Oh really.... Are you including "our side" or both sides in the war?


--
Ryan, KC8PMX




And if you're going to discuss dangerous industrial processes, consider
this:
The most dangerous common form of mechanized transportation in use today
in the
USA are privately owned motor vehicles. Every year and a half, about as
many
Americans die on US highways as died in the entire Vietnam war. Airlines,
trains, buses and ships are far safer, yet few people refuse to drive or
ride
in a car compared to other modes. Why?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message hlink.net...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

Because they are blocked on every hand by people
who operate on emotions rather data.


Exactly what data is that, Dee? I've read lots of data on nuclear power
plants and little of it supports your views on that industry. When all
things are factored in (construction, deconstruction, waste management, and
so on), nuclear power is the most expensive power generated. At the present
time, most of that cost is being shouldered by the American taxpayers, not
the present or past plant owners. Of course, that fact, and only that fact,
makes nuclear power profitable for the owners (which is exactly why they
continue to push for new plants).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Chernobyl is what happens when you try to do nuclear power on the cheap.

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

So why hasn't California built any oil, coal, or hydroelectric power platns
in the last ten years?

Some folks would say it's the "NIMBY" problem (Not In My Back Yard), but I say
it's actually a "BANANA" problem (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near
Anything). It's not just generating facilities - transmission facilities have
the same problem.

I'll tell you. They too are being blocked by the
environmentalists.

Are you sure that's the only reason? Are none of the environmental
considerations reasonable? Think about how often the ground shakes out there...

Are they also economically unfeasible? It's unlikely.

No, it's very likely. Here's why:

First, for most of the past 10 years, investment capital has been drawn to the
high-payoff telecom and dotcom industries. Until the bubble burst, those were a
lot more promising to investors. A server farm can be put up in a fraction of
the time that a generating plant requires, with the promise (back then) of a
much larger ROI.

Second, the West has a long history of cheap electricity from govt. sponsored
projects, most commonly hydro. What dies a typical Californian pay per kWH?
Here in Philly, we pay something like 11 cents / kWH residential. NYC folks pay
even more. What do they pay in SF or LA? (If the retail is cheap, wholesale
must be even cheaper)

Third, the whold deregulation and Enron-type mess has caused anyone with any
sense to avoid building actual facilties like the plague, because the market
(which used to be one of the most stable and predictable ) became completely
unstable.

Fourth, the environmental/NIMBY/BANANA effects are greatest and most powerful
in places like CA. They definitely play a role - but not the only role.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
link.net...
"charlesb" wrote:

Keep in mind the fact that fossil-fuel burning plants pollute
while working perfectly. Unlike the nuclear plants, they
don't have to wait for an accident in order to cause a
problem.


Most would consider the massive amounts of nuclear waste (from spent
fuel,
contaminated building materials from closed plants, and so on) a
"problem."
People over many generations will have to deal with those waste products.
And, of course, this environmental polution is far worse than anything
generated by fossil-fuel burning plants. So, your claim above ("unlike the
nuclear plants...") is patently false.

Nope. The nuclear plants do not necessarily have to pollute in any
significant way, as there are effective, economical methods for containing
and reprocessing nuclear waste. Once you burn fossil-fuels though, you have
instant pollution injected directly into the atmosphere and the process
continues to generate toxins as long as the burning process goes on. They
end up everywhere.

Shut the fossil-fuel burner down, and it takes a number of years for the
pollution it has already produced to become absorbed into the general
environment. It doesn't just go away, it gets spread around, absorbed, and
dissipated. That would work just fine if there was just one or two
fossil-fuel burning power plants, but the unpleasant fact is that there are
thousands of them around the world. The third-world countries especially
like the "let's burn something" level of technology, because it is something
that they can readily understand, despite being protien-deprived as children
and not having much by way of an education.

Strictly speaking, there is no pollution-free method of obtaining
significant amounts of power. Of the available alternatives, nuclear is the
cleanest and safest by far, and its continued development will eventually
lead us to fusion power. Of course there will always be mindless
chicken-little bleating from those who obtain the latest scientific facts
from Mother Earth News, Cosmo, or the National Enquirer, but if you discount
this fruitcake element, you'll find that most people in the U.S. are
intelligent enough to understand the issues, and can make informed, rational
decisions if you give them half a chance.

Yes, there is a vocal minority who are convinced that the sky is falling.
The fact that they get together and agree among themselves does not mean
that their hysteria has any basis in fact. It really only means that though
they may be wigged out, at least they are not lonely. Taken out of the
context of their conspiracy of agreement and placed within a population of
normals, they sooner or later find that they are not so sure that the sky is
falling after all. - Except for the hard-core wiggees of course, whose only
hope would be some form of shock therapy.

