Global Warming News

[FallbrookFarmer]

Just a little nuclear wast info - why would the company producing this waste not have to factor in a fair and reasonable plan for long term safe management of nuclear wastes - it seems that they may be looking at a band aid for the first 100 years - what if technology doesn't find an affordable solution - looks worse to me that a national debt. I believe theses companies have limited liability.

Radioactive waste - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Long term management of waste
See also: Economics of new nuclear power plants#Waste disposal
The time frame in question when dealing with radioactive waste ranges from 10,000 to 1,000,000 years,[36] according to studies based on the effect of estimated radiation doses.[37] Researchers suggest that forecasts of health detriment for such periods should be examined critically.[38] Practical studies only consider up to 100 years as far as effective planning[39] and cost evaluations[40] are concerned. Long term behavior of radioactive wastes remains a subject for ongoing research projects.[41]

Illegal dumping
Main article: Radioactive waste dumping by the 'Ndrangheta
Authorities in Italy are investigating a 'Ndrangheta mafia clan accused of trafficking and illegally dumping nuclear waste. According to a turncoat, a manager of the Italy痴 state energy research agency Enea paid the clan to get rid of 600 drums of toxic and radioactive waste from Italy, Switzerland, France, Germany, and the US, with Somalia as the destination, where the waste was buried after buying off local politicians. Former employees of Enea are suspected of paying the criminals to take waste off their hands in the 1980s and 1990s. Shipments to Somalia continued into the 1990s, while the 'Ndrangheta clan also blew up shiploads of waste, including radioactive hospital waste, and sending them to the sea bed off the Calabrian coast.[61] According to the environmental group Legambiente, former members of the 'Ndrangheta have said that they were paid to sink ships with radioactive material for the last 20 years.[62]

I'm not sure the Europeans are much ahead of us on this issue.

Loren

I guess if you want to cherry pick info, you can come to any conclusion you want. The link that I furnished is from our DOE and shows that France processes not only its own waste, but also nuclear waste from Belgium, Switzerland,Germany,The Netherlands,and Japan. and has done so for decades.
But we can't do that at Yucca Mountain, Why?

 

[dcyrilc]

Don't know where one quote started and the other ended, so just a general reply.
I would like to preserve the view out my kitchen window (80 acres of former avocado groves, and orange groves)
I know that one day I will see the first bulldozer start to cut into the earth and a development will go in.
So I guess I should go and talk to my neighbor about not developing it, so I can continue to enjoy my view!
Everybody would like to enjoy some benefit on somebody
else's dime, but sorry, that's not how things work.

If it were truely an issue to you, you could offer the neighbor $5K or something for a contract guaraneeing "first right of refusal" if he were ever to sell. Then at that point you would have first option to purchase the property and protect your view.

That's how it should work. If you want to have a say in what happens to it, buy it.

 

[dcyrilc]

Short note on my wood stove vs nuclear power plant. I don't have a waiver that exempts me from damages in case my wood stove explodes and contaminates a few thousand square miles of New England.

Loren

That would be quite a wood stove. LOL

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

Maybe you could convince your neighbor to sell the development rights and place the land under a conservation easement.

The issue being discussed is a lot more than 80 acres of fallow agricultural land. Plum Creek Timber: real estate developments

Fortunately, some deals are being made to preserve a good part of the area, however, adding 1000+ homes/units a couple golf resorts and a couple hotels and a couple marinas to the Moosehead area is not in the public interest.

You and I both know that once development on that scale begins, it will spread like a cancer throughout the region. The road traffic alone for residents, visitors, service and supply vehicles will damage watersheds and wildlife.

You can enjoy the area today. Rent a vacation cottage, camping, fish, hunt, bird watch, nature hikes, canoeing, snowmobile, etc. So, it isn't, nor has it ever been, a case of fencing people out. It's about how much value is placed on a modicum of remaining somewhat wild places you may visit and wildlife may prosper.

I really doubt the intent of the Framer's was to facilitate the obliteration of nature. Even it that were so, we know today that is wrong. We also know the Framer's didn't really understand the role of Nature. The viewpoint of that era was of Nature as a endless provider of sustenance and resources bequeathed by a higher being for the benefit of Man. Guess what, every well has a bottom. We know many things now that were not even guessed at 200+ years ago. That would be the problem with treating the Constitution as something it never was to begin with - a perfect document that can decide all issues for all times.
Dave.

Sorry, I have to change your career again, New One : Comic!. I told my neighbor what you said about him not selling and changing it to an easement. He's still laughing!
And a question if Nature is not a endless provider of sustenance, can you suggest an alternative?
Second question: If you don't want to use the Constitution to decide issues, can you suggest an alternative?
Third Question: So you feel that you have a better grasp on land use issues, than the Framers, can you tell us what you will use to decide these issues?

 

[dcyrilc]

I just did the math. You can buy 24 million solar panels each putting out 80 watts, so not including installation costs, we can produce 1billion nine hundred million watts while the sun is shining. Lets see, the average home(not algores)consumes about 18000Kw per year, thats 180000
watts per year. That's 1106.66 houses per year, and those are ones without electric heat.
Now that sounds like a GREAT investment! Where can I send the check.

Your math is faulty here, as the solar panals do not produce 80 watts per year.
If I am not mistaken, they produce 80 watts per hour or 350,400 watts per year assuming an average of 12 hours of daylight per day.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

If it were truely an issue to you, you could offer the neighbor $5K or something for a contract guaraneeing "first right of refusal" if he were ever to sell. Then at that point you would have first option to purchase the property and protect your view.

That's how it should work. If you want to have a say in what happens to it, buy it.

