Lights anyone?
- Thread starter yabodie
- Start date
-
Love Gotmead and want to see it grow? Then consider supporting the site and becoming a Patron! If you're logged in, click on your username to the right of the menu to see how as little as $30/year can get you access to the patron areas and the patron Facebook group and to support Gotmead!
-
We now have a Patron-exclusive Facebook group! Patrons my join at The Gotmead Patron Group. You MUST answer the questions, providing your Patron membership, when you request to join so I can verify your Patron membership. If the questions aren't answered, the request will be turned down.
Well if the don't they wont have power for their computer so they wont see this post. 
;D
I saw where they are wanting people to voluntarily turn off their power in California. Triple digits and they want you to turn off your power. I would go to the power company and complain. If that didn't work at least you would be in the AC while your there cause you can bet they have it cranked up on high.
If it looks like your Meads going to get to warm you may be forced to drink it all.
Keep cool,
Tarot.
;DI saw where they are wanting people to voluntarily turn off their power in California. Triple digits and they want you to turn off your power. I would go to the power company and complain. If that didn't work at least you would be in the AC while your there cause you can bet they have it cranked up on high.
If it looks like your Meads going to get to warm you may be forced to drink it all.
Keep cool,
Tarot.
...
People have only themselves to blame, their using more power and continually blocking the construction of new power plants... too many NIMBY's, and it's only going to get worse, I've read that we could build a nuclear power plant a month for the next decade and it still wouldn't keep up with demand here in the US... and forget wind or solar keeping pace.
Wrathwilde
People have only themselves to blame, their using more power and continually blocking the construction of new power plants... too many NIMBY's, and it's only going to get worse, I've read that we could build a nuclear power plant a month for the next decade and it still wouldn't keep up with demand here in the US... and forget wind or solar keeping pace.
Wrathwilde
Wrath is right about things here in California.
People scream about the environment and want to save the whales yadda yadda yadda. Problem is they don't want to back off on their power usage, and come out in droves to vote down any new power plant construction, nuclear plant construction, etc. So we have everyone screaming about rolling blackouts, but we're not giving the utilities and governmental agencies the tools they need in order to accomodate the ever power hungry and burgeoning population in California. Especially since our borders are pretty much as open as a June bride O0
Cheers,
Oskaar
People scream about the environment and want to save the whales yadda yadda yadda. Problem is they don't want to back off on their power usage, and come out in droves to vote down any new power plant construction, nuclear plant construction, etc. So we have everyone screaming about rolling blackouts, but we're not giving the utilities and governmental agencies the tools they need in order to accomodate the ever power hungry and burgeoning population in California. Especially since our borders are pretty much as open as a June bride O0
Cheers,
Oskaar
Oskaar said:
Having spent most of my life in California I figured the situation hadn't changed in the 8 years I've been away.
Wrathwilde
Oskaar said:
I totally agree. People need to stop complaining about energy making money and consider the impacts of their protests. Sure, we have a dependency on energy (such as nuclear power plants, hydro, and oil.) The solution is not to limit development of those resources.
Hey,
I'm all for conservation, environmental protection and renewable enery sources, heck I compost and recycle with the best of them. But like Insantiy said below, you don't just stop developing and evolving current core technologies because a friggin jurassic fruitfly on the threatened species list may (or not) become endangered. Incentivize development with some meaningful breaks (tax, workers comp, insurance, rent, etc) for the businesses taking the risks to develop emerging technologies and fuels that will help us slowly whean ourselves from the teat of fossil fuel. I'm talking real incentives like mead soaked parties with coeds from the top five party Universities in the Nation. Now let's see who jumps on board.
Cheers,
Oskaar
I'm all for conservation, environmental protection and renewable enery sources, heck I compost and recycle with the best of them. But like Insantiy said below, you don't just stop developing and evolving current core technologies because a friggin jurassic fruitfly on the threatened species list may (or not) become endangered. Incentivize development with some meaningful breaks (tax, workers comp, insurance, rent, etc) for the businesses taking the risks to develop emerging technologies and fuels that will help us slowly whean ourselves from the teat of fossil fuel. I'm talking real incentives like mead soaked parties with coeds from the top five party Universities in the Nation. Now let's see who jumps on board.
Cheers,
Oskaar
I don't share your enthusiam for weaning from the petroleum teat. However, if another energy resource is better, I've got to support it.
Quite simply, record oil company profits today will equate to super record profits tomorrow unless additional energy resources or known petroleum reserves are developed. At some point, does the public want $3 gas or $6 gas or $12/ gal gas. At some point, alternative energy resources will become viable. How much can your pay check afford? Additionally, is it the responsibility of companies to make sure you pay a government subsidized portion or is it their interest to charge the going rate regardless of their costs?
