Newsgroup sci.energy 56536

Directory

In article <56e085$l2h@ddi2.digital.net>, Rod Adams 
writes
>>>
>>>>And in the UK the weapons grade Pu has
>>>> certainly been produced in power reactors.
>>>
>>>Not in civilian power reactors it hasn't.  The only "double-use" reactors
>>>in the UK are a few 50MW Magnox units that generate electricity on the
>>>side for sites like Sellafield.  This is an extremely inefficient process,
>>>and the spent fuel from these units is nothing like typical commercial
>>>spent fuel.
>>
>>There is plenty of exidence of diversion of some low burn up AGR Pu as
>>well.  Finding out for sure is difficult - it has always been restricted
>>information - I wonder why?
>
>Nick, you can make all the accusations you desire.  However, those who
>understand a bit about the technology would tell you that it would
>make little sense to use AGR fuel for the production of weapons.
Well I do understand a bit about the technology - like why AGRs were
developed with on-line refuelling to allow the extraction of low burn up
fuel.
>
>Sure, there might have been a demonstration of the POSSIBILITY that
>AGR's could produce weapons useable plutonium if called upon in a
>national emergency, but the technical reality is that material used in
>a reactor optimized for energy production is not very good for 
>weapons production.
Wrong for the above reason.
>
>Should we ban all use of gasoline just because it happens to be
>technically possible, given adequate knowledge and other resources, to
>convert it into napalm (surely one of the more terrifying weapons
>ever developed and WIDELY used in wartime.)
A stupid analogy.  There are lots of potential raw materials for
chemical weapons, only fissionable elements for nuclear ones.
-- 
Nick Eyre
Turnpike evaluation. For Turnpike information, mailto:info@turnpike.com

asolovyo@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Ariadna A Solovyova) wrote:
>Recent analyses of children in Belarus and the Ukraine are the first to
>document large numbers of excess thyroid cancer cases only 4 years after
>exposure to radiation. In Connecticut (USA), a thyroid cancer increase of
>a much smaller magnitude occurred in 1990-93, 4-7 years after the
>Chernobyl accident, for both children and adults. Similar changes also
>occurred in the states of Iowa and Utah, which like Connecticut were
>exposed to low levels of radionuclides from Chernobyl fallout during May
>and June of 1986... 
I note that Ari does not bother to tell us the background numbers
against which this large percentage increase (also not actually given)
is measured.
Any bets on how it compares to the number of drunken driving deaths in
any equivalent area of the Ukraine -- even at Ukranian levels of car
ownership?
                                        -dlj.

Bob Falkiner (falkiner@interlog.com) wrote:
: Bruce Hamilton wrote:
: > 
: > conover@tiac.net (Harry H Conover) wrote:
: > 
: > >Bob Falkiner (falkiner@interlog.com) wrote:
: > ...
: > >: New cars are clean, and tend to stay clean because of the computerized
: > >: controls.
: > 
: > This thread exists because nobody wants to define "clean",
: > they are much cleaner than they were, but still not "clean" as
: > in not contributing pollutants.
: > 
: > >This is a misconception.  First, the overall design of a modern sensor/
: > >computer equipped automobile requires maintenance skills, equipment,
: > >and knowledge far exceeding capabilities of the average mechanic and
: > >automobile repair establishment.
: 
: ABSOLUTELY NO WAY THIS IS TRUE - over half the existing car population 
: on the road owned by you, me, my friends and neighbours etc are the 
: kind of cars you are referring to.   They are being maintained quite
: well thank you very much.  The statement is simply rediculous.
Evidently we all have individual standards and values.  For me, my
education in this problem came at the cost of $625 to replace a $16
sensor on my 1991 Ford Bronco.  Two dealerships and one independent
mechanic manage to mis-diagnose the problem and replace the wrong
components.
Eventually, I ran across a fouth repair shop that, fortunately, had
seen the exact problem before (very fast idling, lugging and missing
on hills, and extremely poor fuel mileage).  He had no idea how this
particular sensor caused the problem, but fortunately he had seen it
happen before and do exactly what to do to fix it.
Curiously, the high priced, factory trained dealership mechanics saw
nothing but an incorrect indictment of a compression problem using 
their (grimace) skill and (laugh) hi-tech instrumentation.  I count
myself fortunate that I took it elsewhere before they decided that
the solutin was a new engine!
If this is your idea of how "They are being maintained quite well
thank you very much" then you are not in touch with reality, or
have simply been lucky to date.
Obviously, so long as engine and sensor performance remains within
the correction range of the computer, little maintenance skill is
required of a mechanic.  Unfortunately, this is usually true only for so 
long.  (Perhaps this is why so many people are today fearful of 
keeping a car for any longer than it's extended warranty period, or
why so many people today are leasing rather than buying!)
                                    Harry C.

