interject a whiff of
reality into such discussions is treated with polite condescension at
best. After all, everyone knows wind & solar is good, whereas nukes
are evil.

What I find remarkable is that such massive ignorance is often the
product of a college education. Some recently published texts
continue to cite the Carrizo Plains PV project as the cutting edge of
solar technology despite the fact that facility was dismantled years
ago after its output fell so low it couldn't even power its own
tracking needs let alone feed anything into the grid. (A fact you can
confirm using satellite photos available on the internet. But of
course, that can't be right :-)

I hear Crystal Power is a good investment. That, and Electric
Aeroplanes :-)

-R.S.Hoover

[Vaughn Simon]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Are you sure the props aren't always driven by electric motors?

I am no expert on the current fleet, but I can only name two American
nuclear submarines with that setup. One is a midget research sub and the other
was scrapped decades ago.

Vaughn

[The_navigator]

On Jul 26, 2:40 am, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:

>
> Obviously, the problem with electric airplanes is range. It's doubtful if
> electricity storage will ever reach the energy density of gasoline. One
> thing that amazes me is that electrons weight almost nothing. A charged
> battery, for all practical purposes, weighes the same charged or not - the
> energy the battery contains weighs nothing. It seems like the boffins could
> figure out a way to pressurize a container with electrons.
>

Did you know that just as many electrons leave the battery as go back
into it? It's strange but true that electrical devices don't actually
consume electrons and yet they get their energy from the electrons...

Cheers Mark

[Dan Nafe]

In article
>,
"Vaughn Simon" > wrote:

> "Dan Nafe" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Vaughn Simon" > wrote:
> >
> >>... (add a GPS-informed computer to the mix and you
> >> could
> >> always be sure that you had enough energy to return to the field)
> >
> > [smacks myself on the forehead]
> >
> > What a great idea!
>
> Yes it is a great idea, but not mine. Such computers have been used on
> gliders for years.
>
> Vaughn
>
>

I'll bet the sailplane systems use the GPS as a pseudo-Air Data
Computer, too. (To account for winds aloft and help avoid landing out)

[Wayne Paul]

"Dan Nafe" > wrote in message
...
>> >>... (add a GPS-informed computer to the mix and you
>> >> could
>> >> always be sure that you had enough energy to return to the field)
>> >
>> > What a great idea!
>>
>> Yes it is a great idea, but not mine. Such computers have been used
>> on
>> gliders for years.
>>
>
> I'll bet the sailplane systems use the GPS as a pseudo-Air Data
> Computer, too. (To account for winds aloft and help avoid landing out)

The normal sailplane configuration consists of a GPS driven PDA which uses
dedicated soaring software. I have a basic system which includes a Garmin
12XL, Compaq 1550 PDA running Glide Navigator II.

http://www.soaridaho.com/photogallery/Mackay/17900_MSL.jpg shows the cockpit
configuration (notice the altimeter.) http://www.cumulus-soaring.com/gn.htm
describes Glide Navigator II capabilities.

Wayne
HP-14 N990
http://www.soaridaho.com/

[Blueskies]

"Wayne Paul" > wrote in message ...
> The normal sailplane configuration consists of a GPS driven PDA which uses dedicated soaring software. I have a basic
> system which includes a Garmin 12XL, Compaq 1550 PDA running Glide Navigator II.
>
> http://www.soaridaho.com/photogallery/Mackay/17900_MSL.jpg shows the cockpit configuration (notice the altimeter.)
> http://www.cumulus-soaring.com/gn.htm describes Glide Navigator II capabilities.
>
> Wayne
> HP-14 N990
> http://www.soaridaho.com/
>
>

17900...nice day for flying!