Quite simply, record oil company profits today will equate to super record profits tomorrow unless additional energy resources or known petroleum reserves are developed. At some point, does the public want $3 gas or $6 gas or $12/ gal gas. At some point, alternative energy resources will become viable. How much can your pay check afford? Additionally, is it the responsibility of companies to make sure you pay a government subsidized portion or is it their interest to charge the going rate regardless of their costs?
Synthetic Fuel from coal, 1/2 the price of Oil (Oil is $74+ at the moment) and the US has enough coal to create more than the equivalent # of barrels than the entire middle east has reserves of oil.
Montana's Governor's Office FAQ & links Synthetic Fuel
Check out the link at the bottom for the Dept. of Defense
Cheers,
Wrathwilde
Montana's Governor's Office FAQ & links Synthetic Fuel
Check out the link at the bottom for the Dept. of Defense
Cheers,
Wrathwilde
WOW seems I touched a nerve expressing my concern for keeping the mead cool.
Oskaar, let me know when the party will be and I will sign up for that!!
Seriously though I really do think that we, not only as a nation, but as a global community, need to reevaluate the dependence on energy sources which are so damn expensive. If the cost of gas continues to go up, which I think it will, the US economy will grind to a halt because we are a oil based society and do not have the infrastructure to support real mass transit. European countries have better infrastructure for mass transit and they have more nuclear and hydro power than we do.
On a side note if a Chinese company can develop a toy hydrogen car with a solar powered refueling station then why has that technology been developed for street cars? Here is the link for the story… http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/business/15100075.htm
At some point the line in the sand needs to be drawn and either suck up the rolling black outs or give up some land for more power plants. I am all for environmental protection, recycling etc, but at some point we need to make a choice.
Oh and don’t get me started on the boneheads preventing nuclear power plant construction…
Oskaar, let me know when the party will be and I will sign up for that!!
Seriously though I really do think that we, not only as a nation, but as a global community, need to reevaluate the dependence on energy sources which are so damn expensive. If the cost of gas continues to go up, which I think it will, the US economy will grind to a halt because we are a oil based society and do not have the infrastructure to support real mass transit. European countries have better infrastructure for mass transit and they have more nuclear and hydro power than we do.
On a side note if a Chinese company can develop a toy hydrogen car with a solar powered refueling station then why has that technology been developed for street cars? Here is the link for the story… http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/business/15100075.htm
At some point the line in the sand needs to be drawn and either suck up the rolling black outs or give up some land for more power plants. I am all for environmental protection, recycling etc, but at some point we need to make a choice.
Oh and don’t get me started on the boneheads preventing nuclear power plant construction…
insanity said:
There's more oil in the Canadian lignite sands and in the artic than has ever been in the Arabian peninsula. It's just a shame that it'll cost so much to relocate, reposition and develop the assets that are needed to exploit this resource. The time will come when it's going to happen, but not until they wring the last drop out of the middle east. Despite the wars, and the costs associated, it's still cheaper to do it that way.
If I were Queen of the Universe and a Time Lord to boot, I'd go back and make sure the railroad was not abandoned. We spend so much of our petroleum resources on over the road hauling.
Each one of those trucks that pass you at a zillion miles an hour is carrying a tiny bit of goods from point A to point B.
I would make it so that things could only be trucked say, 300 miles total. I'd have a railroad drop site every 600 miles. Or some such conservative numbers.
And less railroad crossings and more fly-overs. Like we do with interstates. I don't know why we couldn't make a bridge over the rail road tracks.
We'd have cleaner air, our roads would last a lot longer, and we wouldn't use so much petroleum. Oh, and the OTR truckers would be able to be home at night to raise their kids.
Leonora
Each one of those trucks that pass you at a zillion miles an hour is carrying a tiny bit of goods from point A to point B.
I would make it so that things could only be trucked say, 300 miles total. I'd have a railroad drop site every 600 miles. Or some such conservative numbers.
And less railroad crossings and more fly-overs. Like we do with interstates. I don't know why we couldn't make a bridge over the rail road tracks.
We'd have cleaner air, our roads would last a lot longer, and we wouldn't use so much petroleum. Oh, and the OTR truckers would be able to be home at night to raise their kids.
Leonora
I am confused by the continued opposition to the development of nuclear power plants. They cite environmental dangers that will be created by accidents and the hazardous waste that will be in existence for thousands of years. What they fail to realize, or refuse to, is that the technology that resulted in 3 Mile Island is now 30 years old, and has been replaced by computerized monitoring and controls that are 1000 times better and safer. Therefore, very little chance of an accident (have you heard of one anywhere in the world over the past 10 years?).