Emil.Naepflein@philosys.de (Emil Naepflein) wrote:
>= 
>= The most important flaws and errors are
>= 
>= - He fully ignored long-term risks, which favours nuclear were most of the
>=   risks are long-term.
What long term risks are you referring to?  The radiation dose to
members of the general public from nuclear power plants are generally
far less than 5 mrem per year, a level at which there are zero 
effects.
Even considering accident scenarios, the chances of a member of the
general public receiving a dose that can cause illness are very small.
>= - He has used outdated technology standards for coal and prototypes for
>=   the renewables.
Most renewable energy sources (if nuclear does not get included
in the term renewable) are only at the prototype stage even today.
It is no wonder that a study done a decade ago uses only renewables.
With regard to "outdated" coal technology, most is still in use. Granted
new plants have better technology, but old ones are still pumping out
the juice and the pollution.
>=After correction of the most important mistakes you get the following results:
>=
>=ENERGY SOURCE                          man-days lost/MWa
>=coal, old technology                       86
>=coal, new technology                       26
>=oil, old technology                        43
>=oil, new technology                        20
>=natural gas                                 8
>=nuclear                                   235
I would bet a great deal of money that this analysis uses a 
model of radiation dose response that does not reflect 
reality.
In other words, it grossly overestimates the effects of radiation.
There is now no need to use such estimates, since long term data is
available regarding the operation of nuclear power plants.  After all,
there have been commercial facilities in operation since the late 
1950s, long enough to develop a significat data base of health impacts.
I also wonder if the figure for natural gas, for example, includes
the not insignificant number of deaths caused by carbon monoxide 
inhalation from improperly vented water heaters, stoves, and ovens.
(I have read about three such deaths in my immediate area in the past
year.  I am sure that they are not unique.)
Rod Adams
Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.
http://www.opennet.com/AAE

cdean73352@aol.com wrote:
>Things that are worthwhile are never easy and much work remains to be
>done.  However, I find it difficult to put much confidence in cost
>estimates for building / operating a fusion power plant when its final
>design has not been completed.
>
>
I disagree with this comment.  Many times, worthwhile things are 
quite easy if done correctly.  For example, the Wright Brothers spent
a couple of pleasant winters coming up with an airplane that 
could actually 
fly under the control of human beings.  Their total budget was about
$1000, low enough to be affordable for a couple of guys who owned
a seasonal bicycle shop.
In contrast, Langley's government supported project was a failure,
despite a $50,000 budget an a great deal of effort.
In another example, Jobs and Wozniac came up with a pretty decent 
machine with a bit of effort in a garage, while much larger companies
like IBM fiddled away their considerable lead by refusing to develop
anything resembling a Personal Computer.
Rod Adams
Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.
http://www.opennet.com/AAE