[Peter Dohm]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> >
> > Meaning no offense to you personally, but I just don't believe it.
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------
>
> Neither did we :-)
>
> At that time licenses had been issued for about thirty nuke plants in
> addition to those already under construction. I don't think a single
> one of them was ever funded. I'm sure there were other factors
> besides being brain-washed by a cartoon but when I heard about it at a
> weekly status meeting I recall the odd looks I got when I asked what
> he meant by 'the Simpsons.'
>
> During that same period I recall the tree-huggers getting in a tizzie
> over a coal fired plant in the midwest when the utility erected
> hyperbolic cooling towers. (All that radioactive steam, you know.)
>
> Turns out, the typical American isn't quite as bright as most people
> think. Just look at the people we elect to high office :-)
>
> I recently heard a fellow touting the glories of solar & wind over the
> horrors of those terrible old tea-kettles. It took only a moment to
> figure out his numbers were based on a photo-voltaic array that was
> 100% efficient. ( His wind turbines were equally efficient. And the
> wind apparently blew all the time :-) Trying to interject a whiff of
> reality into such discussions is treated with polite condescension at
> best. After all, everyone knows wind & solar is good, whereas nukes
> are evil.
>
> What I find remarkable is that such massive ignorance is often the
> product of a college education. Some recently published texts
> continue to cite the Carrizo Plains PV project as the cutting edge of
> solar technology despite the fact that facility was dismantled years
> ago after its output fell so low it couldn't even power its own
> tracking needs let alone feed anything into the grid. (A fact you can
> confirm using satellite photos available on the internet. But of
> course, that can't be right :-)
>
> I hear Crystal Power is a good investment. That, and Electric
> Aeroplanes :-)
>
> -R.S.Hoover
>
What really annoys me about the college gang, much more than the 100%
efficiency foolishness, is their 100% acceptance of statements from their
trusted sources--even when it clearly contradicts their own personal
observations.

Peter

[[email protected]]

On Jul 27, 6:43 am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:

>
> What really annoys me about the college gang, much more than the 100%
> efficiency foolishness, is their 100% acceptance of statements from their
> trusted sources--even when it clearly contradicts their own personal
> observations.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A nice example of that is one of the citations used to 'prove' that
the 'Simpson' report could not be correct. (
http://www.brookings.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb138.htm )

In the report electricity is reduced to a commodity, the decision to
heat the tea-kettle with atoms or fire determined strictly in
accordance with economic principles. All of which is hilariously
wrong. Indeed, the profound depth of ignorance reflected in the
report is what lead to the Enron scam.

At the rate we're going I've a hunch thinking for yourself is liable
to become a Terrorist Activity :-)

-R.S.Hoover

[[email protected]]

On Jul 27, 6:54 am, " > wrote:
>
> ...
>
> I recently heard a fellow touting the glories of solar & wind over the
> horrors of those terrible old tea-kettles. It took only a moment to
> figure out his numbers were based on a photo-voltaic array that was
> 100% efficient. ( His wind turbines were equally efficient. And the
> wind apparently blew all the time :-) Trying to interject a whiff of
> reality into such discussions is treated with polite condescension at
> best. After all, everyone knows wind & solar is good, whereas nukes
> are evil.
>

I've read that a similar approach is used to 'prove' that ethanol
production consumes more energy than is recovered by burning
it. Sunlight is included in the input side of the budget.

Of course that's perfectly correct, but don't forget to do the
same for fossil fuels...

--

FF

[[email protected]]

On Jul 27, 1:43 pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
> > > Meaning no offense to you personally, but I just don't believe it.
>
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ----------------------
>
>
>
> > Neither did we :-)
>
> > At that time licenses had been issued for about thirty nuke plants in
> > addition to those already under construction. I don't think a single
> > one of them was ever funded. I'm sure there were other factors
> > besides being brain-washed by a cartoon but when I heard about it at a
> > weekly status meeting I recall the odd looks I got when I asked what
> > he meant by 'the Simpsons.'
>
> > During that same period I recall the tree-huggers getting in a tizzie
> > over a coal fired plant in the midwest when the utility erected
> > hyperbolic cooling towers. (All that radioactive steam, you know.)
>
> > Turns out, the typical American isn't quite as bright as most people
> > think. Just look at the people we elect to high office :-)
>
> > I recently heard a fellow touting the glories of solar & wind over the
> > horrors of those terrible old tea-kettles. It took only a moment to
> > figure out his numbers were based on a photo-voltaic array that was
> > 100% efficient. ( His wind turbines were equally efficient. And the
> > wind apparently blew all the time :-) Trying to interject a whiff of
> > reality into such discussions is treated with polite condescension at
> > best. After all, everyone knows wind & solar is good, whereas nukes
> > are evil.
>
> > What I find remarkable is that such massive ignorance is often the
> > product of a college education. Some recently published texts
> > continue to cite the Carrizo Plains PV project as the cutting edge of
> > solar technology despite the fact that facility was dismantled years
> > ago after its output fell so low it couldn't even power its own
> > tracking needs let alone feed anything into the grid. (A fact you can
> > confirm using satellite photos available on the internet. But of
> > course, that can't be right :-)
>
> > I hear Crystal Power is a good investment. That, and Electric
> > Aeroplanes :-)
>
> > -R.S.Hoover
>
> What really annoys me about the college gang, much more than the 100%
> efficiency foolishness, is their 100% acceptance of statements from their
> trusted sources--even when it clearly contradicts their own personal
> observations.
>