Charles Brabham, N5PVL

"charlesb" wrote:

Nope. The nuclear plants do not necessarily have
to pollute in any significant way, as there are
effective, economical methods for containing
and reprocessing nuclear waste. (snip)


If that is true, why are there tons of nuclear waste stored around the
country at weapons labs, weapons factories, power plants, and so on? Instead
of being reprocessed, must agree the stuff will end up being stored in
underground containment facilities - facilities to be maintained for many
decades or even centuries (at taxpayers expense, I should add).


Once you burn fossil-fuels though, you have instant
pollution injected directly into the atmosphere and the
process continues to generate toxins as long as the
burning process goes on. They end up everywhere.


Look, I'm not defending fossil-fuel generator plants. All I'm saying is
that nuclear power plants are not a good alternative to fossil-fuel plants -
the problems are worse (and potentially catastrophic).


(snip) Of the available alternatives, nuclear is the cleanest
and safest by far, and its continued development will eventually
lead us to fusion power. (snip)


It's only cleaner and safer if you ignore the waste and mining issues, and
the potentual for personnel mistakes, design flaws, environmental risks, or
parts failure. It is absurd to believe Three Mile Island will be the only
serious incident, or the worse incident to ever possibly happen.


(snip) you'll find that most people in the U.S. are
intelligent enough to understand the issues, and can
make informed, rational decisions if you give them
half a chance. (snip)


Which is exactly why nuclear power continues to lose supporters and this
country continues to move away from nuclear power.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote:

Wind is actually a good source, if there is a consistent
breeze blowing enough to keep the blades of the
windmill moving, and would seem to be fairly
inexpensive to construct as well.


Los Angeles has several hundred wind turbines placed in the hills around
the area. And, since I saw them getting ready to put some more up when I
drove through there recently, it appears they are expanding the program.
There are many other areas around the country where such turbines could be
placed and the power then fed into the regional power grids (supplying
cities many hundreds of miles away). I also saw several experimental solar
power plants in Arizona, perhaps feeding power to local cities or the LA
power grid. Alternative power sources are quickly reaching maturity.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message .com...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dee D.
Flint"
writes:

Only 31 people died from Chernobyl. Even now there has been
no increased incident of deaths from diseases that may possibly be linked
to
radiation.

Directly attributed deaths. If a pregnant woman 1000 miles away was
exposed to
high levels of windblown radiation, and her child developed leukemia at
age 2
and died as a direct result of that exposure, how does that death ever get
attributed to the Chernobyl accident?

The area where the fallout could be discerned from the normal
background measurements was relatively small.

How many square miles? How long will it be hot?


Dissipation will be by the inverse square law so at 1000 miles from the
plant it will have a concentration of only 1 millioneth of the concentration
at the release site.

I think you mean "it will have a concentration of only 1 millionth of
the concentration at *1 mile from* the release site."

If you're talking about long-term exposure from a contained source, I
agree. But when Chernobyl popped, it let off a cloud of radioactive
gas, dust and smoke that spread over a wide area. How much a specific
individual was exposed to how much and what types of radiation and
radioactive material for how long is pretty much anyone's guess.

Plus it's not just direct exposure from one incident, but overall
exposure from many sources. Suppose radioactive dust falls in a water
source, and people or animals drink the water, and ingest the
radioactive material. How chemically toxic is plutonium?

While specific deaths can't be attributed,

And that's the problem. If someone dies in a coal mine cavein or
downwind of Bhopal, it's attributed.

the overall
numbers can be assigned by simply comparing the death rate due to leukemia
in the affected zone to the death rate outside.

Ah - but what constitutes the affected zone and what constitutes
outside? How do we know the control group wasn't exposed from other
sources? Heck, there's americium in smoke detectors...

This can be done for each
cause of death that can be increased by radiation. If society wants the
data, it can be gathered.

It should be gathered. But the results may not be pretty.

But people would rather hide behind the emotional
fear of possible problems than researching what problems will occur and the
magnitude of the problem and making an enlightened decision.

To a certain extent, I agree. But it's not all emotions - it's also a
matter of judgement, trust and education.

Look at the links Mike Coslo posted about Navajo uranium miners. Would
you work their jobs? Can you say with any degree of certainty that
none of their deaths or disease are due to exposure to uranium ore?

Most of all, will any of their deaths ever be attributed? Probably
not, because we don't know how much of that uranium went to make fuel
rods.

