Gasoline Madness;When to Stop

[Bill, KD0HG]

I have been in a nuke plant several times when I worked for an electric utility company

I don't see any reason why a tightly escorted group couldn't tour parts of the place. Now, if a nuke is too hazardous to visit, even under highly controlled circumstances, then that plays right into the hands of the ignorant.

I've been in coal plants many times as well. As far as I'm concerned, they're even more dangerous to personnel working inside than a nuke is. That steam is almost red hot at 2,500-4,000 PSI, maybe 1,000 F. A leak in a high pressure pipe wouldn't even be seen as it would be too hot to condense, but it sure could amputate your arm or leg. A major leak would be a disaster. One could blow the walls of the building out. In a confined area, you'd cook from the inside with your first breath.

At least build a reception area into the front offices of a nuke plant, for heaven's sake. Set it up with A/V exhibits, like museums have. If that's a bad idea, then start the PR machine and educate the public.

I will say one thing...Reading the story of the Chernobyl disaster is truly frightening.

[WA1GFZ]

They used to have a center in town where you could visit. It was a good PR thing but it closed down.
Most of the public couldn't tell the difference between a coal plant and a nuke.

[Mike/W8BAC]

Bill/KD0HG Wrote,

The nuclear industry hasn't done a very good job of promoting itself and educating the general public. In fact, a terrible job. Everything's 'top secret'. The facilities are guarded by mooks armed with M-16s. Let the public tour a nuclear power plant. Have an open house once a year. Answer questions. Inform and educate. If they can't do that and demonstrate that nukes are safe facilities, then I fear that the cause is hopeless.

Up until the ninety's most nuclear generating stations had outstanding visitor centers that explained how power was produced. It was common to see tour groups, awestruck and bugeyed, walking in straight lines with shiny new hardhats. Every plant had some kind of nature conservancy outreach angle in play. They really tried.

Deregulation put the brakes on much of this as plants changed hands. Share holders demanded dividends and prices bottomed out. Many of the visitor centers and community outreach program budgets dried up.

Than came 9/1/01. At that time security was so tight, allowing a visitor was unthinkable. It's better now but the blast barriers, K rail vehicle barriers and added lookout towers are a constant reminder of the times. Many people don't want to visit anymore.

[K6JEK]

...

You can't build a nuke plant in this country  ...
hydroelectric dams ...
windmills ...
solar farms ...
...
So what does that leave us with? You guessed it: coal and oil (the two least environmentally-friendly forms of power generation
...

Zero Grid Current has a point.   Excuse me for editing his long post (293).   It's pretty hard to do anything new. Here's a number for you:  80,000,000 acres of federal lands leased for oil and gas exploration.  Zero (0) acres leased for solar.   So the feds put a two year moratorium on leases for solar.

Seems pretty whacko to me.  However, I disagree that it is the "same whackos."   It think there are many species of whacko.  Here's a Reuters article on the subject.  Headline followed by link:

U.S. solar energy industry blasts government move

http://tinyurl.com/5gzfyb

[WA1GFZ]

not if you are controlled by oil pigs

[W8EJO]

You can't build a nuke plant in this country because the Jane Fondas of the world made sure that everyone would crap their pants at the first whisper of the word "nuclear".

The same phony enviro-whacko hysteria has now extended to hydroelectric dams (they might disturb fish spawning), windmills (a migratory bird might fly into one), and even solar farms (they haven't figured out what to make us all fear about this yet, but they're working hard at it).

All good and valid points.

Also makes me truly wonder about the real ultimate goal(s) of the hard core enviros. I'm not talking about the average guy or gal that loves nature - that applies to just about all of us, I'm talking about the movement leaders.

If we follow their prescriptions to their ultimate consequences, nothing short of the economic (and ultimately social) collapse of the civilized world will result. We are beginning to see the beginnings of this already with extreme financial hardship on the less wealthy among us.