Uh huh. Consider, for example, the widely-held misconception that
nuclear power plants are more energy efficient than fossil fuel
plants.

--

FF

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Peter Dohm wrote:
> "Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> Cool, maybe you can answer my question. If one of the Navy Nukes
>>> were set up and run at a continuous power how much electricity
>>> could the plant
> provide.
>>
>> That is like asking how much power a Boeing 777 could supply.
>> On a nuclear submarine the turbines that drive the generators are
>> small compared to the turbines that drive the prop.
>>
>> Vaughn
>>
>>
> From all I've heard, that is a passable analogy. I've also heard that
> aircraft carriers are the ones that can really generate the electric
> power--and even there, the electric power is probably small compared
> to the porpeller drive power.
>
> Peter

I guess I could have asked my question better. How's this?

How big of a generator (KW or MW per hour)could a nuclear reactor, such as
one used on the newest generation of carrier, power.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 27, 6:21 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
wrote:
> Peter Dohm wrote:
>
> ...
>
> I guess I could have asked my question better. How's this?
>
> How big of a generator (KW or MW per hour)could a nuclear reactor, such as
> one used on the newest generation of carrier, power.

I _think_ that the Gerald R Ford Class carriers are to be equipped
with
two (2) each 100 MWe reactors. The Perry, Ohio BWR reactor was
planned to be about 350 MWE, if I recall correctly.

USN reactor designs are quite different from civilian reactor
designs for a number of reasons. In Particular, the former
use more highly enriched-fuel to minimize their size. That
is unnecessary for a baseline US utility, and also undesirable
from a proliferation perspective.

--

FF

[Gig 601XL Builder]

wrote:
> On Jul 27, 6:21 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
> wrote:
>> Peter Dohm wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> I guess I could have asked my question better. How's this?
>>
>> How big of a generator (KW or MW per hour)could a nuclear reactor,
>> such as one used on the newest generation of carrier, power.
>
> I _think_ that the Gerald R Ford Class carriers are to be equipped
> with
> two (2) each 100 MWe reactors. The Perry, Ohio BWR reactor was
> planned to be about 350 MWE, if I recall correctly.
>
> USN reactor designs are quite different from civilian reactor
> designs for a number of reasons. In Particular, the former
> use more highly enriched-fuel to minimize their size. That
> is unnecessary for a baseline US utility, and also undesirable
> from a proliferation perspective.
>
> FF

The thought process is that if we used smaller reactors and stop designing
the damn things everytime one get's built they would be more affordable. I
have no problem with guarding the hell out of them. It would be cheaper than
the way we have done it in the pass.

[Rich S.[_1_]]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
(snip)
> After all, everyone knows wind & solar is good, whereas nukes
> are evil.

Lately I hear the bird huggers are ****ed at the tree huggers who want wind
power.

Turns out the wind turbines make efficient bird slicers & dicers.

Rich S.

[[email protected]]

> The thought process is that if we used smaller reactors and stop designing
> the damn things everytime one get's built they would be more affordable. I
> have no problem with guarding the hell out of them. It would be cheaper than
> the way we have done it in the pass.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Look up 'HTGR.'

Very modest little plants that don't even need an operator. I think
Gulf (General Atomics) holds the patents. We ran one for 15 years in
Colorado When the working fluid is helium there's nothing to become
irradiated. This 'packaged power' philosophy is probably the way the
Chinese will go.