"Society" and "the public" were told for decades that nuclear energy
was "the future" and was safe, clean, and would be "too cheap to
meter". We were all supposed to trust the govt. and the industry, but
those folks make mistakes too. Is it any wonder people are not willing
to accept such promises at face value any more?

Perhaps the biggest problem is education. Most people have only the
vaguest ideas about how electricity works, let alone how it is
generated and transmitted. Yet they are expected to accept on faith
that nuke plants *and all the rest of the nuclear industry* are safe.
Until people are educated to how things really work, you're just not
going to get that kind of trust.

In addition, that accident
was due to an unauthorized experiment being conducted at the facility.
In
other words, rules and safety precautions were being deliberately
ignored.

Yep. Absolutely true. And I've never seen any reason given.

But these were not stupid, evil or suicidal people. They just did some
amazingly dumb things, which got out of their control. And perhaps that's
the
real lesson of Chernobyl: People will do amazingly stupid things for no
explainable reason at all. Then the rest of us are left to pick up the
pieces.

Still, stupidity can't be allowed to stop us from facing the energy needs of
the future.

It should give us pause about what technologies we use to face those
needs. For example, look at Palo Verde, the newest US nuke plant,
which became operational in the mid '80s.

How much did it cost to build per kW of capacity?
How much has it cost to run per kWH since it started up?
How much will it cost per kWH to dispose of the waste, ranging from
very low level stuff to used fuel rods?
How much will it cost per kWH to decommission when its useful life is
over?

Now compare the answers to those obtained from, say, a wind turbine
plant.

Instead one addresses the issue and error proofs and mistake
proofs the facility.

Except that it is *IMPOSSIBLE* to error proof and mistake proof
anything that involves humans. The whole history of technological
goofs proves that simple fact again and again. There is *always* a way
for people to mess things up.

Remember the Titanic? "Practically unsinkable" was the description.
OOOPS...

Titanic's sinking was due to a long chain of human errors, not
technological ones. She wasn't even new technology, and her crew was
experienced. Sister ship Olympic was the first of that class, and much
of the Titanic crew (including her captain) was simply transferred
from Olympic when Titanic went into service.

Of course people didn't stop building steamships after 1912. But
neither did they call *any* ship "practically unsinkable", either.

We can make technology safer, but it can *never* be 100% safe. So we
have to understand the risks, and utlimately decide which risks are
worth taking. And when an industry asks millions of people to live
with a certain risk, it is to be expected that different people may
not accept certain risk factors. Because it's *their* lives and
property.

But when technology is small and distributed, the effects of doing
amazingly
stupid things for no explainable reason at all are contained to a
relatively
small area and numbers of people. When technology is huge and
concentrated, the
effects can be much worse.

And the more complex the technology, the easier it is to do something
really dumb.

Nuclear technology is not complex. It's relatively simple in fact.

Old joke:

First banana: "Life is strange"
Second banana: "Oh yeah? Compared to what?"

When you say "Nuclear technology is not complex. It's relatively
simple in fact.", one has to ask "Compared to what?"

I would dare to guess that the Peach Bottom nuclear plant is far more
complex than Holtwood or Conowingo dams (all three are on the same
river, within 100 miles of here).

Nuclear power generation has been round for 50 years now. A total of 34
people have died. That's the 31 at Chernobyl and 3 in the 1950s at an
experimental government facility (where once again regulations were not
followed).

Attributable deaths.

The collapse of hydroelectric dams have affected areas as wide or wider
than
a nuclear power plant accident. And they have killed more people. I'd
much rather live next to a nuclear plant than downstream of a dam.

When is the last time a hydro dam in the USA collapsed and killed people?

Hmmm??

I don't know of a single case of such a disaster in the USA in my
lifetime.

And speaking of long term environmental impacts, what about thousands of
square miles that are supposedly affected by acid rain from burning
coal??
What about the miles of coast and ocean that have been contaminated by
oil
spills?? The long term effects could be quite significant.

Sure. But not as significant as the effects of radioactive materials that
take millennia to break down.

Not proven.

And that's the problem. We do not know the long term effects of the
release of radioactive stuff into the environment. Particularly the
effects of the release of elements like plutonium, which do not occur
naturally at all.

Millennia worth of acid rain could conceivably be just as
harmful as the time taken to breakdown radioactive materials. Why? Because
even though the acid rain dissipates, it keeps on coming down year after
year.

I think you're grasping at straws, Dee. The acid from acid rain will
break down far faster than many radioactive debris will decay.

Consider just one spent fuel rod from a nuke plant like TMI. How long
before it is harmless?

Let it be reprocessed and recycled and it's not a problem.

You're avoiding the question. How many years?