As for the waste, this can be dealt with in a safe manner. After all, is it better to pollute the environment now with fossil fuel based energy, or safely store the radioactive stuff for a few years until a technology is developed to handle it?
Angus
As for the waste, this can be dealt with in a safe manner. After all, is it better to pollute the environment now with fossil fuel based energy, or safely store the radioactive stuff for a few years until a technology is developed to handle it?
Angus
There are also pebble bed nuclear reactors, brief benefit of design... from the Wired Article, Let a Thousand Reactors Bloom
The key trick is a phenomenon known as Doppler broadening - the hotter atoms get, the more they spread apart, making it harder for an incoming neutron to strike a nucleus. In the dense core of a conventional reactor, the effect is marginal. But HTR-10's carefully designed geometry, low fuel density, and small size make for a very different story. In the event of a catastrophic cooling-system failure, instead of skyrocketing into a bad movie plot, the core temperature climbs to only about 1,600 degrees Celsius - comfortably below the balls' 2,000-plus-degree melting point - and then falls. This temperature ceiling makes HTR-10 what engineers privately call walk-away safe. As in, you can walk away from any situation and go have a pizza.
"In a conventional reactor emergency, you have only seconds to make the right decision," Zhang notes. "With HTR-10, it's days, even weeks - as much time as we could ever need to fix a problem."
plus...
Coming to terms with nuclear energy is only a first step. To power a billion cars, there's no practical alternative to hydrogen. But it will take huge quantities of energy to extract hydrogen from water and hydrocarbons, and the best ways scientists have found to do that require high temperatures, up to 1,000 degrees Celsius. In other words, there's another way of looking at INET's high-temperature reactor and its potential offspring: They're hydrogen machines.
For exactly that reason, the DOE, along with similar agencies in Japan and Europe, is looking intently at high-temperature reactor designs. Tsinghua's researchers are in contact with the major players, but they're also starting their own project, focused on what many believe is the most promising means of generating hydrogen: thermochemical water splitting. Researchers at Sandia National Laboratories believe efficiency could top 60 percent - twice that of low-temperature methods. INET plans to begin researching hydrogen production by 2006.
In that way, China's nuclear renaissance could feed the hydrogen revolution, enabling the country to leapfrog the fossil-fueled West into a new age of clean energy. Why worry about foreign fuel supplies when you can have safe nukes rolling off your own assembly lines? Why invoke costly international antipollution protocols when you can have motor vehicles that spout only water vapor from their tail pipes? Why debate least-bad alternatives when you have the political and economic muscle to engineer the dream?
Wrathwilde
The key trick is a phenomenon known as Doppler broadening - the hotter atoms get, the more they spread apart, making it harder for an incoming neutron to strike a nucleus. In the dense core of a conventional reactor, the effect is marginal. But HTR-10's carefully designed geometry, low fuel density, and small size make for a very different story. In the event of a catastrophic cooling-system failure, instead of skyrocketing into a bad movie plot, the core temperature climbs to only about 1,600 degrees Celsius - comfortably below the balls' 2,000-plus-degree melting point - and then falls. This temperature ceiling makes HTR-10 what engineers privately call walk-away safe. As in, you can walk away from any situation and go have a pizza.
"In a conventional reactor emergency, you have only seconds to make the right decision," Zhang notes. "With HTR-10, it's days, even weeks - as much time as we could ever need to fix a problem."
plus...
Coming to terms with nuclear energy is only a first step. To power a billion cars, there's no practical alternative to hydrogen. But it will take huge quantities of energy to extract hydrogen from water and hydrocarbons, and the best ways scientists have found to do that require high temperatures, up to 1,000 degrees Celsius. In other words, there's another way of looking at INET's high-temperature reactor and its potential offspring: They're hydrogen machines.
For exactly that reason, the DOE, along with similar agencies in Japan and Europe, is looking intently at high-temperature reactor designs. Tsinghua's researchers are in contact with the major players, but they're also starting their own project, focused on what many believe is the most promising means of generating hydrogen: thermochemical water splitting. Researchers at Sandia National Laboratories believe efficiency could top 60 percent - twice that of low-temperature methods. INET plans to begin researching hydrogen production by 2006.
In that way, China's nuclear renaissance could feed the hydrogen revolution, enabling the country to leapfrog the fossil-fueled West into a new age of clean energy. Why worry about foreign fuel supplies when you can have safe nukes rolling off your own assembly lines? Why invoke costly international antipollution protocols when you can have motor vehicles that spout only water vapor from their tail pipes? Why debate least-bad alternatives when you have the political and economic muscle to engineer the dream?
Wrathwilde