-R.S.Hoover

[Gig 601XL Builder]

wrote:
>> The thought process is that if we used smaller reactors and stop
>> designing the damn things everytime one get's built they would be
>> more affordable. I have no problem with guarding the hell out of
>> them. It would be cheaper than the way we have done it in the pass.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
>
> Look up 'HTGR.'
>
> Very modest little plants that don't even need an operator. I think
> Gulf (General Atomics) holds the patents. We ran one for 15 years in
> Colorado When the working fluid is helium there's nothing to become
> irradiated. This 'packaged power' philosophy is probably the way the
> Chinese will go.
>
> -R.S.Hoover

This looks like an excellent idea to me.

http://gt-mhr.ga.com/

[Peter Dohm]

"Rich S." > wrote in message
. ..
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> (snip)
> > After all, everyone knows wind & solar is good, whereas nukes
> > are evil.
>
> Lately I hear the bird huggers are ****ed at the tree huggers who want
wind
> power.
>
> Turns out the wind turbines make efficient bird slicers & dicers.
>
> Rich S.
>
>
Hee hee. I really must pay more attention to the news!

Peter

[[email protected]]

>
> > Turns out the wind turbines make efficient bird slicers & dicers.
>

That has always been a problem with high aspect ratio, low rpm wind
turbines. When the air is foggy (or even especially moist) the impact
of the blades causes the water vapor to condense. The liquid water is
then slung off the blade in the arc of its rotation. Where it
collects on the ground it promotes growth that attracts birds which in
turn attracts raptors to feed upon the birds. Unfortunately a
stooping hawk is a classic case of tunnel vision and they often fly
into the arc of the turbine. Of course, that makes the area safer for
the ground-foragers whose numbers tend to increase, which attracts
raptors from even farther away... as well as scavengers to feed upon
the slice & diced hawks. Interesting cycle. Here in California the
wind farm in Altamont Pass (E. of San Francisco ) is the main killing
ground but the other wind farms are doing their best to catch up.

But of course, that can't be right. After all, everyone know wind
power is environmentally friendly :-)

-R.S.Hoover

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:09:19 -0700, "Rich S."
> wrote:


>Lately I hear the bird huggers are ****ed at the tree huggers who want wind
>power.
>
>Turns out the wind turbines make efficient bird slicers & dicers.

That's basically an old wives tale.
http://www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/swbirds.html Cats kill a lot more
birds than turbines. Most of the objections to wind power are the
typical NIMBY stuff, with the bird thing thrown in along with anything
else that sounds remotely plausible.

Wayne (16 turbine-years, no sliced birds)

[Rich S.[_1_]]

> wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:09:19 -0700, "Rich S."
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Lately I hear the bird huggers are ****ed at the tree huggers who want
>>wind
>>power.
>>
>>Turns out the wind turbines make efficient bird slicers & dicers.
>
> That's basically an old wives tale.
> http://www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/swbirds.html Cats kill a lot more
> birds than turbines. Most of the objections to wind power are the
> typical NIMBY stuff, with the bird thing thrown in along with anything
> else that sounds remotely plausible.
>
> Wayne (16 turbine-years, no sliced birds)

Wayne ............

My wife and I toured the wind farms in Eastern Washington two years ago and
spoke with the landowners and neighbors of the machinery. Without exception,
they *all* welcomed the presence of these machines. One farmer who, until
wind power arrived, was poor as a churchmouse, moved me with his tearful
description of how he now will be able to send his children to college.

Far from NIMBY, there are open arms waiting, and hoping, that their land
will be found suitable.

Old age also kills birds, but that does not mean that the killoff of raptors
by turbines is not significant. You know what they say about statistics! :)
My cat also loves an afternoon snack with either Chip or Dale. Yum!

Rich S.

[Peter Dohm]

> wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:09:19 -0700, "Rich S."
> > wrote:
>
>
> >Lately I hear the bird huggers are ****ed at the tree huggers who want
wind
> >power.
> >
> >Turns out the wind turbines make efficient bird slicers & dicers.
>
> That's basically an old wives tale.
> http://www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/swbirds.html Cats kill a lot more
> birds than turbines. Most of the objections to wind power are the
> typical NIMBY stuff, with the bird thing thrown in along with anything
> else that sounds remotely plausible.
>
> Wayne (16 turbine-years, no sliced birds)

Thank you so much for giving me a second opening, after I couldn't resist
the opportunity for a bit of amusement...