I agree with you that if I want a say as to how a certain piece of property is developed then I should offer to purchase it, But as the property will probably appraise somewhere north of $10million, I think I will just suffer in silence. Thanks for the thought though!

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

Your math is faulty here, as the solar panals do not produce 80 watts per year.
If I am not mistaken, they produce 80 watts per hour or 350,400 watts per year assuming an average of 12 hours of daylight per day.

I stand corrected, but as my calculator doesn't go to billions, Im going to have to wait till tomorrow to work out the math. Thanks

 

[dave1949]

just did the math. You can buy 24 million solar panels each putting out 80 watts, so not including installation costs, we can produce 1billion nine hundred million watts while the sun is shining. Lets see, the average home(not algores)consumes about 18000Kw per year, thats 180000
watts per year. That's 1106.66 houses per year, and those are ones without electric heat.

First Solar Claims $1-a-Watt 選ndustry Milestone - Green Inc. Blog - NYTimes.com

Let's refigure. Speaking of careers, did you ever sell cars?

With a production cost of $1/watt, let's call it $2/watt installed.
$1.2 billion / $2/watt = 600 megawatts/hour * 9 solar hours/day = 5.4 billion watts/day

The average annual kilowatt usage for Gainesville, FL is 12,000 kilowatts.
12,000 kw / 365 days per year = ~33 kw per day

Assume 75% of that 33 kw/day is used during 9 daylight solar production hours.
.75 * 33 kw = 24.75 kw or 24,750 watts per 9 hours

Producing 5.4 billion watts per 9 hours / 24,750 watts per house 9 hours = 218,182 Gainsville, FL houses (powered by solar panels for 9 high usage hours per average day). That ain't just coal ash :laughing:

My average annual electric usage is less than 5,000 kilowatts. So, the $1.2 billion would power about half a million homes like mine for 9 high usage hours per average day.

I think 9 hours per day is a reasonably conservative figure considering some cloudy days and some longer days. If you are using 18,000 kilowatts per year, you need to conserve!
Dave.

 

[piller]

I live in Oakdale, TN. I can see the tops of the two tall smokestacks from the TVA Kingston coal plant (where the coal ash spill occured) from my property. The Kingston coal plant produces about 10 billion kW-hrs of power per year, enough for about 700,000 homes.

Also from my farm I can see the huge windmills turning on WindRock mountain. The wind site produces about 29 million kW-hrs of power per year, enough for about 3,780 homes.

TVA customers can elect to purchase green power from the wind site. The green power rate is approximately 50% higher than the normal rate. There has been a lot of opposition to windmills in the area by people who think that they detract from the beauty of the Tennessee Valley.

My next door neighbor is working on the Watts Bar Unit 2 nuclear power plant under development at the TVA Watts Bar Lake facility. Watts Bar Unit 1 nuclear power plant began commercial operation in 1996 and is capable of producing 1,170 megawatts of electricity, about enough for 650,000 homes. Watts Bar Unit 2 is scheduled to come online in 2013 and will generate about the same amount of power as Unit 1.

We of course have several TVA hydroelectic plants in the area which benefited from plenty of rain in 2009. Hydro power is the least expensive to produce, and the system recently generated 3.1 billion Watts, enough to power about 1.8 million homes.

Where I work we recently added a 51 kW solar panel array. Several solar power companies have built facilities or announced intentions to do so in TN.

We also have an $89 million dollar project at work to install a biomass power plant that will reduce our fossil fuel consumption by 80%.

Nearby in Vonore, TN is a new biofuel plant. The University of TN is involved in it along with Dupont and some others. They are paying local farmers to grow switchgrass which will be used for cellulosic production of ethanol. I attended a switchgrass growing seminar but decided I was not interested.

My electricity by the way costs 8 cents per kW-hr. The ash spill cleanup costs will likely be passed on to TVA customers. Most people around here were/are not overly concerned about the ash spill.

 

[dave1949]

Sorry, I have to change your career again, New One : Comic!. I told my neighbor what you said about him not selling and changing it to an easement. He's still laughing!
And a question if Nature is not a endless provider of sustenance, can you suggest an alternative?
Second question: If you don't want to use the Constitution to decide issues, can you suggest an alternative?
Third Question: So you feel that you have a better grasp on land use issues, than the Framers, can you tell us what you will use to decide these issues?

It's good to know I provide some comic relief for your neighbor. For the right property that a conservation organization is interested in, you don't take that much of a hit when all is said and done at the estate level is my understanding of it.

There is no alternative to Nature as a provider, that's why we should be taking better care of it. We take a lot and put back little.

The alternative to the literal and limited Constitution is all around us in the form of laws and regulations that exist because the messy details are not addressed in the Constitution. If the Constitution were a complete guide to modern living, none of those laws, case laws or regulations would be necessary. This is not to say those are all good and perfect, only that there is a need for them. We are still using the Constitution as the basis for developing and refining those laws or regulations.

I can't speak to a statement I never made.

What I will say is if someone uses the Constitution to achieve an absurd result, that is wrong, and I doubt that was part of the original intent.

For example, in the area of property rights taken to an extreme, you could own property which hosts a rare plant or animal, like the spotted owl. This limits your use of the property, so you destroy the habitat, then claim according to the Constitution, that is my property and my right. Does the Constitution make any reference to the public interest in that rare plant or animal other than 'the general well being' ? Yet, we now understand that every species that disappears is another tear in the fabric of Nature. We need most of that fabric intact, not just remnants. And the courts that decided to protect the spotted owl understood that too. Who is god-like among us to decide which species live or die?

I realize that creates paroxysms of wing-nutted behavior. Either you get it or you don't.
Dave.