Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Home Gas/Electric Bill Thread (merged)

How to save energy through both societal and individual actions.
Post a reply

Postby Leanan » Wed 06 Jul 2005, 11:55:37

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')G is going to go to the consumer for heat rather than industrial which is a large consumer.


Not anymore, it isn't. When the price went from $2 to $6 a few years ago, the industrial users either closed their doors or moved overseas.

We may regret that. Having some homegrown fertilizer plants would probably be a good thing.
User avatar
Leanan
News Editor
News Editor
 
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu 20 May 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Postby gnm » Wed 06 Jul 2005, 11:59:51

Going nuclear unfortuantely is going to be the only option. That and (save us) COAL! 8O

I'll take nuclear of those options!

As for the waste - It IS being put in my backyard..... but better 2000 feet under the New Mexico desert than rotting in drums in the urban NE...

-G
gnm
 
Top

Postby Ludi » Wed 06 Jul 2005, 12:13:12

Nuke plants take quite a long time to build and put on line. I don't think they will help much...
Ludi
 
Top

Postby gnm » Wed 06 Jul 2005, 12:19:47

True - But do you think they could "fast track" build em? If not we are in for some serious problems as even now coal distribution is tight, and coal infrastructure limited. Building more coal fired plants is time consuming as well.

-G 8O
gnm
 
Top

Postby RG73 » Wed 06 Jul 2005, 12:28:35

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnemyCombatant', 'G')oing nuclear is like putting weapons in the hands of terrorists. It's like boobytrapping the entire country.


Yeah, because this happens so often? What terrorists? It's been nearly 4 years since their first strike, no shortage of soft targets, not particularly difficult to get into the US and nothing. We can throw out a priori any suggestions that our intelligence and law enforcement are responsible for that because we know how clueless they are. So, the easiest explanation without invoking conspiracies is that people outside the US are smarter than we give them credit for and that they think its easier to let us dig our own grave. And we're digging furiously at the moment. Hardly a need to blow up a reactor (which "they" could do easily any day if "they" really wanted to).

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd I suppose we can put the waste in your backyard.


Sure, if you used the proper containment. Radiation has been one of the major selective forces during the evolution of life on Earth. Organisms are pretty well adapted to dealing with way more than whatever we can throw out there. We've pretty much doomed all metazoan life with or without our radiation, so the world is going to be left to the microbes anyway, and they really could care less about the radiation. And really, if you dig a deep enough hole in the ground, with thick enough shielding, it isn't going to bother anyone. In the meantime we're going to have bigger fish to fry than worrying about the impact of radiation 200,000 years down the road when there will be neither humans, nor many mammals left.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')r maybe we just dump it on the sandniggers?


Was this really necessary?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')eople must realize that we must drastically change our ways. Looking for faster ways to kill ourselves is not the solution.


I agree totally. But one of those ways we're going to have to change is accepting that we're going to have to chuck radioactive waste in deep holes in the ground and worry about the consequences later (if there is anyone left to even worry about it). The French are doing fairly well with a nuclear powered country--having a nice farmhouse in Provence and being able to turn the lights on isn't such a bad life.
User avatar
RG73
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Fri 20 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Austin, Tx
Top

Postby Ludi » Wed 06 Jul 2005, 12:28:55

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gnm', 'T')rue - But do you think they could "fast track" build em? If not we are in for some serious problems as even now coal distribution is tight, and coal infrastructure limited. Building more coal fired plants is time consuming as well.

-G 8O


I certainly hope they can't/won't be fast-tracked. I wouldn't want such a potentially dangerous device built in a hasty fashion. Of course, I don't want them built at all, as I am completely anti-nuke.

"The useful lifetime of a nuclear power plant is around 20-25 years in actual practice. The NRC limits licensing of commercial power plants to 40 years with up to a 20 year extension, but �primarily because of the radiation induced within their originally non-radioactive components, reactors and other major nuclear facilities may become dangerous to operate-or even approach-long before they show signs of physical deterioration�. The Atomic Industrial Forum estimated that the decommissioning of a 1,150MW plant would result in 594,000ft3 of waste. The DOE projects the total wastes generated from the shutdown of a LWR to be decommissioned between 1993-2030 to be: Class A LLW 1,528,434m3; Class B LLW 22,410m3; Class C LLW 2,424m3; GTCC 1,237m3. The figure for GTCC may appear to be a small volume, but it represents 50,053,764Ci of radioactivity which is a huge amount. The U.S. experience with decommissioning nuclear power plants includes a wide range of facilities from small demonstration project reactors like the 22MW Elk River Power Station to full size electric power generating reactors like the 1130MW Trojan Unit 1. 28 civilian reactors had been shut down as of December 31, 1992, the total of all reactors that have been shutdown of all kinds is 70, 40 of these were research reactors of comparatively small size. The majority of power reactors that have been shutdown have been closed prematurely, before their operating licenses ran out. There are a variety of reasons; operation not economically feasible, persistent mechanical problems, changing safety standards that would be prohibitively expensive to meet, public outcry against the plant, accidents, seismic issues and radioactive contamination. 18 plants have closed early and 97 have been ordered and then canceled before construction was complete."

http://nuclearhistory.tripod.com/issues.html
Ludi
 
Top

Postby Eli » Wed 06 Jul 2005, 12:28:55

I have gotten rather cynical so I posted that line about there being plenty of NG in jest. Saying that there is plenty of NG is like the Saudis saying we have more oil than the world can up for uses for it.