As I understand it, (correct me if I'm mistaken on this) such a rod
starts out as contains uranium, plutonium and some other fission
products . Reprocessing extracts the usable uranium to make new rods
- but the plutonium and other fission products are not usable in
current technology power reactors. Plutonium can and is used in
weapons, however, which is why the Bush administration is so
interested in other countries' nuke programs. Like Iran.

IIRC, there's only one operational reprocessing plant in the world,
and it's in France. And there are far more spent rods than it will
ever be able to handle. On top of which, the rods which do result are
more expensive than new ones.

When you add in the cost per kWH of reporcessing rods, what happens to
the above cost evaluation?

So if an honest evaluation and comparison of long term effects, deaths,
environmental impacts, etc is done and the same standards applied across
the
board, then it would indeed be necessary to shut down all oil, coal, and
hydroelectric plants.

I'd like to see such a comparison.

I would too. It is exactly the type of data that we as a society need to
make informed decisions about our energy future. Right now we are stuck
with people's emotional reactions. I should have said "...it would probably
be necessary..."

Ah - but you made the statement up front that nuclear would win the
comparison. That sort of thing makes folks distrust the industry that
much more.

My point was that people are refusing to even consider the
dangers of other means of power generation.

I'm not one of them.

Personally I don't care to sit in the dark and
shiver.

It's not a binary problem.

It's getting close to that in California although shivering will be mild
(except perhaps up in the mountains) as it isn't a severe climate.
California has built no new power plants of any kind in 10 years. They
can't get any of them (fossil fuel, hydro, or nuclear) past the
environmental requirements in the state. Population continued to grow and
they had brown outs and blackouts. Their solution was to buy it from out of
state. Well that hasn't worked either. The rates are simply too high and
the state can't afford it.

How much do they pay per kWH, residential?

Costs are being absorbed by the state government
instead of being passed to the users and it's wrecked the state budget. It
looks like those contracts will be canceled and California will be right
back to their brown outs and black outs.

Because they made some really dumb decisions about "deregulation".
They treated electricity as if it were the same as any other commodity
- which it isn't.

Now let's take a look at serious industrial accidents. A prime example
is
the chemical plant in Bhopal. 3,000 people died immediately when that
happened. As many as 10,000 people have died from long term effects of
exposure to the gas released since it damaged their lungs and other
organs.
No one is shutting down the chemical industry.

The chemical industry in India does not have anywhere near the safeguards
of
the chemical industry in the USA.

And as horrible as the Bhopal disaster was, the gas dispersed and will
break
down. How long will TMI be radioactive?

TMI has been contained so it will not impact the surrounding residents.
Long term radiation exposure thus becomes a non-issue.

WHOA!

That's *ENTIRELY* the issue!

As long as TMI is contained, it poses no hazard. Just like there was
no need for lifeboats on the Titanic until it hit the iceberg...

How long must it be contained? Decades? Centuries? Millenia?

How long can the containment building be expected to stay tight, while
its radioactive contents decay?

Who gets to pay for that containment and monitoring?

Will there *ever* be a way to safely dismantle it?

Yet some chemicals are as
persistent in the environment as nuclear materials.

Some examples, please?

A process can be developed to break down any chemical compound. PCBs, for
example, were specifically designed to be inert and nonreactive, yet they
can
be broken down into their components quickly. But there's no way to speed
up
nuclear decay.

Yes you can speed up radioactive decay by reprocessing and reusing the spent
fuel.

But not waste products like irradiated equipment.

While PCBs can be broken down, it's not being done due to cost. Save
with PVC. Same with other chemicals.

Actually, some disposal of those chemicals is being done. PCB
transformer oil in particular.

So sorry to say, your long term environmental arguments just don't hold
water. There's lots of things that can affect even wider spread areas
and last just as long.

Perhaps we should discuss the half life of plutonium?

Again preprocess and reuse.

For what - weapons? Are there any operational US power reactors that
will run on plutonium?

And again you've avoided the question - what's the half life of
plutonium?

And if you're going to discuss dangerous industrial processes, consider
this:
The most dangerous common form of mechanized transportation in use today
in the
USA are privately owned motor vehicles. Every year and a half, about as
many
Americans die on US highways as died in the entire Vietnam war. Airlines,
trains, buses and ships are far safer, yet few people refuse to drive or
ride
in a car compared to other modes. Why?


1. Convenience
2. It's what they are used to
3. Each feels they are in control so it can't happen to them.

Sure. But they are CHOOSING what risks they take.

Just because we do something doesn't mean it's rational.

True - and the opposite is true.

Mankind is a
rationalizing animal. We will find justifications for our wants and desires
and fears whether there is any basis in fact for them or not.