Wind power, in various forms, has a long and honored history in irrigation,
milling, transportation, and even in recovery of land from the seas in
Holland and Denmark--and probably other places. So obviously, simply on the
basis of parsimony and in the same manner as solar power, it will always
make sense in a lot of places and for a lot of applications.

However, wind power will always be subject to calm days, blanketing, and
less than optimal wind direction--and peak production will only rarely
coincide with peak demand. From all that I have heard and read, as an
addition to a power grid, wind power is no panacea and probably increases
the amplifitude of fluctuations from the baseline power requirement of
electric utilities. The benefit to a modern overall power grid is probably
trivial, even while the wind power providers are very well compensated.

In short, if utilities only purchased backfeeds during periods of peak
demand, then their payments for wind and solar power would be far more
sensible.

Peter

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 07:09:05 -0700, "
> wrote:

> "
>> "For years, environmentalists have attacked nuclear power. However, one of the
>> co-founders of Greenpeace believes times have changed. "
>>
>> "Patrick Moore, Ph.D., environmentalist: "Nuclear is one of the safest
>> industries in this country, and it's time that environmental activists recognize
>> the facts around the fact that much nuclear energy is not only safe, but it's
>> also clean." "
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>I'm ex-Navy, worked for Bechtel's nuclear power division for a while.
>If you're bright enough to pour **** out of a boot you knew the tree-
>huggers had their facts all wrong when it came to nukes, which are
>mother's milk compared to coal. The nuclear power industry hired a
>firm to do a survey to try and learn where all the bum dope was coming
>in order to formulate a strategy to counteract it.

Ever measure the radiation level at the bottom of those tall stacks at
a coal fired plant?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:09:19 -0700, "Rich S."
> > wrote:
>
>
>> Lately I hear the bird huggers are ****ed at the tree huggers who
>> want wind power.
>>
>> Turns out the wind turbines make efficient bird slicers & dicers.
>
> That's basically an old wives tale.
> http://www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/swbirds.html Cats kill a lot more
> birds than turbines. Most of the objections to wind power are the
> typical NIMBY stuff, with the bird thing thrown in along with anything
> else that sounds remotely plausible.
>
> Wayne (16 turbine-years, no sliced birds)


Since when did facts have anything to do with the Enviro-Wacko's reasoning?

[[email protected]]

On Jul 27, 7:32 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
wrote:
> wrote:
>
....
>
> > USN reactor designs are quite different from civilian reactor
> > designs for a number of reasons. In Particular, the former
> > use more highly enriched-fuel to minimize their size. That
> > is unnecessary for a baseline US utility, and also undesirable
> > from a proliferation perspective.
>
> ...
>
> The thought process is that if we used smaller reactors and stop designing
> the damn things everytime one get's built they would be more affordable. I
> have no problem with guarding the hell out of them. It would be cheaper than
> the way we have done it in the pass.

Using a common design for all nuclear power reactors in
the US would require the elimination of competition between
the companies building them. So long as we have quasi-public
utilities, that won't happen. France has a Socialist economy.

As for proliferation issues, US designs are sold overseas,
to countries like South Korea. Egypt and at one time Iran.
The light water moderated low-enriched Uranium design that
is inherently proliferation-resistant is advantageous and not
really much of an impediment from an engineering standpoint,
to economy. Major design differences for the export market
would be a problem.

--

FF

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 08:12:07 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:

wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:09:19 -0700, "Rich S."
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Lately I hear the bird huggers are ****ed at the tree huggers who
>>> want wind power.
>>>
>>> Turns out the wind turbines make efficient bird slicers & dicers.
>>
>> That's basically an old wives tale.
>> http://www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/swbirds.html Cats kill a lot more
>> birds than turbines. Most of the objections to wind power are the
>> typical NIMBY stuff, with the bird thing thrown in along with anything
>> else that sounds remotely plausible.
>>
>> Wayne (16 turbine-years, no sliced birds)
>
>
>Since when did facts have anything to do with the Enviro-Wacko's reasoning?