Agreed Nuclear is not going to help us in the short term but it is a better long term strategy than LNG's and the pipelines from the North Slope of Alaska.

But long term Nuclear is our best option IMHO.

Ludi I agree with you that the crunch is comming and NG is even more pressing than Oil in North America. :shock:

But Nuclear is our best option until we get fusion reactors going or Jesus comes back.

Come on Jesus come on Jesus no wammy no wammy. :P

I am only half kidding about the above.

We can build them safely Pebble bed reactors are much safer. I would rather be living a mile a way from a pebble bed reactor than a freaking LNG bomb.. I mean terminal. At least if there is a nuclear accident you will be able to get out of the area and if the wind is blowing the other way you will be fine. When an LNG blows up you will figure it out when you realize you are burning to death.
User avatar
Eli
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3709
Joined: Sat 18 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Location: In a van down by the river
Top

Postby No-Oil » Wed 06 Jul 2005, 12:45:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnemyCombatant', 'G')oing nuclear is like putting weapons in the hands of terrorists. It's like boobytrapping the entire country.


Alternately, the USA could stop pissing people off in other countries & the so called terroists will leave you alone ! Just a thought :)

Rememebr that the US Government deployed Antrax against its own people in an experiment, which incidentally showed that it was worthless as a biological weapon. Yet that same Government now steals your freedoms whilst claiming that Antrax is a terrible terrorist weapon !
The roller coaster is still climbing, but it's near the top now !
Where there's a WAR there's a WAY :(
User avatar
No-Oil
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 241
Joined: Fri 31 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: UK
Top

Postby gnm » Wed 06 Jul 2005, 12:45:50

Ludi, I can understand being opposed to nuclear but short of massive coal use which incidentally dumps more radiation (and mercury!) into the atmosphere than nuclear power what options do you suggest? Pebble bed reactors are a neat development and safe from possible meltdown.

I think people get too scared about nuclear because of a misunderstanding of radiation. Coal produces a lot of radiation (and other dangerous chemicals as well) compared to nuclear. And in most cases background radiation is far more than the nuke plant down the street is ever going to expose you to. Radon in the basement would be a better worry...

But really do we have any other options? And please don't say wind and solar. Both can help but aren't the fix. And I run PV myself... It just doesn't scale...

-G 8O
gnm
 
Top

Postby aahala » Wed 06 Jul 2005, 12:47:03

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Eli', '
')
The north east and the rest of the country need to build nuclear plants in a hurry.


The reason people on the coasts aren't that interested is that they
remember the likes of Seabrook, Shoreham, Whoops and Diablo. And
they should remember, since they are still paying thru the nose for these plants.
User avatar
aahala
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 944
Joined: Thu 03 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Postby generikan » Wed 06 Jul 2005, 13:00:08

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MD', 'P')lenty to go around? Maybe in Asia, but not in North America, and there is not sufficient transport infrastructure to move ot from there to here.

haha even if there is infrastructure, i doubt you will receieve it from them.
User avatar
generikan
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Sat 05 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Postby gnm » Wed 06 Jul 2005, 13:00:17

Good point, and we had our overpriced Palo Verde boondoggle down here. To this day PNM (NM electric company) has a "PV refinance credit" of like 10 cents per bill which credits a tiny sum back to the consumer - I think it had something to do with PNM subsidizing the construction of the Palo Verde nuke plant in Arizona (and using NM consumers money which was illegal?) so now they are paying us back a tiny bit at a time....

And half the people I point this out to in NM thought its some kind of "green" power credit for "PhotoVoltaics" - NOT!

but under enough resource stress I think the nukes will get built!

-G
Last edited by gnm on Wed 06 Jul 2005, 13:01:41, edited 1 time in total.
gnm
 
Top

Postby Eli » Wed 06 Jul 2005, 13:00:56

I understand why people are opposed to nuclear power and I appreciate their environmental concerns but....


Opposition to nuclear power is a luxury brought to us by our reliance on fossil fuels. People want to be warm. When you are freezing to death and your lights won't come on most people would love to just have power regardless of the source.

The power crunch will be so acute that those who want to protest nuclear power and block the construction of a Nuclear Power plant will likely face the National Guard with orders to shoot to kill. And even the sweet little old ladys in New England will say "kill the bastards and turn my heat on."

And everyone will point to France as a great model to follow. It will be an easy sell.
User avatar
Eli
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3709
Joined: Sat 18 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Location: In a van down by the river
Top

Postby EnemyCombatant » Wed 06 Jul 2005, 14:00:14

And why does it have to come to this? It's as if people choose to sit on their lazy ass and look forward to the crash. If this is what you see in the future, then change it.

Realize if we are stupid enough to get to this point, we aren't going to be smart enough to survive the crash. Stupid begets more stupid.