And that goes as much for the folks who support nuclear power as those
who oppose it. You say you'd rather live next to a nuke plant than a
hydro dam, but can you point to a single case in the past 50 years
where a US hydro dam failed and killed people?

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Dick Carroll
writes:

Strictly speaking, there is no pollution-free method of obtaining
significant amounts of power.

Actually there is, it's just that they have no serious following in the
circles
where it might matter enough to move things along at a rate which would
actually make them viable, available options. Some of them are

Wind
Tidal action
Hydrogen
Solar

Geothermal
Biomass

What is mostly needed is the emphasis toward development of the alternates.

It would be interesting to know how many trillions of dollars have been poured
into nuclear power research since the end of WW2, and compare that to what has
been spent on renewables.

While the isntalled base is fossil fuel, at affordable prices, and the
pollution
doesn't overwhelm us, not that much is lilely to change. It isn't for lack of
possibilities. You could easily generate all your own power now, it's just
much
cheaper to buy it from a utility which probably burns coal to generate it.
You
can get engines which will run on used vegetable oil or almost any other type
of
fat. But few of us will as long as the corner gas station is handy and not
outta sight pricewise.

There's also efficiency considerations. More efficient lighting methods and
insulation can make big differences. The effect of requiring an efficiency
rating of 12 on new air conditioners instead of 10 is enormous at the power
plant.

Looks to me like development of hydrogen is the way to go. It's THE most
plentiful fuel on the planet, is absolutely non-polluting since combusting it
recombines it with oxygen to form water, from which some of the hydrogen can
again be extracted.

But where do we get the hydrogen to begin with? It does not occur by itself
naturally on earth in significant quantities.

To extract hydrogen from water requires electrolysis, which requires
electricity. The energy available from the extracted hydrogen is no greater
than the electrical energy required to extract it.

Extraction from methane (natural gas) leaves you with a lot of carbon to
dispose of. And you might as well burn the methane.

And most current vehicles can operate on it with little
modification needed beyond storage. The issue of volatility is actually
pretty
much a non-issue, considering the volitility of gasoline.

Gasoline evaporates but hydrogen would have to be stored under significant
pressure.

Again, it's the
insalled base of fossil fuels that would have to be reworked. That's a lot of
service stations to alter. And a lot of politics to rework. Not gonna happen
anytime soon. No, I haven't forgotten the Hindenburg. Different era,
different technology.

Recent tests have shown that what caused the Hindenburg disaster was that the
fabric covering was extremely flammable. Analysis of fabric scraps and the
famous film has shown that the skin caught fire first, and ignited the gas
inside.

Hydrogen isn't an energy source. It's really just a storage method.

There are considerable wind generation facilities in Western areas, though,
and
I recall driving past a huge solar collector field out there somewhere. .I
think
it was in southwestern Arizona where the sun shines daily.

And there have been conceptual plans for large tidal action generators for a
long time, without any hard plans to move on them AFAIK.

Enormous initial cost is why.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , "Ryan, KC8PMX"
writes:

Oh really.... Are you including "our side" or both sides in the war?


Hmmm... I wrote:

"Every year and a half, about as many Americans die on US highways as died in
the entire Vietnam war."

While it's clear to me that Americans are meant, perhaps it would be clearer to
all if I wrote:

"Every year and a half, about as many Americans die on US highways as Americans
died in the entire Vietnam war."

How's that?

73 de Jim, N2EY


And if you're going to discuss dangerous industrial processes, consider
this:
The most dangerous common form of mechanized transportation in use today
in the
USA are privately owned motor vehicles. Every year and a half, about as
many
Americans die on US highways as died in the entire Vietnam war. Airlines,
trains, buses and ships are far safer, yet few people refuse to drive or
ride
in a car compared to other modes. Why?

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

So why hasn't California built any oil, coal, or hydroelectric power platns
in the last ten years? I'll tell you. They too are being blocked by the
environmentalists. Are they also economically unfeasible? It's unlikely.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...typical non-amateur-radio diversionism going on...by an
easterner trying to dump on the most populous state in the union.

According to a number of local newspapers (we refer to 1.4 million
daily issues as "local"), California HAS built power plants (not "platns")
in the last ten years. Fossil fuel types, too.

According to a bunch of ignorant easterners, California is supposed to
have an "energy shortage." It doesn't. What it did have are some
unscrupulous energy suppliers who played fast and loose with state
government regulations and have been investigated extensively since
all those "rolling blackouts, etc." of two-three years ago.

