Re: Excellent HydroElectric Piece
Green Mtn
location: Observing the Progressive madness with considerably less amusement.
listening to: Grandchildren, the best reason for saving the future.
registered: 2004.04.03
posts: 2617
[view all posts]
[view all posts]
Fascinating information, and certainly part of the puzzle. Curiously, this information showed up in
my in-box yesterday, which is also of considerable interest. And arguably, a better widespread
solution. An engineering friends suggestion of utilizing small nuclear has convinced me it is a
short-order worldwide solution, think atomic submarines. I believe the finance question below is pure BS, that is, if our government were supportive of these
efforts, which obviously it is not. Clearly nuclear is the best solution for widespread electrification,
to which I would add that rural electrification was only completed in Vermont in 1972. Also while
out taking some pictures recently, I came across a curious plaque that stated the waterfall I was
viewing had only -as of 1966- ceased all water powered operations. Meaning non dam power
generation, like historic water wheels, etc.Links to 3 articles followNuclear power
Atomic renaissance
Sep 6th 2007
From The Economist print editionAmerica's nuclear industry is about to embark on its biggest expansion in more than a generation.
This will influence energy policy in the rest of the world ...http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9719029
...
Whether it is a leap forwards or a step backwards remains to be seen. Since the 1970s, far from
being “too cheap to meter”—as it proponents once blithely claimed—nuclear power has proved too
expensive to matter. The problem is finance: nuclear plants cost a lot to build but are relatively
cheap to run, unlike gas-fired ones, for which the reverse is true. So to be profitable they must be
built quickly, to minimise the period when no revenue is coming in and interest payments are piling
up on construction loans. Yet America's previous generation of nuclear plants was plagued by
safety scares, design revisions and time-consuming regulatory procedures, which resulted in
ruinously protracted construction.~~~Nuclear dawn
Sep 6th 2007
From The Economist print editionEnergy: Attitudes to nuclear power are shifting in response to climate change and fears over the
security of the supply of fossil fuels. The technology of nuclear power has been changing, too ...http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9719029~~~Nuclear power's new age
Sep 6th 2007
From The Economist print editionA nuclear revival is welcome so long as the industry does not repeat its old mistakes ...http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=9767699
–--
“Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions.” Wm O. Douglas
“Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions.” Wm O. Douglas
G
Green Mtn
(view)
Fascinating information, and certainly part of the puzzle. Curiously, this information showed up in
my in-box yesterday, which is also of considerable interest. And arguably, a better widespread
solution. An engineering friends suggestion of utilizing small nuclear has convinced me it is a
short-order worldwide solution, think atomic submarines. I believe the finance question below is pure BS, that is, if our government were supportive of these
efforts, which obviously it is not. Clearly nuclear is the best solution for widespread electrification,
to which I would add that rural electrification was only completed in Vermont in 1972. Also while
out taking some pictures recently, I came across a curious plaque that stated the waterfall I was
viewing had only -as of 1966- ceased all water powered operations. Meaning non dam power
generation, like historic water wheels, etc.Links to 3 articles followNuclear power
Atomic renaissance
Sep 6th 2007
From The Economist print editionAmerica's nuclear industry is about to embark on its biggest expansion in more than a generation.
This will influence energy policy in the rest of the world ...http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9719029
...
Whether it is a leap forwards or a step backwards remains to be seen. Since the 1970s, far from
being “too cheap to meter”—as it proponents once blithely claimed—nuclear power has proved too
expensive to matter. The problem is finance: nuclear plants cost a lot to build but are relatively
cheap to run, unlike gas-fired ones, for which the reverse is true. So to be profitable they must be
built quickly, to minimise the period when no revenue is coming in and interest payments are piling
up on construction loans. Yet America's previous generation of nuclear plants was plagued by
safety scares, design revisions and time-consuming regulatory procedures, which resulted in
ruinously protracted construction.~~~Nuclear dawn
Sep 6th 2007
From The Economist print editionEnergy: Attitudes to nuclear power are shifting in response to climate change and fears over the
security of the supply of fossil fuels. The technology of nuclear power has been changing, too ...http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9719029~~~Nuclear power's new age
Sep 6th 2007
From The Economist print editionA nuclear revival is welcome so long as the industry does not repeat its old mistakes ...http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=9767699
–--
“Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions.” Wm O. Douglas
“Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions.” Wm O. Douglas
