OT: The Power Grid Will Fail within 36 Months

...that damned red light Does decrease efficiency..

..do not forget that burning coal generates and pushes more radioactivity into the atmosphere..

Um, we call it 'Brimstone' when it comes from a politician. ;-)

..but His "O"-ness demands the golden egg and hates geese!

Ad hominem.

Why am I not surprised?

Thanks, Rich

snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

in

It

ck on

ely

ar

their

Yes, solar is subsidized in most countries. The point is the cost is coming down and looking better every year. Solar may soon stand on it's own without subsidies. I bought a few raw solar cells on ebay and made my own 10 watt panel for $20. Doesn't do much, but fun to play with.

-Bill

availability

And if the US power grid does fail it is far more likely to do so because of poor maintenance practices, sloppy security on the control room infrastructure and/or deliberate producer shutdowns of plant at times of peak demand to allow Enron style price gouging of consumers.

The super rich and major semiconductor plants are fully prepared and will run off grid when that happens. Rightard peons like Baer will have to live without aircon in the summer heat.

How odd that someone without two pennies to rub together spends so much time reading investment newletters. Or it it that he has no money because he listens to all these "investment advisers" aka conmen.

A fool and his money are soon parted.

Regards, Martin Brown

in

lity

It

our

oal

the

drop

s at

ck

st

(and

n.

Burning coal doesn't generate any radioactivity, but it did release some particles of radioactive minerals that happened to be embedded in the coal and pushed them out into the atmosphere. Today you'd expect such particles to be captured by the SO2 scrubbers in the smoke stacks of modern coal-fired generating stations.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Thanks for defining "Progressive."

In fact, the

Bill, this theory is left up your alley--our fave Progressive explains that food stamps are the best stimulus!

Please help stimulate us:

-- Cheers, James Arthur

ain

ility

It

our

coal

s the

r drop

t's at

back

most

s.(and

ion.

want

Nuclear waste can still be dangerously radioactive after 100,000 years. The security force and the security perimeter aren't likely to last that long.

to me

as

Unfortunately, "not in my back yard" is a real and signficant problem in finding a safe place to dispose of nuclear waste. It may be irrational, but we live in a democracy, and the voters have yet to be educated into rationality. Worse, some of the richer and more powerful groups in our democracy see advantage in an irrational electorate that they can influence with irrational arguments, as we have seen with anthropogenic global warming.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

You don't think 97% percent reduction is significant?

-- Cheers, James Arthur

It's real enough as religions go, but the central premise is false. You think that you are free to doubt the dangers of cigarette smoking and anthropogenic global warming when - in reality - you have been persuaded into doubt by lying propaganda put about by people with a vested interest in selling you more cigarettes and more fossil-carbon- based fuel for your car.

Your freedom is the freedom to be a gullible sucker, and you've won it by remaining depressing ignorant about the science that demonstrates the smoking cigarettes really does shorten your life and that injecting extra CO2 into the atmosphere really does raise the surface temperature of the earth.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

In Germany the whole point of the subsidy was to drive solar cell production up by a factor of ten in order to harvest the expected economies of scale, which were roughly expected to halve the cost. The cost per installed kilowatt has gone even further than that, but it isn't all economies of scale - the technology has also been moving forward because "pure" research has been giving us a progressively better idea of what is going on insude the solar panels when they absorb light and some of that absorbed light generates electricity.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

's

ed a

ill

nd,

"Progressively" is an adjective. You could have found a definition for it in your dictionary, along with a definition of "progressive" which is another adjective. Once you've capitalised the word you've turned it into a politically loaded noun which is normally contrasted with the similarly based nouns "Conservative" and "Reactionary" which you go out of your way to illustrate.

Sure. Giving money to the poor is a much better way of stimulating the economy than giving money to the rich - the poor spend it as soon as they get their hands on it and the rich hoard it. That Newt Gingrich was too stupid to be aware of the pump-priming effects of such largessse isn't exactly surprising. You yourself have evidenced similar difficulty in understand why Keynesian deficit-finaced pump- priming budget was a correct response to the bursting of the sub-prime mortgage bubble.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

ce

"in fact, I've seen claims that a coal plant puts out more radioactive stuff than a nuclear plant does,"

I've heard that too. Does any one have a link? When I repeat this no one believes me. We (USA) have got coal to burn for hundreds of years, after that there are even messier oil shales.

George H.

Oh, quite significant -- it's just that, power is on such a huge scale, 3% of "infinity" is still "infinity".

Like when they installed the precipitators in coal plants: they remove something like 98% of all particulates, but because there's simply so damn much coal burned, they're still the biggest source of radiation -- even though they are 17dB better!

Tim

It is true enough. Uranium and thorium are both relatively common elements at around 2ppm and 10ppm respectively. Mineable uranium ores are rare and it is spread pretty evenly through the crust - including in coal seams. Uranium is so common that as a demo of our ultratrace analsysis systems for VIPs we used to measure uranium in tapwater. That was until one of them complained to the water company (also a customer or ours).

The original paper comes from ex ORNL employees, but there is nothing wrong with their sums despite their obvious nulcear connections:

And here is a version of essentially the same material in SciAm

Regards, Martin Brown

Robert Baer wrote in news:rtWdnR07hfvk5S_RnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@posted.localnet:

there's technology available to remove sulfur from smokestack emissions. It's in use right now.

Robert Baer wrote in news:rtWdnRk7hfsv5y_RnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@posted.localnet:

It's a PHOBIA;an IRRATIONAL fear. not based on reason or fact.

some greenies are becomes pro-nuclear. FYI,the Soviets used the Green Party of Germany to fight deployment of nuclear missiles,back in the 1980's. That was when the "progressives" began their subversion of the ecology movement to use for the advancement of socialism.

I believe most of the radioactivity is in the fly ash,and that is low level. it does get added to road paving..... but I don't believe that is any danger.We're talking background levels.