The hard core enviros will never have enough, they will keep pushing a radical agenda to the bitter end. It seems to me, a 61 year old guy who grew up in Cleveland, that the world is a far cleaner place then it was when I was a kid. Lake Erie is much cleaner. the air in Cleveland, Cinci, Pittsburgh all orders of magnitude cleaner. What do these people want?

I shake my head. Why shut down the cleanest, most advanced, most productive, most benevolent society in the history of the world for a few less molecules of CO2 (a naturally occurring atmospheric gas).

 

[KB2WIG]

  "  Also makes me truly wonder about the real ultimate goal(s) of the hard core enviros. "

I think the real Wacos want the human race to be reduced to almost nothing. (cant kill it all off as that would be extinguishing a species.... ..)

klc

[K3ZS]

You also don't hear much about acid rain.     That has been getting reduced with the scrubbers or whatever they use.    I don't see the smog and smell the local paper plant like years ago.    As Terry said, Lake Erie has been revived from being the dead sea as it was in years past.    The government has done a good job.    Now get us some good reactors and let OPEC pound sand.

[KA1ZGC]

Seems pretty whacko to me.  However, I disagree that it is the "same whackos."   It think there are many species of whacko.

There are many different species of ducks, too... but they all look, walk, and quack like ducks.

The problem is people's perceptions of various means of generating electricity. Most people simply don't understand what goes into generating the energy that arrives at their wall sockets. They've got other things to worry about, or they have simply shut down and walk through life not wanting to know anything about anything because ignorance is bliss.

Then you get the ones who hear one snippet of information (whether fact, partial truth, or outright lie) and suddenly believe that this (whatever) simply must be stopped at all costs, without ever considering what the alternatives (or lack of alternatives) might be, or even doing any research of their own ("they" said it's bad, therefore it's bad).

These people would picket The Second Coming if someone told them it might raise the price of gasoline on the 4th of July.

Example of Perception in Energy Generation:

When the Maine Yankee nuclear power plant came up for re-licensing back in the late 80s (which requires a vote of the populace for approval), the committee working on the campaign for re-licensing couldn't understand why the numbers were completely in the toilet, so they asked an outside group to poll the populace and see what the perception of the plant was.

When asked if they knew what Maine Yankee was, people said "yes". When asked if they knew what Maine Yankee produced, an alarming majority of people answered "nuclear waste". It turns out that most people didn't even know that the purpose of a nuclear power plant is to generate electricity. They honestly thought the place was a factory of some kind.

A quick re-adjustment of the advertising campaign fixed that little issue, and the re-licensing initiative passed quite comfortably.

Most of people's fears of various different forms of energy production stem from the same kind of thing, they've got a skewed or completely misinformed opinion on what is involved, what the impact is, and what happens if they chicken out.

The wiseguys in Washington do exactly what their constituents expect them to do, even if it's based on irrational fears, because they are no better informed than the people who put them in office.

Result: stalemate. Nobody can get anything started on the energy front because it's not "the answer". Everyone thinks they have the one-and-only solution, and that everything else is unacceptible. 8 men in a boat rowing in 8 different directions.

The only ones making any noise on the issue are the whackos, and they've stymied just about every advance this country has tried to make in energy generation. The wind, solar, nuke, and hydro companies need to 86 their current P.R. people and start over with a new image that's a bit closer to reality.

Until the collective perception changes: oil, gas, coal, wood, you name it, will continue to get more and more and more expensive, and there's nothing any of us can do to change it by just pissing and moaning.

Except count the number of words in one of my posts, if that's what you're into.

[Mike/W8BAC]

In Michigan we have two main utility companies. Detroit Edison (DTE) and Consumers Energy. Other small utility's are moving in including a large wind generating investment up north of here.

A hot button issue right now is something DTE and Consumers Energy have cooked up. They are lobbying our state representatives heavily to pass a bill to prohibit Michigan residents and business's from purchasing electricity or gas from any other company but them. They say if we are able to buy from other companies they will not be able to afford to build new power plants or explore for new gas.