In article <01bbd347$e6af2f80$89d0d6cc@masher>,
   "Mike Asher"  wrote:
	[snipped]
>Yes, wind farms have worked so well in the past.  The example of Southern
>Cal Edision, who spent thirty million for a 2MW plant leaps to mind.  It
>was sold for scrap a few years later, for $51,000.  Or the windfarm in
>Alameda Country, California?  The operators have had to buy out all nearby
>homeowners, as the noise is unbelievable.  And they've also been the
>subject of two (that I know of) lawsuits over the deaths from birds flying
>into the vanes...included eagles and other protected species.   I believe
>the cost per megawatt there is around $16,000.  Thats five times the cost
>of  a coal or nuclear plant.
>
>Some smaller wind turbines have been very succesful.  However, to claim
>these can any significant fraction of demand is ludicrous.
	[snipped]
	Ludicrous? How strange, then, that it the Energy Information
Administration (EIA) of the DOE has printed in several of its publications
that wind could, in fact account for a very significant proportion of the
US energy supply.  North Dakota alone could account for more than a third.
The midwestern states could easily supply the whole US with wind power.
Wind plants have a number of advantages over nuclear plants, such as greater
on-line reliability, lower maintenance costs, less waste from power 
generation, space (remember, nuke plants have to have mines and waste disposal
areas) and so forth.  And of course, a catastrophe at a wind plant would 
not make large land areas unlivable for long periods of time.
	Mike, your claim that no workers have died in nuclear plants is 
absurd.  There have been a large number of deaths worldwide including a
number in the US, beginning with the three killed at Idaho Falls in 1960.
And those are just the ones we know about.  Further, as far as I know there
are no stats on the contaminated workers who died later from cancers as
a result of contamination earlier in life.  Greenpeace maintains a partial
list of nuclear accidents and events at: 
http://www.greenpeace.org/~comms/nukes/chernob/rep02.html
Your claim also does not include the numbers who have died as a result of
military use of nuclear power, aboard Soviet subs and so forth.
Mike Turton

John McCarthy wrote:
> 
> Will Stewart is engaging in wishful thinking when he speaks of the
> Chinese increasing energy efficiency and
John forgets that I was replying to a scenario, not the real world
situation.  I also identified what they *can* do, not what they *are*
doing.
Ross C. K. Rock wrote:
> The problem in China is not as much one of wastefulness, but one of
> growth.  If the Chinese increase their energy efficiency by the
> phenomenonal amount of 50%, they will only be able to expand their
> industrial economy by a factor of two before they are right back where
> they started again.
I responded;
>      They will have reduced their energy costs.  If they need
>      more, then they can add renewable energy sources in order to
                       ^^^
>      reduce pollution, CO2, and dependence on non-renewable
>      resources.
> 
> What the Chinese are doing is increasing their coal production,
> building and buying nuclear power plants and building dams.
No doubt.
Cheers,
-- 
William R. Stewart
http://www.patriot.net/users/wstewart/first.htm
Member American Solar Energy Society
Member Electrical Vehicle Association of America
"The truth will set you free:  - J.C.

Mike Asher wrote:
> 
> Bruce Scott TOK   wrote:
> > Mike Asher (masher@tusc.net) wrote:
> >
> > : My source is "Energy Risk Assessment" Herbert Inhaber, 1983,  Gordon &
> > : Breach.  Solar power is rated far more dangerous than nuclear, and even
> > : more so than coal, with its deaths from lung disease and mining
> accidents.
> >
> > This was for photovoltaic solar, right?  If so it doesn't surprise me.
> >
> 
> Yes, PV cells with ancillary collection via mirrors.  Unfortunately, as
> pie-in-the-sky as these types of power plants are, most other plans for
> solar generation are even worse.
For those readers that are new to sci.energy, posts such as these are
called trolls.  See below for a definition.
See http://ocaxp1.cc.oberlin.edu/~lwalter/photovoltaic.html for just
some of the real world applications and use of photovoltaics.
Cheers,
-- 
William R. Stewart
http://www.patriot.net/users/wstewart/first.htm
Member American Solar Energy Society
Member Electrical Vehicle Association of America
"The truth will set you free:  - J.C.
"Troll:
     A deliberately disrupting, confused and incorrect
     post (or one posting trolls) to a Usenet group to
     generate a flurry of responses from people called 
     "billygoats" trying to set the record straight.
     Other trollers enter the fray adding more and more
     misinformation so that the thread eventually dies of
     strangulation.  Trolls/trollers cannot be affected
     by facts or logic."    - bashford@psnw.com