Here in the middle of Los Angeles, the Department of Water and Power
has NEVER had to resort to any "rolling blackouts" or other nonsense.
Electric power keeps flowing nicely at slightly less that a dozen cents a
KWHr electric to residences.

Last time my area suffered a major power outage was during the Northridge
Earthquake of 17 Jan 94...a MHV tower collapsed, causing the whole 10 to
12 million service area to trip out and go black. It was back up by
noontime
with a Black Start underway that was completed by nightfall.

"The Environment" and electric power plants aren't really an amateur radio
issue, are they? During the 17 Jan 94 Northridge quake the area lost ALL
electric power for a while. Oddly, NO amateur radio nets were springing
into action during a sudden emergency. Why was that? No ARRL reps
on hand to write them up? :-)

LHA

Yeah.... the amount of methane released as a product of water treatment
facilities that take in the raw sewage as well as the methane released from
animals at farms, and of course the enivitable other form of methane common
to humans, FARTS!

Sorry in advance for this one.......
Ryan


The only way to eliminate all pollution is to eliminate the human race.
Since that is not a reasonable solution, it is up to people to develop
energy supplies and attach the appropriate safety requirements without the
emotional baggage caused by fear. To date, the nuclear industry has had a
much better safety record than many other industries and we have the
ability
to make it even safer yet. Right now the irrational fears about nuclear
power are standing in the way of collecting the data that will prove it
either safe or dangerous and developing an appropriate energy action plan.
What data does get collected is buried on the back of the last page at the
bottom of the last column of the newspaper or doesn't even make it into
the
paper unless it is something that they can sensationalize.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Len Over 21" wrote:

They do? WHICH "hills," senior? We've got a whole
bunch of Big Hill things in this 60 x 120 mile area.


Drive east on Interstate 10/20 and you'll see hundreds of them overlooking
the valley just east of San Bernardino. You can't miss them - they're good
sized and plainly visible from the Interstate (many are right beside the
Interstate, with many more placed along the hillside in both directions for
several miles). It's an impressive sight (but not very attractive).


Dwight, I worked on Solar One in Barstow, CA, the first
large-scale solar-furnace electric plant in the middle desert.


Do you know where the one in Arizona is? I saw it about a mile off to one
side the Interstate as I was driving through. There was a sign for the road
leading to it saying something about a power research facility, but I don't
remember the name of it.


Solar Two replaced it, trying out more things in re solar power
as heat. The two plants put about 50 to 100 MWe into the grid
(as I recall). A small part of the GWe required by the region.


Very likely. I don't think solar is going to be able to supply power on a
large scale anytime soon. In the meantime, additional fossil fuel plants are
the only real option. Nuclear power may one day become more viable, but
people will have to be convinced of it's safety first. And steps will have
to be taken to lower costs and better deal with waste products. Until then,
I have serious reservations about additional nuclear power plants.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

In article k.net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"Len Over 21" wrote:

They do? WHICH "hills," senior? We've got a whole
bunch of Big Hill things in this 60 x 120 mile area.

Drive east on Interstate 10/20 and you'll see hundreds of them overlooking
the valley just east of San Bernardino. You can't miss them - they're good
sized and plainly visible from the Interstate (many are right beside the
Interstate, with many more placed along the hillside in both directions for
several miles). It's an impressive sight (but not very attractive).

That's not strictly IN "Los Angeles," Dwight. :-)

Try Riverside County, not Los Angeles County. Big place out here.

Try Kern County to the north, on the way from the grapevine into the
southern tip of Huge San Joaquin Valley. Lots of them there if one
looks.

Dwight, I worked on Solar One in Barstow, CA, the first
large-scale solar-furnace electric plant in the middle desert.

Do you know where the one in Arizona is? I saw it about a mile off to one
side the Interstate as I was driving through. There was a sign for the road
leading to it saying something about a power research facility, but I don't
remember the name of it.

No. Haven't been far into Arizona since 1977.

Solar One in Barstow got decommissioned some time around 1983 and
Solar Two came up in the same place around 1985 (give or take).

Solar Two replaced it, trying out more things in re solar power
as heat. The two plants put about 50 to 100 MWe into the grid
(as I recall). A small part of the GWe required by the region.

Very likely. I don't think solar is going to be able to supply power on a
large scale anytime soon. In the meantime, additional fossil fuel plants are
the only real option. Nuclear power may one day become more viable, but
people will have to be convinced of it's safety first. And steps will have
to be taken to lower costs and better deal with waste products. Until then,
I have serious reservations about additional nuclear power plants.

From what I heard from electric power folks in the IEEE, neither of the
BIG Solar power plant types could make electricity as cheaply as either
fossil fuel or nuclear or hydroelectric plants.

