Now here's a cool car

Philip Nasadowski > wrote in news:nasadowsk-
:


>
> In any case, NY's ruling affects virtually every power plant of any
> type, in the state. I'd love to see the owners just pack up and leave -



You'd like to see Atlas shrug?


--
Tegger

"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message
t...
> In article >,
> dgk > wrote:
>>
>>Right, but the question is how to best deliver people where they want
>>to go with the least harmful impact on the environment. Is that a bad
>>goal?
>
> That's not a goal at all. Taken one way, it's an unsatisfiable set of
> constraints. Taken another way, it's an ambiguous one.
>
> If you want to both "BEST deliver people where they want to go", and
> "deliver people where they want to go with the least harmful impact on
> the environment", it's unsatisfiable. If you want to balance delivery
> with impact on the environment, it's ambiguous.
>
>>Hopefully electric cars are part of the solution, and the electricity
>>can be produced by a cleaner method than coal.
>
> Not likely. In the US, a state court just ruled that a nuke
> supplying 30% of the power to New York City has to shut down because
> its water output is too hot.

Not a court. It was the state's Department of Environmental Conservation.

> Now, it's possible to produce
> electricity with a minimum of conventional pollutants, and it's even
> possible to produce it with a minimum of CO2 (with a nuke). But you
> can't produce electricity without heat. The standards are
> impossible.

Matthew Russotto wrote:
> Not likely. In the US, a state court just ruled that a nuke
> supplying 30% of the power to New York City has to shut down because
> its water output is too hot. Now, it's possible to produce
> electricity with a minimum of conventional pollutants, and it's even
> possible to produce it with a minimum of CO2 (with a nuke). But you
> can't produce electricity without heat. The standards are
> impossible.

If it were possible, the greens would find some other excuse to demand
shutdown. Their movement isn't really about saving the earth; it's about
destroying civilization because they hate humans.

"N8N" > wrote in message
...
On Apr 8, 10:49 pm, Grumpy AuContraire >
wrote:
> dgk wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 19:35:52 -0700, "Stewart" >
> > wrote:
>
> >> > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> In article >, Grumpy
> >>> AuContraire > wrote:
>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> In article >, "Stewart"
> >>>>> > wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Left wing socialist alert!
>
> >>>>>> And to keep it on topic.....what type of Honda do you own?
>
> >>>>> Nah, we socialists only drive Volvo 240s and read
> >>> misc.transport.rail.americas.
> >>>>> (To which I am still trying to figure out why this thread is
> >>>>> posted).
>
> >>>> What???
>
> >>>> No Prius or Smaht Kahs???
>
> >>> Ha! Those are only driven by wanna-be socialists. Too much computer
> >>> technology, and made by corporations. The most advanced technology
> >>> allowed near the homes of true socialists are the products of the
> >>> Soviet
> >>> Diesel Computer Cooperative.
>
> >>> --
> >>> -Glennl
> >>> Please note this e-mail address is a pit of spam, and most e-mail
> >>> sent to this address are simply lost in the vast mess.
> >> I like the all electrics to reduce "carbon footprint". plug 'em in to
> >> an outlet fed by coal burning power generation......
>
> > Right, but the question is how to best deliver people where they want
> > to go with the least harmful impact on the environment. Is that a bad
> > goal?
>
> Nope, not a bad goal at all but... Any big advance in technology will
> come from innovation from the private sector, not guv'ment mandate. It
> always has and always will. Guv'ment is nothing but a giant
> interference entity.
>
> > Hopefully electric cars are part of the solution, and the electricity
> > can be produced by a cleaner method than coal.
>
> Sure, a hundred nuke plants would be a great intermediate solution until
> new technologies can be developed. But no one wants such in "their"
> backyard.

Meh, I grew up with one in my backyard, or pretty close to it, and I
turned out just fine.

nate
No you didn't, you diddle wit' 'dem Studebakers...!

ah wrote:
>> Nope, not a bad goal at all but... Any big advance in technology will
>> come from innovation from the private sector, not guv'ment mandate. It
>> always has and always will. Guv'ment is nothing but a giant
>> interference entity.
>>
>> > Hopefully electric cars are part of the solution, and the electricity
>> > can be produced by a cleaner method than coal.
>>
>> Sure, a hundred nuke plants would be a great intermediate solution until
>> new technologies can be developed. But no one wants such in "their"
>> backyard.
>
> Meh, I grew up with one in my backyard, or pretty close to it, and I
> turned out just fine.
>
> nate
> No you didn't, you diddle wit' 'dem Studebakers...!


