U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Vermont
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-07-2015, 05:45 PM
 
Location: The Woods
16,936 posts, read 22,206,840 times
Reputation: 9020

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wells5 View Post
Beta particles emitted in the decay of tritium are not very energetic. That's why tritium is used to illuminate watch dials.
I don't want tritium in my water or fish and Entergy had no right to put them into public waters. VT Yankee was old and falling apart and well past its designed lifespan. I do think the state should have had a better plan to replace that power but that plant needed to shut down sooner or later.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-08-2015, 06:32 AM
 
13,734 posts, read 7,281,857 times
Reputation: 25144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wells5 View Post
Buying power from Hydro Quebec increases the US trade deficit. The Northern Pass Transmission Line, which is designed to transport 1200 megawatts of Hydro Quebec power to New England has also run into significant hurdles.

Nuclear power, properly engineered and maintained, is the best hope for a clean and prosperous future. This does not mean that solar and wind will not play a big role in power generation, but there are significant problems with both. You just can't run an industrial economy on energy sources that rely on whether the sun shines (and its seasonal and daily changing intensity) and if the wind blows (and with what speed).
Trade deficit? You need to look at US-Canada cross border trade. The most recent data says the US has a $40 billion trade surplus with Canada. There is also a gas pipeline from Quebec down to Burlington that has made it as far as Middlebury. It's supposed to run all the way down to Bennington but the NIMBY and global warming freaks are lined up against it. That caused costs to soar so those same people are now using elevated cost to build the pipeline as the next argument. Most of the rest of the US uses cheap natural gas to generate electricity. There is no reason Vermont can't do that until technology advances to where renewable sources are viable without subsidies.

Nukes are pointless to discuss. It's a political non-starter. Personally, I think we should concentrate our nukes in a remote area like extreme northern Maine that is geologically stable and far from people. Use the nukes to create hydrogen which is piped south to the dense population areas. There, it can heat buildings, generate electricity, and run automobiles. When you burn hydrogen, you get water. Zero carbon footprint.

To repeat my earlier point, the population density of Vermont is so low that renewables (focused on hydro) combined with HydroQuebec probably works assuming Act 68 allows a bunch of dams to be built and hydro added to existing dams. The 10 million people in Southern New England don't have that option. Their electricial generation capacity is tied to natural gas piplelines that desperately need to be expanded.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2015, 08:42 AM
 
3,531 posts, read 3,032,156 times
Reputation: 3453
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffD View Post
Trade deficit? You need to look at US-Canada cross border trade. The most recent data says the US has a $40 billion trade surplus with Canada. There is also a gas pipeline from Quebec down to Burlington that has made it as far as Middlebury. It's supposed to run all the way down to Bennington but the NIMBY and global warming freaks are lined up against it. That caused costs to soar so those same people are now using elevated cost to build the pipeline as the next argument. Most of the rest of the US uses cheap natural gas to generate electricity. There is no reason Vermont can't do that until technology advances to where renewable sources are viable without subsidies.

Nukes are pointless to discuss. It's a political non-starter. Personally, I think we should concentrate our nukes in a remote area like extreme northern Maine that is geologically stable and far from people. Use the nukes to create hydrogen which is piped south to the dense population areas. There, it can heat buildings, generate electricity, and run automobiles. When you burn hydrogen, you get water. Zero carbon footprint.

To repeat my earlier point, the population density of Vermont is so low that renewables (focused on hydro) combined with HydroQuebec probably works assuming Act 68 allows a bunch of dams to be built and hydro added to existing dams. The 10 million people in Southern New England don't have that option. Their electricial generation capacity is tied to natural gas piplelines that desperately need to be expanded.

Where did you get the $40 billion US trade surplus with Canada figures? The 2014 US trade DEFICIT with Canada was $35.377 billion. See link below.

Foreign Trade - U.S. Trade with Canada

The breakdown for US electric generation by fuel source in 2013 was: coal 38.44%, nat gas 27.66%, nuclear 19.16%, hydro 6.53%, renewables (solar, wind, tide) 6.16% and imports from Canada 1.14%. Nat gas is not the clean energy source that the tree huggers claim it is. Burning nat gas produces CO2 and oxides of nitrogen unlike nuclear power, which produces no waste gases.

Hydrogen is an explosive gas (remember the Hindenberg?) and getting the permits to build hydrogen pipelines would be a political impossibility. Using hydrogen to heat buildings is absurd.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2015, 01:33 PM
 
13,734 posts, read 7,281,857 times
Reputation: 25144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wells5 View Post
Where did you get the $40 billion US trade surplus with Canada figures? The 2014 US trade DEFICIT with Canada was $35.377 billion. See link below.

Foreign Trade - U.S. Trade with Canada

The breakdown for US electric generation by fuel source in 2013 was: coal 38.44%, nat gas 27.66%, nuclear 19.16%, hydro 6.53%, renewables (solar, wind, tide) 6.16% and imports from Canada 1.14%. Nat gas is not the clean energy source that the tree huggers claim it is. Burning nat gas produces CO2 and oxides of nitrogen unlike nuclear power, which produces no waste gases.

Hydrogen is an explosive gas (remember the Hindenberg?) and getting the permits to build hydrogen pipelines would be a political impossibility. Using hydrogen to heat buildings is absurd.
How about a Google on "US Canada trade balance". The text that comes up is:
Quote:
The U.S. goods and services trade surplus with Canada was $40 million in 2012. Canada is currently our largest goods trading partner with $632 billion in total (two ways) goods trade during 2013. Goods exports totaled $300 billion; Goods imports totaled $332 billion.
In case you haven't noticed, the Canadian dollar crashed recently when oil prices crashed since they're a petro-economy. Recent numbers are all out of whack with historical norms but oil prices aren't going to stay crashed for all that much longer.

Let's try the power generation numbers for New England since this is a Vermont thread. Let's start by having you list the coal plants. (Good luck there) There are 4 nuke plants. Millstone 3. Millstone 4. Pilgrim. Seabrook. Those produce about 1/3 of the electricity generated in New England. Natural gas usually accounts for about half in the summer and more like 1/3 in the winter when the natural gas pipeline capacity problem kicks in.

Anyways, I'm done in this thread. Anybody who cites the Hindenberg to refute hydrogen and then goes on and on about nukes being the answer obviously isn't capable of a rational argument.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Vermont
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:05 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top