DTE hasn't built a new power plant since the late 60's and consumers energy doesn't explore. As a matter of fact a LARGE portion of southeast Michigan's power comes from plants just across the Detroit and St Clair rivers in Canada. That Canadian power is sold to the Big Utilities and on to us. It is all about becoming a legal monopoly and forcing out the competition. Small utilities will have to wholesale power to the big's. Oh and by the way, power is going up 20% and we now have the pleasure of paying for power plant maintenance on top of paying for energy.

The large utilities pay allot of tax and raise millions in regulatory fees for the states not to mention election campaign contributions. They have a large cushy seat at the table when these things are discussed.

On the news day before yesterday I heard one of my legislators saying this new regulation was a "great idea".

[K6JEK]

Seems pretty whacko to me.  However, I disagree that it is the "same whackos."   It think there are many species of whacko.

There are many different species of ducks, too... but they all look, walk, and quack like ducks.

Duck?

From the Oakland Tribune

Fisherman targets river dams for loss of salmon

http://tinyurl.com/55koko

Are these salty guys enviro-whackos too?

This year the Pacific salmon season was shut down completely.

I think your original point is completely valid.  It's too hard to do new things.

[KA1ZGC]

Seems pretty whacko to me.  However, I disagree that it is the "same whackos."   It think there are many species of whacko.

There are many different species of ducks, too... but they all look, walk, and quack like ducks.

Duck?

From the Oakland Tribune

Fisherman targets river dams for loss of salmon

http://tinyurl.com/55koko

Are these salty guys enviro-whackos too?

Nope.

The saltwater fishermen have actually experienced the decline in (pacific) saltwater salmon first-hand. They didn't get their information from one of their college professors or a TV ad, they actually live in the middle of the issue.

That's not at all what I'm talking about.

I think your original point is completely valid.  It's too hard to do new things.

That wasn't my original point at all. Almost the opposite, actually.

My original point was that it's hard to circumnavigate the globe when you've got 8 people rowing in 8 different directions, and the captain insists the world is flat.

The things that we should be doing are obvious, the problem is that everyone involved seems to think that there is one solution and one solution only (their own personal pet solution), and that all the things we could be doing to combat the issue (more nukes/wind/solar/hydro/geo/drilling) are somehow mutually-exclusive. They aren't. Too many people's pet answers assume that putting all our eggs in one basket is going to work better now than it has up to this point.

The very definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and expect a different result.

If they want to knock down the hydro dams on the west coast, fine, but put something else in their place to make up the difference. Windmills. Solar. Oil and coal for all I care, but I'm getting a little tired of the West Coast model of treating the infrastructure like some kind of nuisance that only serves to devalue residential property and then whining for help from the rest of the country when it breaks down. We've had that discussion before, I know you know where I'm coming from on that one.

Power generation can be done responsibly in a way that minimizes detrimental effect on the environment, the economy, and reduces our dependence on foreign fuels, all at the same time; but until people with different approaches start coming together on this, we're stuck in a stalemate.

Doing new things is easy. Realizing that there's more than one new thing we can be doing is what appears to be the hard part.

[WA1GFZ]

look what our fine oil pig controlled leaders did with solar leases on public land

[W3SLK]

I guess I'll weigh in here on the nuclear issue since they used to make the fuel rods right next to my shop at Babacock & Wilcox. The biggest fear by far is what to do with the leftover radioactive waste. Since it is no good as a fission device but still contains a high amount of radioactivity whose half life is in the thousands of years. When there was an outage, the spent rods went into a tank with the rest of the radioactive waste until it was packaged and shipped to some remote place in New Mexico. Talk about mega-bucks!!!! As to oil Frank, we have the capability to get oil here at home but our lovely politically controlled congress, (read as dem Dems!!!) forbid to do so. Your arguement with el Presidente' doesn't hold any weight and has become stale.
Time to go back in my hole.

[Bill, KD0HG]

I guess I'll weigh in here on the nuclear issue since they used to make the fuel rods right next to my shop at Babacock & Wilcox. The biggest fear by far is what to do with the leftover radioactive waste.