Careful now, it wasn't the "enviro-wackos" who were spreading the
chopped-birdies story here. And generally, environmentalists *are* in
favor of wind power. As for energy misinformation in general, it
doesn't matter much that some people fear the three-eyed fish thing,
unless and until some new nuke plant proposals reach the permitting
stage, which has been 5 years off for the last 3 decades. By
comparison, new wind power isn't just pie in the sky, it's available
right now. It's also generally the most cost-effective renewable, and
the least objectionable way to add grid capacity. Yet lots of
otherwise sensible people sometimes stand in the way yipping about
"cuisinarts" etc. Sometimes they block the project, sometimes they
don't. The hell of it is that intermittent sources like wind *could*
supply up to 15% of grid power without extra backup. Doesn't sound
like much until you consider that nukes only supply 20%.

Here are some US poll numbers for various power sources.
http://www.pollingreport.com/energy.htm 47% (and dropping) in favor
of new nukes, and 87% in favor of renewables. Unfortunately, that can
change to 100% of the locals against any particular project.

Here are a couple of examples of current proposals - a small home
project, and a large offshore installation. There are fierce
objections in both cases, and they're mostly *not* from
environmentalists.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/07/28/acosta.nj.windmill.fight.cnn,
http://www.grist.org/news/powers/2002/12/19/griscom-windmill/

"We have met the enemy, and he is us"

Wayne

[Darrel Toepfer]

wrote:

> Wayne (16 turbine-years, no sliced birds)

Coming through Illinois from Oshkosh on the way to St. Louis I saw a huge
windfarm. Also over a dozen truckers each hauling 2 blades heading north
towards there...

[Gig 601XL Builder]

wrote:
> On Jul 27, 7:32 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
> wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
> ...
>>
>>> USN reactor designs are quite different from civilian reactor
>>> designs for a number of reasons. In Particular, the former
>>> use more highly enriched-fuel to minimize their size. That
>>> is unnecessary for a baseline US utility, and also undesirable
>>> from a proliferation perspective.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> The thought process is that if we used smaller reactors and stop
>> designing the damn things everytime one get's built they would be
>> more affordable. I have no problem with guarding the hell out of
>> them. It would be cheaper than the way we have done it in the pass.
>
> Using a common design for all nuclear power reactors in
> the US would require the elimination of competition between
> the companies building them. So long as we have quasi-public
> utilities, that won't happen. France has a Socialist economy.
>
> As for proliferation issues, US designs are sold overseas,
> to countries like South Korea. Egypt and at one time Iran.
> The light water moderated low-enriched Uranium design that
> is inherently proliferation-resistant is advantageous and not
> really much of an impediment from an engineering standpoint,
> to economy. Major design differences for the export market
> would be a problem.
>
> FF

I didn't say a thing about not having competion in the market. I don't care
if there are 2 or 200 companies makeing them. I just think it is wasteful
to have each plant designed on a white sheet of paper.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 31, 2:36 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Jul 27, 7:32 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
> > wrote:
> >> wrote:
>
> > ...
>
> >>> USN reactor designs are quite different from civilian reactor
> >>> designs for a number of reasons. In Particular, the former
> >>> use more highly enriched-fuel to minimize their size. That
> >>> is unnecessary for a baseline US utility, and also undesirable
> >>> from a proliferation perspective.
>
> >> ...
>
> >> The thought process is that if we used smaller reactors and stop
> >> designing the damn things everytime one get's built they would be
> >> more affordable. I have no problem with guarding the hell out of
> >> them. It would be cheaper than the way we have done it in the pass.
>
> > Using a common design for all nuclear power reactors in
> > the US would require the elimination of competition between
> > the companies building them. So long as we have quasi-public
> > utilities, that won't happen. France has a Socialist economy.
>
> > As for proliferation issues, US designs are sold overseas,
> > to countries like South Korea. Egypt and at one time Iran.
> > The light water moderated low-enriched Uranium design that
> > is inherently proliferation-resistant is advantageous and not
> > really much of an impediment from an engineering standpoint,
> > to economy. Major design differences for the export market
> > would be a problem.
>
> > FF
>
> I didn't say a thing about not having competion in the market. I don't care
> if there are 2 or 200 companies makeing them. I just think it is wasteful
> to have each plant designed on a white sheet of paper.

If they are, it is because the customer wants their next power plant
to be a certain way and the A/E's bid accordingly using as much
commonality with previous designs as possible.

Back when I was in the industry, a couple of utilities were having
more than one plant built to essentially the same design. I'm
pretty sure South Korea has several near-identical plants.

