Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Reasons to use personal, alternative energy production: a) you live too far off the grid to get connected at a reasonable price (b) energy security
Reasons to use commercial, centralized energy production-- a) you live in a region of the world where cost of wind or solar is lower than cost of fossil or nuclear fuels and are willing to put up with an unreliable energy grid
Large scale alternative energy production must be coupled with nuclear or fossil fuel energy IF you want reliability.
I like nuclear power.
I spent most of my career living on nuclear powered subs, they are very reliable.
The problem as I see it is that once you put that power onto the public grid, then you have all the problems that come from the grid.
Nuclear power within a steel pipe, a 1000 foot below water, is very reliable. But transmission over 100 miles of grid, does lessen the reliability of that power.
Quote:
... Reducing fossil fuel use will not help the environment. Those of us who are well versed in biology know the environment would actually be better served by a higher atm[co2]
If you say so.
Quote:
... If you're not helping the environment as the gullible Warmers claim, why pay more for unreliable energy?
Exactly why we shifted to solar power here for our house. Exactly. Why pay for such unreliable power? It is insane to pay so much for power that only works a few days a month.
Having the Mayors of large cities commit to wind/solar for their energy needs is like a ***** committing to being a virgin. It just doesn't work.
Solar and wind ALONE do NOT generate enough energy at this point in time to run a post-industrial society.
California has increased their solar and wind production, but at the same time they had to increase their natural gas generating plants at a 70/30 ratio to back up solar. That is 70% natural gas and 30% solar and wind.
Thanks to natural gas they have so much generating capacity now...they have to sell their electricity at a loss to neighboring states. That was a smart move.
Solar works fine for the International Space Station and off-grid homes ( I have owned one for 20 years). For a urban area....it flat out does not work.
Exactly why we shifted to solar power here for our house. Exactly. Why pay for such unreliable power? It is insane to pay so much for power that only works a few days a month.
Energy security. Your commercial source of power seems to be unusually unreliable. That's the problem with rural locations: we're not really connected to a grid supplying power from multiple directions, but on a single line running along the county road. If that goes out anywhere along the route-- no power until they fix it.
That's why I'm using solar for my deep well pump and boiler circulating pump. I could use a generator for routine, short term power outages, but what if the SHTF and society breaks down? No fuel deliveries and then you're out of luck. Water & heat are vital and we don't want to go for long without either.
BTW- co2 levels in the air on subs are around 2-3000ppm, I understand. Could you tell?
I spent most of my career living on nuclear powered subs, they are very reliable.
The problem as I see it is that once you put that power onto the public grid, then you have all the problems that come from the grid.
Nuclear power within a steel pipe, a 1000 foot below water, is very reliable. But transmission over 100 miles of grid, does lessen the reliability of that power.
Well we had a good sized battery and a backup diesel with enough fuel to return to port on fossil fuel. The issue with civilian nuclear is the crippling capital cost, which make it economically infeasible. You wouldn't want to pay for the electricity from a sub's TG.
I'm not sure which Emera Maine system you are on, but your neighboring utility Eastern Maine Electric Cooperative provides reliable service to rural consumers. Maybe you and neighbors should petition the utility commission to shift your utility.
Energy security. Your commercial source of power seems to be unusually unreliable. That's the problem with rural locations: we're not really connected to a grid supplying power from multiple directions, but on a single line running along the county road. If that goes out anywhere along the route-- no power until they fix it.
That's why I'm using solar for my deep well pump and boiler circulating pump. I could use a generator for routine, short term power outages, but what if the SHTF and society breaks down? No fuel deliveries and then you're out of luck. Water & heat are vital and we don't want to go for long without either.
BTW- co2 levels in the air on subs are around 2-3000ppm, I understand. Could you tell?
The power line going through our town goes through a number of towns before it gets to us, and a bunch of other towns after it goes through our town. Every storm causes trees to blow down, thus the power line gets knocked down. Resulting in multiple towns without power.
Most homes that have grid access just run generators during the usual outages, but generator fuel costs can be well over $100/month. [assuming the average number of days of power outage]
When I was shopping for land to buy, for many parcels I looked at the nearest grid power was 10+ miles away.
Underwater we have CO2 scrubbers that remove the CO2. They maintain it within safe levels. A much bigger problem is the hydro-carbons, for which we have a catalytic 'burner' to break apart the hydro-carbons into CO2 and H2.
Plants don't grow and people have a lot more heartburn.
BTW CO2 at modest levels is a poison.
Plants don't grow? Then why do greenhouses regularly supplement their atmospheres with co2 @ 2-3000ppm? It's called "co2 fertilization" and that's one of the reasons ag yields have increased over the past 40 yrs.
Greenhouse workers & submariners regularly work @3000ppm co2-- no ill effects. OTOH, breathing high concentrations of o2 is toxic after a few days-- a major problem in managing pts with respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation and supplementary o2 tx. Expired air has a co2 concentration ~5% or 50,000ppm, so an ambient air concentration of a couple 1000ppm is relatively negligible.
A much bigger problem is the hydro-carbons, for which we have a catalytic 'burner' to break apart the hydro-carbons into CO2 and H2.
I guess it's safe to assume beans are not a regular item on the menu in a submarine mess hall?
As you well know, nuclear power is extremely safe compared to other power sources: how many coal mine disasters and oil rig injuries are there every year compared to the remarkable safety record of nuclear? When evaluating risk, I always like to keep in mind that 40,000 Americans are slaughtered on our highways each year and nobody is marching with placards protesting cars because they're too dangerous.
I guess it's safe to assume beans are not a regular item on the menu in a submarine mess hall?
As you well know, nuclear power is extremely safe compared to other power sources: how many coal mine disasters and oil rig injuries are there every year compared to the remarkable safety record of nuclear? When evaluating risk, I always like to keep in mind that 40,000 Americans are slaughtered on our highways each year and nobody is marching with placards protesting cars because they're too dangerous.
I worked in a nuke plant far a couple of years and though it may be relatively safe for the most part, if there are any major problems they can turn into disasters that will affect everyone within a 50 mile radius for an unknown amount of time. Even without a disaster happening, spent fuel rods and other various highly contaminated items needs to be disposed of on a regular basis at which point now pollutes the environment. Granted a nuke plant isn't polluting the air, it does pollute the ground and would have a far worse outcome if there were a major mishap.
Your risk assessment compares driving automobiles which is by choice to living off of a type of power source that we have no control over. I know I am in the minority but I think nuclear is bad news; we can make other energy sources more efficient and environmentally friendly but nuclear pollutes the ground for generations to come which I think people don't realize.
Plants don't grow? Then why do greenhouses regularly supplement their atmospheres with co2 @ 2-3000ppm? It's called "co2 fertilization" and that's one of the reasons ag yields have increased over the past 40 yrs.
Greenhouse workers & submariners regularly work @3000ppm co2-- no ill effects. OTOH, breathing high concentrations of o2 is toxic after a few days-- a major problem in managing pts with respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation and supplementary o2 tx. Expired air has a co2 concentration ~5% or 50,000ppm, so an ambient air concentration of a couple 1000ppm is relatively negligible.
Greenhouses are abnormal environments. Extrapolating from a greenhouse to the environment in general is a stupid mistake.
10% CO2 will kill you. Submariners do have adverse physiological reactions to prolonged exposure to high CO2 levels. If there was technology that would practically reduce the CO2 levels in submarines the Navy would install it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