They've been screwing around with disposal plans for the last 25 years, at least. There is a legal agreement with nuke plant owners- The Feds are legally obliged to take and safely dispose of the spent fuel. But they still have no place to put it.

As to oil Frank, we have the capability to get oil here at home but our lovely politically controlled congress, (read as dem Dems!!!) forbid to do so. Your arguement with el Presidente' doesn't hold any weight and has become stale.
Time to go back in my hole.

I don't want to delve into politics here!

Let's equitably spread the blame- Neither major political party has been willing or able to resolve the issues. Republicans gained control of Congress by a large margin in 1995, and generally kept control until 2006. During that decade, no Congressional agreement was reached on the disposal of spent nuclear fuel, for example. No action was taken on expanded drilling in Alaska. And nothing was settled before 1995, either. And it still hasn't. And likely won't be with the next political cycle, whoever is pulling the strings, either.

The problem isn't "R" or "D", it's ignorance and lack of leadership. On the part of elected officials and the general public. As has been pointed out here, there*are* liberals, environmentalists and Democrats that support expanded drilling with safeguards and nuclear power as there are Florida and California Republicans opposed to offshore drilling near 'their' state. Net result?

Let's get informed and judge people by their actions, not by labels. We *could* elect an informed Congress and president willing to tackle these issues to a person, but we likely won't. Not a single one of the presidential candidates this past primary season had a *clue* about energy policy. *Both* political parties offered candidates whose quick fix was the removal of taxes on motor fuel...Brilliant. (A quick fix for votes, that is!) How's that going to help us afford heating fuel this winter? Neither political party or candidate is willing or able to tell the truth to the American people or implement a working plan of ANY kind.

They've had their chances. I'm disgusted with all of them.

[K6JEK]

I got lost in the nested quotes, but you said:

The things that we should be doing are obvious, the problem is that everyone involved seems to think that there is one solution and one solution only (their own personal pet solution), and that all the things we could be doing to combat the issue (more nukes/wind/solar/hydro/geo/drilling) are somehow mutually-exclusive. They aren't. Too many people's pet answers assume that putting all our eggs in one basket is going to work better now than it has up to this point.

The very definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and expect a different result.

If they want to knock down the hydro dams on the west coast, fine, but put something else in their place to make up the difference. Windmills. Solar. Oil and coal for all I care, but I'm getting a little tired of the West Coast model of treating the infrastructure like some kind of nuisance that only serves to devalue residential property and then whining for help from the rest of the country when it breaks down. We've had that discussion before, I know you know where I'm coming from on that one.

Power generation can be done responsibly in a way that minimizes detrimental effect on the environment, the economy, and reduces our dependence on foreign fuels, all at the same time; but until people with different approaches start coming together on this, we're stuck in a stalemate.

Well, Thom.

I think we agree on almost everything.  We should do a lot of different things.  I wish I'd written that last paragraph.

I don't know about that "West Coast model" part, though. The largest wind farm in the US is in my neighborhood and has been for a long time (Altamont). After the great fun with Enron, CA put in peaking power plants like crazy. One of those is in my neighborhood.  CA (and Oregon and Washington) are in love with hydro power and are really distressed over the salmon situation (near extinction with dams part of the problem) and don't know what the heck to do about it. CA has a "Million Solar Roofs" program for distributed solar which has caused more PV to be installed in California in the last year than in the previous 10 combined or something like that.  It has changed the business models of the utilities so they don't lose out. CA has the biggest concentrated solar thermal in the US in Southern California, has had it for a long time, is doing more and wants to do a lot more.  CA has had a variety of efficiency measures in place which has kept the electric usage per person flat since the seventies while it's  doubled in the rest of the country.  It now has the lowest electric usage per person in the US.  CA has oil wells all over SoCal  and some up north, pumping since 1901.   Many have been capped -- pumped out. But CA oil companies are going back in to suck more oil out of these fields since it's worth so much now and new technology is better. I think  CA has been pretty down on nuclear for a long time like the rest of the country.  I bet that's changing too.   