--

FF

[Peter Dohm]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Jul 31, 2:36 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
> wrote:
> > wrote:
> > > On Jul 27, 7:32 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
> > > wrote:
> > >> wrote:
> >
> > > ...
> >
> > >>> USN reactor designs are quite different from civilian reactor
> > >>> designs for a number of reasons. In Particular, the former
> > >>> use more highly enriched-fuel to minimize their size. That
> > >>> is unnecessary for a baseline US utility, and also undesirable
> > >>> from a proliferation perspective.
> >
> > >> ...
> >
> > >> The thought process is that if we used smaller reactors and stop
> > >> designing the damn things everytime one get's built they would be
> > >> more affordable. I have no problem with guarding the hell out of
> > >> them. It would be cheaper than the way we have done it in the pass.
> >
> > > Using a common design for all nuclear power reactors in
> > > the US would require the elimination of competition between
> > > the companies building them. So long as we have quasi-public
> > > utilities, that won't happen. France has a Socialist economy.
> >
> > > As for proliferation issues, US designs are sold overseas,
> > > to countries like South Korea. Egypt and at one time Iran.
> > > The light water moderated low-enriched Uranium design that
> > > is inherently proliferation-resistant is advantageous and not
> > > really much of an impediment from an engineering standpoint,
> > > to economy. Major design differences for the export market
> > > would be a problem.
> >
> > > FF
> >
> > I didn't say a thing about not having competion in the market. I don't
care
> > if there are 2 or 200 companies makeing them. I just think it is
wasteful
> > to have each plant designed on a white sheet of paper.
>
> If they are, it is because the customer wants their next power plant
> to be a certain way and the A/E's bid accordingly using as much
> commonality with previous designs as possible.
>
> Back when I was in the industry, a couple of utilities were having
> more than one plant built to essentially the same design. I'm
> pretty sure South Korea has several near-identical plants.
>
> --
>
> FF
>
I have heard rumors that there are three standard and approved designs.

However, it is not my occupational specialty and it has never been my
industry; so I really don't know.

Peter

[[email protected]]

On Jul 31, 8:51 pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
> > On Jul 31, 2:36 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
> > wrote:
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Jul 27, 7:32 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >> wrote:
>
> > > > ...
>
> > > >>> USN reactor designs are quite different from civilian reactor
> > > >>> designs for a number of reasons. In Particular, the former
> > > >>> use more highly enriched-fuel to minimize their size. That
> > > >>> is unnecessary for a baseline US utility, and also undesirable
> > > >>> from a proliferation perspective.
>
> > > >> ...
>
> > > >> The thought process is that if we used smaller reactors and stop
> > > >> designing the damn things everytime one get's built they would be
> > > >> more affordable. I have no problem with guarding the hell out of
> > > >> them. It would be cheaper than the way we have done it in the pass.
>
> > > > Using a common design for all nuclear power reactors in
> > > > the US would require the elimination of competition between
> > > > the companies building them. So long as we have quasi-public
> > > > utilities, that won't happen. France has a Socialist economy.
>
> > > > As for proliferation issues, US designs are sold overseas,
> > > > to countries like South Korea. Egypt and at one time Iran.
> > > > The light water moderated low-enriched Uranium design that
> > > > is inherently proliferation-resistant is advantageous and not
> > > > really much of an impediment from an engineering standpoint,
> > > > to economy. Major design differences for the export market
> > > > would be a problem.
>
> > > > FF
>
> > > I didn't say a thing about not having competion in the market. I don't
> care
> > > if there are 2 or 200 companies makeing them. I just think it is
> wasteful
> > > to have each plant designed on a white sheet of paper.
>
> > If they are, it is because the customer wants their next power plant
> > to be a certain way and the A/E's bid accordingly using as much
> > commonality with previous designs as possible.
>
> > Back when I was in the industry, a couple of utilities were having
> > more than one plant built to essentially the same design. I'm
> > pretty sure South Korea has several near-identical plants.
>
> > --
>
> > FF
>
> I have heard rumors that there are three standard and approved designs.
>
> However, it is not my occupational specialty and it has never been my
> industry; so I really don't know.
>

Here in the United States all commerical nuclear power plants are
either
boiling water reactors (BWR) or pressurized water reactors (PWR).

There is lot more to 'design' than that broad dichotomy. No two
power plants are exactly alike.

--

FF