Check out France. Over 80 percent of their electric power comes from
nuclear generators. France is also the leading European reprocessor of
"spent" nuclear material. Where do the French toss their unuseable
nuclear material?

Electric power generation isn't exactly a big "amateur radio" policy issue,
is it? :-)

All radios run on electricity. Except maybe the morse radios..."CW" gets
through when nothing else will, so I would hazard a guess that "CW" radios
don't need electricity at all. :-)

Keep that crystal set ready to go in case of power outages! :-)

LHA

Dwight Stewart wrote:

Los Angeles has several hundred wind turbines placed in the hills
around the area.

....and if they could harness Len Anderson's output they'd have it made.

Dave K8MN

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message thlink.net...
"Len Over 21" wrote:

They do? WHICH "hills," senior? We've got a whole
bunch of Big Hill things in this 60 x 120 mile area.


Drive east on Interstate 10/20 and you'll see hundreds of them overlooking
the valley just east of San Bernardino. You can't miss them - they're good
sized and plainly visible from the Interstate (many are right beside the
Interstate, with many more placed along the hillside in both directions for
several miles). It's an impressive sight (but not very attractive).


Dwight, I worked on Solar One in Barstow, CA, the first
large-scale solar-furnace electric plant in the middle desert.


Do you know where the one in Arizona is? I saw it about a mile off to one
side the Interstate as I was driving through. There was a sign for the road
leading to it saying something about a power research facility, but I don't
remember the name of it.


Solar Two replaced it, trying out more things in re solar power
as heat. The two plants put about 50 to 100 MWe into the grid
(as I recall). A small part of the GWe required by the region.


Very likely. I don't think solar is going to be able to supply power on a
large scale anytime soon. In the meantime, additional fossil fuel plants are
the only real option. Nuclear power may one day become more viable, but
people will have to be convinced of it's safety first. And steps will have
to be taken to lower costs and better deal with waste products. Until then,
I have serious reservations about additional nuclear power plants.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

Dwight, we would need to change how we used energy, and in the solar
arena, conservation is key.

In the early 90's I took my older son's camping at Land Between Lakes,
KY/TN. There was an 1860's working farm as part of the scenery. The
weather was hot and sticky, we should have been out on the lake.
Anyway, we were looking over the farm and I had decided when we pulled
in that I wasn't going to go into the old farm house and get cooked.
Anyway, as I stood on the breezeway at the back of the house, between
the main house and the summer kitchen, I noticed that there wasn't
heat pouring out of the house as I expected. So I went inside and
things were pleasant. Upstairs and downstairs. No electricity.

My 2000 sq ft Ranch would have been sweltering under those condx.

The key was ventilation at ceiling level of the exterior walls, as if
one of the logs were missing.

Go figure.

Dwight Stewart wrote:

Los Angeles has several hundred wind turbines placed in the hills
around the area.

For some reason I envision truckloads of refried beans rolling into L.A., to
assist the valiant cadres of illegal aliens in keeping a steady wind going.

How you Californians keep them all facing away from those hills at the same
time, is what I wonder.

Charles Brabham, N5PVL

In article k.net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

Drive east on Interstate 10/20 and you'll see hundreds of them overlooking
the valley just east of San Bernardino. You can't miss them - they're good
sized and plainly visible from the Interstate (many are right beside the
Interstate, with many more placed along the hillside in both directions for
several miles). It's an impressive sight (but not very attractive).

NOT ATTRACTIVE!?

If they're the kind that have the single tubular pylon and 3 bladed horizontal
- axle turbine, they're not just attractive - they're beautiful!

73 de Jim, N2EY

Hey Charles,

Give me a trip to Taco Bell, and some cheap welfare beer like Milwaukee's
Best or Busch beer and I could power those wind turbines on my own! :)


--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...
"charlesb" wrote in message
m...

Dwight Stewart wrote:

Los Angeles has several hundred wind turbines placed in the hills
around the area.

For some reason I envision truckloads of refried beans rolling into L.A.,
to
assist the valiant cadres of illegal aliens in keeping a steady wind
going.

How you Californians keep them all facing away from those hills at the
same
time, is what I wonder.

Charles Brabham, N5PVL

"Len Over 21" wrote:

That's not strictly IN "Los Angeles," Dwight. :-)

Try Riverside County, not Los Angeles County. Big
place out here.


Perhaps I was a little loose with the specifics, Len. However, for all
practical purposes, I consider just about the entire valley to be Los
Angeles. The cities and towns spread out side by side from Los Angeles, with
only a roadside sign to separate the individual cities or towns. From where
I'm sitting, the whole thing looks like one giant metropolis. And the wind
turbines I described probably supply supplimental power to that whole
metropolis. However, you are correct. The wind turbines are in Riverside
Country, probably supplying power to the area grid.