If we don't solve the problem with intelligence, then we are just fooling ourselves. Why do we have these suicidal tendencies? Let's kill each other for the last cheetoh. Or better yet, let's build some nuclear plants so we can all grow a third eye ball from the nuclear fallout. Our vision will greatly improve. Or even better, let's burn more coal so the planet can REALLY start to heat up. I always liked warm weather anyway.

If we have to resort to primitive rants such as 'kill the bastards' so I can keep my ass warm, then somewhere along the way we missed the boat.

We shouldn't feel sad or sorry for ourselves because we are in this position. We should feel sorry for ourselves for getting here in the first place. And this business about humanity rebuilding itself like a phoenix out of the ashes doesn't not give me any heart. If we are just going to start the same cycle all over again, then we might as well commit cosmic suicide and let something else evolve here.
Now why didn't I take the blue pill.
User avatar
EnemyCombatant
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed 16 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Postby linlithgowoil » Wed 06 Jul 2005, 14:25:29

$325 a month for heating? You kidding?

its about £20 ($36) a month in winter for my heating which is natural gas, and next to nothing all summer long as i dont use it.
User avatar
linlithgowoil
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon 20 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Scotland
Top

Postby BabyPeanut » Wed 06 Jul 2005, 14:28:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('linlithgowoil', '$')325 a month for heating? You kidding?

its about £20 ($36) a month in winter for my heating which is natural gas, and next to nothing all summer long as i dont use it.
This must be a leaky house. Cold air coming in through cracks is the fastest way to lose heat. Get some foam installed into the walls.
BabyPeanut
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3275
Joined: Tue 17 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: 39° 39' N 77° 77' W or thereabouts
Top

Postby formandfile » Wed 06 Jul 2005, 18:22:42

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnemyCombatant', 'I')f we have to resort to primitive rants such as 'kill the bastards' so I can keep my ass warm, then somewhere along the way we missed the boat.


As suggesting that we can dump nuclear waste "on the sandniggers" somehow has the ability to rise above the aforementioned primitive rants?

Sorry, but i simply dont see how an increase in nuclear power equates commiting suicide.
User avatar
formandfile
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed 17 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Atlanta - GA - USA
Top

Postby Eli » Wed 06 Jul 2005, 19:04:17

Yes for those who missed my point nuclear with all its draw backs and flaws is going to be very appealing to those who want to stay warm in the winter. And those who disagree with it its use which I understand why they do will quickly become the minority opinion.

France has not dried up and blown away because of their Nuclear power.

I love the ignore feature it rocks! It save you from reading endless political screeds.
User avatar
Eli
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3709
Joined: Sat 18 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Location: In a van down by the river
Top

Postby I_Like_Plants » Wed 06 Jul 2005, 19:08:14

Linlithgowell you learn yet again how different things are in the US compared to where you are. There are factors ppl in the US live with that have no counterpart there, such as extremely high prices for a lot of things, medical care, college costs, heat in the winter, etc. and a great number of safety nets you have that people in the US don't. If you lived here you'd probably own a gun and suffer from a pervasive fear too, since people in the US can and do lose their houses, get sick and die from being too cold from no heat in the winter, settle for being a window washer instead of the doctor etc they could have been, have their kids (male or female) come home from school with the sad news that being raped has given them AIDs, lose their jobs because they had a Kerry or Bush or just the wrong kind of, bumper sticker on their car, etc.

We are the anti-europe. :cry:
I_Like_Plants
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3839
Joined: Sun 12 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Location: 1st territorial capitol of AZ
Top

Postby Denny » Wed 06 Jul 2005, 22:35:19

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Leanan', '
')People with electric heat might do best. Natural gas is in extremely short supply. Heavy oil like heating oil is more easily transported, but demand tends to be inelastic, so prices may be quite high.


I completely disagree.

First, much electricity is generated by natural gas.

Secondly, when you turn any fossil fuel into electricity there is a temendous thermodynamic loss, as most of the heat is not converted into power, its lost to the environment through the pheonomen known as the latent heat of vaporization. The steam leaving the turbine at a power plant is a "wet" mix of water droplets and steam vapour and is condensed back to liquid by passing it through a heat exchanger usually on the bank of a river or a lake. This must be done to allow the lquid to be pumped back around the circuit.

I understand the best of designs only capture 40% to 50% of the heat content of the fuel.

Next step, the power has to get to you from the generating station. Another loss, 5% to 10% for resistance loss throught eh transmisison system. At best you are getting 45% of the original heat content of the fossil fuel used. That is why electricity costs more per kwh than the equivalent BTU content. One could argue that if hydroelectric or wind power is used then this is not an issue here. But there is, as this forms the "base" power supply for lighting and electric motors and the like. So, its already "claimed" and cannot be used for heating.

If you just take the basic natural gas and burn it in a conventional gurnace, you can get 85% to 90% of the heat content turned into interior space heating, with the balance up the flue. High efficiency furnaces can get upwards of 95%.

Electric space heating is a big waste of energy.
User avatar
Denny
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1738
Joined: Sat 10 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Canada
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Conservation & Efficiency

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests



cron