Rod Adams wrote:
> 
> William Royea  wrote:
> 
> >If solar panels were mounted on every rooftop of every buisness and
> >home, there would be no need to use "vast collection areas" dedicated to
> >energy collection. The cleaning for such systems could easily be
> >accomplished by trained individuals- not Joe Handymans, thereby reducing
> >this risk substantially.
> 
> William, do you really expect that cleaning
> solar cells will be a lucrative profession that attracts the most
> careful individuals provided with the latest and greatest in safety
> equipment?  Have you ever tried to find someone to clean windows in
> a small scale situation like a house?
Some persons here seem to think that PV panels require frequent
cleaning.  I would like to see some evidence (not frenetic conjecture)
that PV panels need more than one simple hosedown a year.
> >Environmental damage from solar power? The silicon comes from the sand
> >as does the glass. The containment system for a nuclear plant uses far
> >more concrete than any equivalent-power producing solar array.
> 
> William, you are dead wrong on this comment.
Rod, I must take exception with this. See below.
> The amount of concrete
> needed to build a containment vessel is well documented, but even if
> it were not, you could do a rough calculation based on the size
> of the building and the thickness of the walls.
> 
> If you even attempted to run the numbers, you would find that even a
> thin layer of concrete spread over 75 acres (Solar 1) uses
> more concrete than a typical 1000 MW nuclear power plant containment
> building. 
Concrete is *not* spread over 75 acres with Solar 1 (now Solar 2).
And with PV panels on roofs, no concrete is needed.
>  The steel
> >frames are completely recyclable. The cadmium is used in storage of the
> >energy and is also both recyclable and replaceable with other,
> >less-hazerdous materials. Besides, you have to store the energy no
> >matter how you generate it. The generation of other hazardous materials
> >in manufacturing the solar cells is far less than the amount of nuclear
> >waste you produce on a per kwh basis.
> >
> Again, there are numbers that refute your claim.  If you put all of
> the high level nuclear waste produced in US nuclear plants over their
> entire operating lives into approved storage containers and lined the
> containers up on a football field, you would not completely cover
> the field. (The containers are about 15 feet tall.)
These numbers are not weighed by health impact of the materials.
> That material, as well as most other material often referred to as
> nuclear waste, is also just as recycleable as the cadmium needed
> in the batteries of your solar system.
Cadmium is not needed; one could select NiCad batteries, but that is a
choice, not a mandatory obligation.
> You also stated that no matter how you generate electricity, you still
> need to store it.  That is false, my friend.
Rod is correct here.  I assume William was referring specifically to
off-grid residential PV or wind systems.
Cheers,
-- 
William R. Stewart
http://www.patriot.net/users/wstewart/first.htm
Member American Solar Energy Society
Member Electrical Vehicle Association of America
"The truth will set you free:  - J.C.
"Troll:
     A deliberately disrupting, confused and incorrect
     post (or one posting trolls) to a Usenet group to
     generate a flurry of responses from people called 
     "billygoats" trying to set the record straight.
     Other trollers enter the fray adding more and more
     misinformation so that the thread eventually dies of
     strangulation.  Trolls/trollers cannot be affected
     by facts or logic."    - bashford@psnw.com