So that soft, green glow has been around so long it doesn't even
keep you awake does it?

--
..



"You show me ONE poster who says you have even one part
per million of a good name, and I'll show you a sock." - Bill
"the Roadie" Carton

ah wrote:
>
> "N8N" > wrote in message
>


snip

>>
>> Sure, a hundred nuke plants would be a great intermediate solution until
>> new technologies can be developed. But no one wants such in "their"
>> backyard.
>
> Meh, I grew up with one in my backyard, or pretty close to it, and I
> turned out just fine.
>
> nate
> No you didn't, you diddle wit' 'dem Studebakers...!


Yeah, but I have lotsa company!

Ol' Honda Civics and Studebakers... Simple elegance..

JT

In article >,
dgk > wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 20:52:10 -0500,
>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>>dgk > wrote:
>>>
>>>Right, but the question is how to best deliver people where they want
>>>to go with the least harmful impact on the environment. Is that a bad
>>>goal?
>>
>>That's not a goal at all. Taken one way, it's an unsatisfiable set of
>>constraints. Taken another way, it's an ambiguous one.
>>
>>If you want to both "BEST deliver people where they want to go", and
>>"deliver people where they want to go with the least harmful impact on
>>the environment", it's unsatisfiable. If you want to balance delivery
>>with impact on the environment, it's ambiguous.
>>
>>>Hopefully electric cars are part of the solution, and the electricity
>>>can be produced by a cleaner method than coal.
>>
>>Not likely. In the US, a state court just ruled that a nuke
>>supplying 30% of the power to New York City has to shut down because
>>its water output is too hot. Now, it's possible to produce
>>electricity with a minimum of conventional pollutants, and it's even
>>possible to produce it with a minimum of CO2 (with a nuke). But you
>>can't produce electricity without heat. The standards are
>>impossible.
>
>
>So what's your option? Kill all the fish by boiling them in the case
>of your NY reactor.

As much amusement as having electricity shortages in NYC would provide
to people elsewhere, I think it's pretty clear what the better option
is, to all but die-hard anti-human environmentalists. Dead fish it
is.

--
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 18:51:32 -0800, John David Galt
> wrote:

>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>> Not likely. In the US, a state court just ruled that a nuke
>> supplying 30% of the power to New York City has to shut down because
>> its water output is too hot. Now, it's possible to produce
>> electricity with a minimum of conventional pollutants, and it's even
>> possible to produce it with a minimum of CO2 (with a nuke). But you
>> can't produce electricity without heat. The standards are
>> impossible.
>
>If it were possible, the greens would find some other excuse to demand
>shutdown. Their movement isn't really about saving the earth; it's about
>destroying civilization because they hate humans.

You really believe that? I think you're pretty stupid.

In article > ,
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:

> In article >,
> dgk > wrote:

> >So what's your option? Kill all the fish by boiling them in the case
> >of your NY reactor.
>
> As much amusement as having electricity shortages in NYC would provide
> to people elsewhere, I think it's pretty clear what the better option
> is, to all but die-hard anti-human environmentalists. Dead fish it
> is.


Actually, you can run a power plant without heating up the river. The
big coal fired power plants in New Mexico and Arizona, with the
exception of the one near Lake Mead, operate without discharging heat
into rivers at all, since rivers are rather difficult to find in that
part of the world - Los Angeles took them all.

Even in places such as Alabama, there are nuke plants that use
atmospheric condensers. I think in the Alabama case a large cooling
tower would have interfered with an airport or something like that, and
there weren't any rivers large enough to act as a heat sink. So,
atmospheric radiators it is.

Means a bit more noise from cooling fans, and a bitmore electricity
being dumped into running them, but still a barely measurable percent of
the total power generated by the thing.

But the real best solution would be to dump the hot water into downtown
New York City. There's dozens of buildings with heat plants there that
boil water. A bit of extra heat from the outside world would do them
some good.

--
Please note this e-mail address is a pit of spam due to e-mail address
harvesters on Usenet. Response time to e-mail sent here is slow.

In article >,
Glen Labah > wrote:

> Actually, you can run a power plant without heating up the river.

When Indian Point 2 & 3 were being planned, Con Ed wanted to build
cooling towers. The environmentalists opposed them, because it would
'spoil the view'.

Cooling towers aren't a bad thing, but they do have the disadvantage of
drawing a bit of power - on a large plant like IP, you'd be looking at
something like 20 - 40 MW per unit. That's all pumping losses (!).

IIRC, Palo Verde is unique in the world for being the only nuke that's
not near a river or body of water. The plant uses recycled sewage for
the condensers...