And when did the West Coast ask for the rest of the country to bail it out?  Not that we won't.   When the big one comes, we'll be asking for all the help we can get wherever we can get it.

[Bill, KD0HG]

Another issue is us, you, me and the guy behind the tree.

Suppose there was a presidential candidate that had his thumb on our energy issues and had an absolutely brilliant 10-year plan to insure the country a supply of affordable, reliable energy.

But the same candidate also wanted to sell off our ham radio spectrum to the highest bidder or donate it to some worthy public cause, say, a cure for cancer.

Would we vote for him? Or would our own special interests override the obvious common good?

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

I would. What good is ham radio spectrum if you can't afford the power to get on the air?

Another issue is us, you, me and the guy behind the tree.

Suppose there was a presidential candidate that had his thumb on our energy issues and had an absolutely brilliant 10-year plan to insure the country a supply of affordable, reliable energy.

But the same candidate also wanted to sell off our ham radio spectrum to the highest bidder or donate it to some worthy public cause, say, a cure for cancer.

Would we vote for him? Or would our own special interests override the obvious common good?

[Bill, KD0HG]

Check this story out from today's CBS Channel 4 TV in Denver...
More oil in the rock around here than in all the Middle East- Maybe a trillion barrels.

http://cbs4denver.com/seenon/oil.shale.colorado.2.760974.html

[K6JEK]

Check this story out from today's CBS Channel 4 TV in Denver...
More oil in the rock around here than in all the Middle East- Maybe a trillion barrels.

http://cbs4denver.com/seenon/oil.shale.colorado.2.760974.html

Bill, you need to figure out how to get rich off this.  Do you have a big hat?  You need to start with a big hat.

[Mike/W8BAC]

The last oil crises in the 70's led the way to alternatives for oil in a big way. Some lasting great technology's and other dead ends. Todays crises points the way to many of the same boondoggles explored back than.

In 1989 I worked in Parachute Colorado at the oil shale mines. It was a project fully funded by the fed to explore the possibility of extracting oil from the deposits in Colorado.

The government financed the oil companies to the tune of hundreds of millions of 1980's dollars. They, we, paid for property (the highest grade ore producing areas known at the time), developed the mines, built the on site refineries and guaranteed a at cost buy back to the oil companies for the products which turned out to be jet fuel and diesel.

The crux is the government (we) paid $225 per barrel for the end product and that was 1988 pricing.

Oil shale contains almost 90% more H2S than oil deposits. The corrosive nature of H2S made it almost imposable to keep the refinery in operation AND! At that time it took almost as much energy to mine and refine the end products as the final product offered in new energy.

Like corn ethanol it's a really bad idea. If it costs more energy to produce than it offers, it's not going to make it.

Mike

[Bill, KD0HG]

Tnx for the hands-on insight, Mike. I didn't know about the sulfur issue.

I had heard that they'd probably need to build a nuke power plant to provide enough energy to viably extract the oil. I figured that would be a 'simple' trade of one form of energy for another, more useful one used for transportation and aviation.

As far as you know, do the Alberta tar sands have a similar sulfur issue?

[WA1GFZ]

So why is the oil contracts in Iraq going on the open market when we just spent a fortune liberating their sorry lazy butts. I think we should be getting paid for all this protection in the middle east. WTF

[WA1GFZ]

Mike,
There was a thing on the news last night about that area and they have a new process to crack the crude under ground and bring up only liquid fuel.
Not sure of the cost to boil it underground but bet it isn't cheap.

[k4kyv]

So why is the oil contracts in Iraq going on the open market when we just spent a fortune liberating their sorry lazy butts. I think we should be getting paid for all this protection in the middle east. WTF

You put that in the past tense.  It should be in the present and the future.  It's not over yet by a long shot.  More like Orwell's 1984 concept of permanent warfare.

Weren't we assured that Iraqi oil revenues would pay 100% of the reconstruction costs once Saddam's sorry ass was removed from the picture?

Army's official history of the Iraq war admits mistake after mistake early in the conflict.