Now here's a cool car

dgk wrote:
> 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.

Setting aside the irony of a Randroid complaining about somebody hating
civilization, there's an element of severe stupidity to
"environmentalists"* who support policies that drive up energy costs in
urban areas. It drives out businesses, and they leave the city for less
energy-efficient places that use more energy (in terms of electricity
and transportation usage) and depend on heavily subsidized roads and
parking lots. That does nothing but harm the environment, both from the
standpoint of climate change and the ecological rape wrought by suburban
sprawl.

* The people in question often aren't environmentalists though. They're
just suburban NIMBYs whose concern is very local. However, I would
guess there are often alliances between both groups and even perhaps a
common delusion that each shares the other's concerns.

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

I think you haven't been paying attention. There's a very large
subset of the green movement which opposes any practical means of
large-scale power generation. They were all for wind until people
started building windmills, and they're dead-set against solar thermal
generation (but not solar panels, which are too costly and inefficient
to work on a large scale).
--
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.

In article >,
Glen Labah > wrote:

>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.

Trying to moving low-grade heat 40 miles probably isn't going to work.
--
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.

On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 22:28:54 -0500,
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:

>In article >,
>dgk > wrote:
>>On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 18:51:32 -0800, John David Galt
> wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>
>I think you haven't been paying attention. There's a very large
>subset of the green movement which opposes any practical means of
>large-scale power generation. They were all for wind until people
>started building windmills, and they're dead-set against solar thermal
>generation (but not solar panels, which are too costly and inefficient
>to work on a large scale).


I don't think it's a large subset. There are odd people in every
group. I consider myself pretty green but understand the need for
power and some of the offsets and most people do as well.

What is the objection to STG? That would seem a pretty benign
technology. I do prefer solar panels and would love to do it to my
house but it is still pretty expensive. I don't see any way to do STG
locally but lining a roof with panels would be pretty easy.

I'm all for wind power; it may just be that I'm getting older but I
bike a lot and the wind seems to be getting stronger all the time.
Part of it is that I'm getting weaker but there seem to be a lot of
days with 15-20 mph winds and that used to be pretty rare around here.
Oddly, it always seems to be a headwind.

There was a lot of objection to an offshore wind farm on Long Island
lately but that had Greens on both side of the issue. I liked the idea
even though I spend a lot of time at the beach; a bunch of windmills a
few miles offshore is probably ok. But I do surf and wouldn't want it
to mess up the waves...

In article >,
dgk > wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 22:28:54 -0500,
>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>>dgk > wrote:
>>>On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 18:51:32 -0800, John David Galt
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>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.
>>
>>I think you haven't been paying attention. There's a very large
>>subset of the green movement which opposes any practical means of
>>large-scale power generation. They were all for wind until people
>>started building windmills, and they're dead-set against solar thermal
>>generation (but not solar panels, which are too costly and inefficient
>>to work on a large scale).
>
>I don't think it's a large subset. There are odd people in every
>group. I consider myself pretty green but understand the need for
>power and some of the offsets and most people do as well.
>
>What is the objection to STG? That would seem a pretty benign
>technology.

Lowers the albedo of the desert. Threatens fragile desert ecosystems
(this with respect to solar thermal in the US desert southwest).
--
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.

In article > ,
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:

> In article >,
> Glen Labah > wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> Trying to moving low-grade heat 40 miles probably isn't going to work.


If it is enough heat to raise the temperature of the river several
degrees, even after it mixes, then there is certainly enough thermal
mass there to retain some of the the heat for such a short distance.

--
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 >,
Philip Nasadowski > wrote:

> 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...


Granted, it was back in the 1980s, but when I went on a plant tour (yes,
at that time nuke plants could have plant tours open to the general
public), but the way I remember it, the Joseph Farley plant in Alabama
didn't use much at all in the way of river water, because the river was
simply too small to serve as enough of a heat sink.

Therefore, their system involves what look like large air conditioning
condensers.

It could be they suck in the water and do evaporative cooling with their
fans (which is probably far more likely), but I was given the impression
they were 100% air cooled.

Certainly, having a nuke plant far from water is a rare thing, but I
think one of the South African plants is quite far away from water.

However, there are certainly coal plants that are quite far from water,
and they need cooling capacity just like a nuke plant does. Witness the
one near Farmington, New Mexico. There isn't even much in the way of
sewage water too cool that thing. There are a fair number of coal
plants throughout the west that are in similar circumstances.

--
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.

On 04/05/10 23:50, 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???

FEH! Light weight/small carbon footprint bicycles only!

On 04/06/10 02:27, wrote:
> In >, Grumpy
> > wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>> In >, "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.

HUH? Did the SDCC survive the collapse of the USSR in 1991 (or thereabouts)?

Did the really have diesel powered computers? That could be cool!

On 04/07/10 22:35, Stewart wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> In >, Grumpy
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> wrote:
>>>> In >, "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......

True, but it *is* subject to change. <I hope>