Energy alternatives

[Neon John <johngd@bellsouth.net>]

"Frank R. Borger_(FRB)" wrote:
> 
> Frank R. Borger - SeniorSupport Engineer, Gammex RMI
> fborger@gammex.com phn 608-828-7289 fax 608-828-7500
> 
> Oh NO!!! Captain America's traded in his T28 for a Rooski Jet!
> Say it isn't so, Gail Richards! 

Not so quick.  We may have an opportunity here.  Just like in the
Marines, one's beliefs have to be broken down before new truths can
be taught.  We're engaging in the deprogramming of the religion of
radical environmentalism.  It takes time. Give 'em a bit more time.
Let's engage this topic instead of degenerating into name calling or
tit-for-tat one line rejoinders.

> >to solar
> 
> I mentioned privately to Norm that solar just doesn't add up. When I was a kid, I
> read Heinlein's science fiction, but when I grew up, I learned to calculate the truth.
> (OBTW, I still read and love Heinlein, but recognize it as fiction.)

Norm, I'm talking to you and not like you're not here :-)  I want to
engage in a conversation. I would like to hear your short-form
environmental impact analysis of solar.  It should be in as much
detail and address all such low probability events as has been
forced on the conventional energy segments.  In particular, I want
to see the analysis of:

*  The impact on local and global thermal conditions of covering
thousands of acres with highly reflective solar collectors.  Include
an analysis of reflecting a significant amount of energy back into
space instead of it being absorbed by ground as occurs now.

*  The impact on ground and surface water and streams of stripping
thousands of acres of ground cover under the solar collection
system.

*  The impact on flora and fauna of covering thousands of acres of
solar collectors.

*  The impact to Indian and other historical artifacts by the
disturbance of the thousands of acres of land.

*  The probability and potential impact of blinding a pilot or
astronaut with high intensity reflected light from the collectors.

*  The psychological impact to the people who would be displaced by
such developments and the impact on those who remain.  Particularly
analyze the effect of highly improbable but highly publicized
accident scenarios.

Well, that's enough for now.

> >to wave
> 
> Come on Norm, for a while I though you were really trying to learn something. The first three
> you mentioned are at least feasable, but nobody's done any real tidal generation.

let's go with that for a moment, though.  Again I want to see a
detailed environmental impact statement on a proposed 2000
megawatt(E) wave or tidal plant.  I'm particularly interested in
what happens to the fisheries when miles of coastline's tidal and
wave patterns are disrupted.

> >As well as a real commitment to efficiency.

Been there, done that, starting back in the 70s.  Let's quit beating
that dead horse.  Energy is wealth.  We need MORE and not less
energy.  Energy is just like money.  It's good to save but at some
point in time, ya gotta spend it in order to have anything.

> Darn it Norm, for a while I thought you were the type of person that could get their
> blinders off. Now I'm considering any discussion with you a waste of my time and
> this list's bandwidth.

I just think that we have to work a bit harder on the blinders. 
After all, we're attempting to dismantle a whole worldview.  A bit
of patience, please.

Norm, I want to ask a question and I don't mean it to sound
sarcastic or elitist.  I'm going to ask it because most people don't
know the answer.

Do you have any idea how much a thousand megawatts of energy is? 
Two thousand?  I bet you don't.  Here in Chattanooga, we have a very
nice two unit nuclear plant (Sequoyah) and a medium sized dam
(Chickamauga).  Sequoyah produces about 2200 megawatts of power. 
The dam and hydro plant, which is about the same physical size as
Sequoyah, produces a bit over 100 megawatts - almost enough to run
DuPont's nylon plant right next door.  It would take 20 such dams to
generate the equivalent power to Sequoyah.  Indeed, TVA's whole
hydro system on the TN river makes less power than Sequoyah and
Watts Bar, Sequoyah's twin.

Norm, which would you prefer?  A Sequoyah with provably negligible
impact on the environment or 20 hydro plants?  This is not a
rhetorical question.  This is the actual tradeoff.  I'm certainly
not an eco-nazi but I damn sure don't want to see that kind of dam
construction - even if it was technically feasible.

You might say that some sort of combined cycle natural gas plant
might substitute.  If you do, then you have to first address the
carbon dioxide issue.  I don't consider it to amount to anything but
the environmental movement does so it must be addressed.  

Beyond that, consider the effects of putting all our eggs in one
basket.  Natural gas is the only viable alternative to what is being
used now.  Solar, wind, tides and all that stuff are simply
persistent pipe-dreams that are NOT practical.  So what happens if
we wave our magic wand and *poof*, all those nasty nuke and coal
plants are gone and all we're burning is natural gas.  I'd like to
see your environmental impact analysis of what happens when a
national distribution system large enough to handle that much gas
has to be built.  I want to see the economic analysis of what
happens to the price of residential gas when utilities start making
that giant sucking sound on all the gas wells.  Then analyze the
international and trade implications of having to buy up much of the
world's supply of natural gas.  Analyze the impact of a cartel
deciding to turn off the valve.  

One of the basic concepts of reliable utility operation is to have a
diversity of energy sources.  You do have to admit that we utility
types know what we're doing regarding building a reliable power
supply.  Trust us, we're right on this one.

I know that there are belief issues involved here and as such, they
don't have to make sense but still I don't understand the central
issue here.  I just can't figure out why you'd want to take nuclear
plants that do no harm to people and replace them with either
nothing (and then people freeze or die from heat stroke) or MORE
harmful alternatives.  After all, you guys are arguing between
yourselves what degree of nothing you're finding with your measuring
projects such as the tooth fairy project.

John

-- 
John De Armond
johngdSPAMNOT@bellsouth.net
http://personal.bellsouth.net/~johngd/
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html