William Royea  wrote:
>> Again, there are numbers that refute your claim.  If you put all of
>> the high level nuclear waste produced in US nuclear plants over their
>> entire operating lives into approved storage containers and lined the
>> containers up on a football field, you would not completely cover
>> the field. (The containers are about 15 feet tall.)
>
>Boy, I'd sure love to work at that facility.
William, I know a good deal more about the health effects of radiation
that the average person, having served in several different jobs that
were the Navy's equivalent of Radiation Health billets.
Other that the sheer bordom of working with hundreds of concrete 
and steel canisters that do not change from day to day, I would have
no difficulty at all working at such a facility.  I would even feel
comfortable bringing my daughters there for tours and for "Bring your
daughter to work day."
>
> 
>> That material, as well as most other material often referred to as
>> nuclear waste, is also just as recycleable as the cadmium needed
>> in the batteries of your solar system.
>> You also stated that no matter how you generate electricity, you still
>> need to store it.  That is false, my friend.  
>
>Looking back on what I stated, you are right, I am wrong. Nonetheless,
>the peak load hours are during the summer, right smack in the middle of
>the day, when the sun is at its peak. 
The time of peak electrical demand varies considerably depending on
where you are.  In an industrial city in the northern portions of the
country, the peak is often at about 3 p. m. until about 11:00 p.m. 
during the winter.
Perhaps in southern California during a recession, the only significant
load is air conditioning, but the rest of the country has different
needs.
You will have storage
>requirements, but cadmium is not necessary, because even the load
>levelers used today in other countries run off lead-acid batteries just
>fine.
Where in the world are lead acid storage batteries used as load 
levelers?  In general, variable loads on electric grids are assumed
by fossil generators known as spinning reserves.
>
>If all the nuclear waste is recyclable as you claim it is, why the hell
>are we burying it in the ground in sealed containers. That sounds more
>like a land fill than a recycling plant.
>
>William
That, my friend, is a damn good question.  Why don't you ask groups
like the Nuclear Control Institute why they do not like the idea of
nuclear waste recycling?
It takes a bit of creative thinking, and, at least initially, recycled
products might cost a bit more than those made using virgin material,
but the fact remains that nuclear recycling has the potential for 
far more benefit than collecting old newspapers or coke cans.
Rod Adams
Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.
http://www.opennet.com/AAE

Ariadna A Solovyova (asolovyo@copper.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
: Did you understand what I said? RADIATION CAUSES CANCER AND OTHER
: DISEASES. Mortality is not all there is to it; think about *morbidity*. 
: Search MedLine for radiation. Search it for Chernobyl, for that matter. 
: 991 results. Articles published in many countries, not just Russia or
: Ukraine. Some quotes: 
: 
: Radiation-induced cytogenetic markers detected 8 years after the accident
: at the Chernobyl Atomic Electric Power Station... 
And?
: 
: Psychic disorders are not infrequent findings in children who survived
: Chernobyl accident...
So, low level radiation can cause psychic (I suspect you mean psychiatric)
disorders?  Hmmm... 
: 
: ...thyroid hyperplasia consequent to environmental pollution due to
: Chernobyl accident... 
And?
: 
: Recent analyses of children in Belarus and the Ukraine are the first to
: document large numbers of excess thyroid cancer cases only 4 years after
: exposure to radiation. In Connecticut (USA), a thyroid cancer increase of
: a much smaller magnitude occurred in 1990-93, 4-7 years after the
: Chernobyl accident, for both children and adults. Similar changes also
: occurred in the states of Iowa and Utah, which like Connecticut were
: exposed to low levels of radionuclides from Chernobyl fallout during May
: and June of 1986... 
Hmmm...
: 
: An assessment is submitted of morbidity rates and physical development of
: children aged under 14, residing in the territories being monitored after
: the Chernobyl Power Plant accident. A high level of disharmony in physical
: development of the children examined was recordable, as was an excess in
: morbidity of both general and separate classes of disease entities among
: the pediatric population having been victims of the Chernobyl accident, as
: compared to that in relatively "clean" areas and in Ukraine as a whole... 
:
Funny, I haven't read of any credible investigations claiming this.
: Germline mutation at human minisatellite loci has been studied among
: children born in heavily polluted areas of the Mogilev district of Belarus
: after the Chernobyl accident and in a control population. The frequency of
: mutation was found to be twice as high in the exposed families as in the
: control group... 
And what what/where/who formed the control group?
: 
: etc. etc. etc.
: 
: THOSE MUTATIONS HAVE UNPREDICTABLE CONSEQUENCES.
: 
: How dumb and conceited do you have to be to compare it to people falling
: off roofs. "We'll just have two or three big power plants, so people won't
: need to worry about providing their own energy". "We'll just have one big
: State Farm, so people won't need to worry about procuring food". "We'll
: just have one State Production and Trade Council, so people won't need to
: worry about managing their own businesses, producing lots of unnecessary
: things". FATAL CONCEIT.
: 
: May the knowledge of those who have suffered through totalitarianism save
: this country from it.
No need.  We don't use graphite moderated reactors for commercial power
production. 
Realize that America's nuclear power plants are the safest and most
environmentally responsible systems ever devised for the satisfaction
of man's energy needs.  
                                           Harry C.

In a previous article, asolovyo@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Ariadna A Solovyova) says:
>r!asolovyo
>From: asolovyo@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Ariadna A Solovyova)
>Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,sci.energy,sci.econ
>Subject: Radiation in Chernobyl CAUSES CANCER AND MUTATIONS (Re: Global
>Date: 15 Nov 96 16:33:07 GMT
>Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington
>Lines: 80
>Message-ID: 
>NNTP-Posting-Host: copper.ucs.indiana.edu
>NNTP-Posting-User: 1073745024
>X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #5 (NOV)
>
>On Fri, 15 Nov 1996, Patrick Reid wrote:
>
>> [Posted to sci.energy]
>> asolovyo@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Ariadna A Solovyova) wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Radiation causes cancer. And many other diseases. People in Chernobyl'
>> >could tell you a lot about it.
>>
>> People (formerly) in Chernobyl can tell you a lot about unnecessary
>> relocations. The death toll to the general public due to Chernobyl to
>> date is 3.
>
>Did you understand what I said? RADIATION CAUSES CANCER AND OTHER
>DISEASES. 
Certain levels of radiation cause cancer. There is no scientifically 
validated evidence that low level radiation causes cancer & lots of 
scientifically validated evidence (as well as epidemilogical studies) 
which indicate low level radiation is benifitial.
>Mortality is not all there is to it; think about *morbidity*. 
>Search MedLine for radiation. Search it for Chernobyl, for that matter. 
>991 results. Articles published in many countries, not just Russia or
>Ukraine. Some quotes: 
>
>Radiation-induced cytogenetic markers detected 8 years after the accident
>at the Chernobyl Atomic Electric Power Station... 
>
>Psychic disorders are not infrequent findings in children who survived
>Chernobyl accident...
Couldn't be because the government pulled them out of their homes to keep 
them away from levels of radiation lower than the back ground levels in 
Skandinavia. Children brought to Canada to "give their bodies a break 
from the radiation" were exposed to more than enough radiation from cosmic 
rays on their flights here to make up for the decreased doses some of 
them got while visiting. Children bilited to areas of the Canadian shield 
were exposed to more radiation than they would have been at home.
>...thyroid hyperplasia consequent to environmental pollution due to
>Chernobyl accident... 
There are indications that KI used to prevent radio iodine absorbtion may 
have been the cause.
>Recent analyses of children in Belarus and the Ukraine are the first to
>document large numbers of excess thyroid cancer cases only 4 years after
>exposure to radiation. In Connecticut (USA), a thyroid cancer increase of
>a much smaller magnitude occurred in 1990-93, 4-7 years after the
>Chernobyl accident, for both children and adults. Similar changes also
>occurred in the states of Iowa and Utah, which like Connecticut were
>exposed to low levels of radionuclides from Chernobyl fallout during May
>and June of 1986... 
You have no idea how low level. The in the areas of the US with the 
highest exposures from Chernobyl a person would have had to have drank 
80,000 litres of rain water to recieve as much radio iodine as a person 
gets when they have a thyroid scan.
Gads, everything is getting blamed on CHernobyl. They even blamed dead 
Cariboo in Newfoundland on it. 
>An assessment is submitted of morbidity rates and physical development of
>children aged under 14, residing in the territories being monitored after
>the Chernobyl Power Plant accident. A high level of disharmony in physical
>development of the children examined was recordable, as was an excess in
>morbidity of both general and separate classes of disease entities among
>the pediatric population having been victims of the Chernobyl accident, as
>compared to that in relatively "clean" areas and in Ukraine as a whole... 
I understand that the incidence of smoking increased dramatically after 
the accident. Good thing that could affect the children at all. Also many 
people in the area believed that alcohol protects one from radiation & 
drinking increased.
According to "Chernobylization" ( a magazine from Kiev) the biggest 
problem in the area is "lack of vitaminized food stuffs". If your looking 
for a cuase of health effects you might concider examining that.
>Germline mutation at human minisatellite loci has been studied among
>children born in heavily polluted areas of the Mogilev district of Belarus
>after the Chernobyl accident and in a control population. The frequency of
>mutation was found to be twice as high in the exposed families as in the
>control group... 
And the difference before the accident was? ? ?
>etc. etc. etc.
>
>THOSE MUTATIONS HAVE UNPREDICTABLE CONSEQUENCES.
>
>How dumb and conceited do you have to be to compare it to people falling
>off roofs. 
Why don't we compare levels of radiation (radon & it's daughters 
primarily) released hard rock mining the silvering materials for the 
mirrors or the doping elements for solar voltaics? 
>"We'll just have two or three big power plants, so people won't
>need to worry about providing their own energy". "We'll just have one big
>State Farm, so people won't need to worry about procuring food". "We'll
>just have one State Production and Trade Council, so people won't need to
>worry about managing their own businesses, producing lots of unnecessary
>things". FATAL CONCEIT.
Oooo, the old "nukaler energy means comanism" arguement.
Solar power systems are notorious for using more power to be built, 
installed and maintained then they ever produce. And were not talking 
about a four gigawatt nuclear plant versus a 2 kilowatt solar system. To 
replace Chernobyl (at full power) with a solar power plant (assuming 50% 
spacing of heliostatic mirrors) would require more than 500 square 
kilometers. Don't you care about the environment at all? 
>May the knowledge of those who have suffered through totalitarianism save
>this country from it.
>Ari Solovyova
-- 
      Karl Johanson,  Victoria B.C. Canada
-It's okay to disagree with me. However, once I explain where you're
wrong you're supposed to become enlightened & change your mind.
Congratulating me on how smart I am is optional.

Please excuse me if I am interupting any threads. I am very new to 
computer technology and the communication forms associated with it. 
I am a college student writing a research paper on energy-efficient 
houses and their environmental benefits in the Pacific Northwestern
states of the US.
Does anyone know the percent nuclear energy actually contributes to the 
world's energy resources?
I would be interested in talking via e-mail to 
any expert in the field of energy-efficiency. 
Also, if any one has information or knows of sites on the web about:
	*earth-sheltered houses
	*double-envelope houses
	*passive solar houses
	*active solar houses
	*wood smoke contamination 
	*downfalls of natural gas and oil
	*hydropower's affect on salmon
please e-mail me. My address is:  cmontez@clark.edu
Information specific to the Pacific Northwest would be greatly 
appreciated.
Again, please excuse me if I have gone about this request for 
information all wrong, or if I have asked for info already available on 
this newsgroup. I'm new to electronic communication. 
Thanks alot, 
Chariti Montez
cmontez@clark.edu
Clark College
Vancouver, Wa.

Bill Toman  wrote:
>This article below (I'm not affiliated with the subjects) has the
>significance of having two major power development industry players
>combine to market and finance complete photovoltaic systems.  Stewart &
>Stevenson is well known for its competent and cost effective packaging
>of gas turbine power plants and Besicorp is an established power project
>developer which has several financed projects under its belt.  The only
>question is....what's the cost?
(rest of article snipped)
Bill, thanks for posting an interesting article about real world
(versus pie in the sky) projects.
However, I have a few more questions.
What is the size and capacity of the systems that are being considered?
What kind of storage systems will be used?
Will the projects be privately funded or supported with subsidies
and tax advantages?
Will the projects have any real impact at all on the world's consumption
of petroleum projects or will they simply bring power to places that
were previously unreachable?  (An admirable goal in itself, but not
the one that most supporters of renewable energy articulate as their
goal.)
Rod Adams
Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.
http://www.opennet.com/AAE