No. Haven't been far into Arizona since 1977.


Well, it doesn't really matter. I was just wondering because it's the
only solar facility I've personally seen.


Electric power generation isn't exactly a big "amateur radio"
policy issue, is it? :-)


You know how this newsgroup is, Len. If a topic gets introduced here, it
becomes an issue here.


Keep that crystal set ready to go in case of power outages! :-)


Looks like Hurricane Isabel is going to miss this area and hit north of
us. Therefore, ham radio should be relatively calm, but it may be a busy
weekend for the Coast Guard. However, things have been fairly quiet so far.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Brian" wrote:

Dwight, we would need to change how we used
energy, and in the solar arena, conservation is key.


It could be done. I recently visited a friend living in large (40')
double-wide camping trailer. I was amazed at how little electricity he
actually used, while still having most of the modern appliances and
technologies (TV, VCR, stereo, computer, etc.). I don't know exactly how he
did it. However, I noticed that he had purchased or converted most
everything to 12v, so perhaps that is the key. Almost everything was running
off batteries, with just a small transformer charging the batteries. Only a
few things (AC) ran off the main power feed.

Anyway, while it could be done, trying to convince people to do it is
another matter.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"N2EY" wrote:

If they're the kind that have the single tubular pylon and
3 bladed horizontal - axle turbine, they're not just
attractive - they're beautiful!


Not when you have dozens and dozens of them spread across a hillside.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"charlesb" wrote:

For some reason I envision truckloads of refried beans
rolling into L.A., to assist the valiant cadres of illegal
aliens in keeping a steady wind going.

How you Californians keep them all facing away from
those hills at the same time, is what I wonder.


No need to worry about it - the valley is shaped to funnel most of the
wind generated in a that direction. Which, by the way, just happens to be
generally towards Texas (and you thought the smell was coming from cows in
El Paso). :)


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Dee D. Flint wrote:

Dee, I find myself in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with you,
but very much disagreeing with your argument.

Uranium miners get ill with apalling regularity. This is part of the
overall cost of this method of energy production, unless you are force
fitting your argument to include only the power generation stage. There
are piles of radioactive tailings around some towns out west. Kids often
play on them.

http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/miners.html

http://www.downwinders.org/cortez.htm

These are just a couple examples.

Is that directly attributable? Gosh who knows? Cigarettes were "not
proven to be deadly until not all that many yars ago, while I have read
literature from the 1860's that documented all the effects that tobacco
smoking causes. My guess is that if a group of people involved in an
activity show statistically significant trends in illness, some activity
they have in common just may be responsible.

I don't suspect you will understand this, but part of your approach is
exactly why people distrust what they are told about NP.

It's exactly for these reasons that I keep saying that we have to do the
research and not let our emotions and fears sway us. And we do have to make
sure we don't do stupid things. Letting kids play on piles of tailings is
stupid. Even on non-radioactive piles, they can get hurt as the piles are
unstable and slide.

Right now, the fear and emotions are preventing us from doing the necessary
data gathering and research. Whether or not a person believes in nuclear
power, this data is sorely needed. If it's safe, we need to move forward.
If it's too dangerous, we need to follow other routes. That judgment should
be made on facts not feelings as people are doing today.

As far as cigarettes go, the term "coffin nails" goes a long way back. The
fact that people chose to hide their heads in the sand and not do the
research until relatively recently just goes to show the idiocy of not doing
the research.

Statistical correlations though must be treated carefully. It doesn't
necessarily prove a cause and effect relationship. It can be the case that
two (or more) independent items stem from the same cause. Once again,
adequate research is needed to determine why two items correlate. For this
reason, statistical trends should be used to trigger research not to draw
conclusions.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...

Wind is actually a good source, if there is a consistent breeze blowing
enough to keep the blades of the windmill moving, and would seem to be
fairly inexpensive to construct as well.

As far as solar, the cost of setting up systems are extremely expensive
still as the manufacturers of such materials are willing to lower their
prices any.......


I've lived in Seattle. Too little sun and almost no wind. According to a
book I was reading when I wanted to build a greenhouse, windloading is not a
consideration there as it has the lowest winds in the country.

As far as prices, there's not enough demand to allow efficient manufacturing
methods. Selling at a loss is too risky for a business unless they have a
very strong reason to believe the demand will pick up.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

I've lived in Seattle. Too little sun and almost no wind.
According to a book I was reading when I wanted to
build a greenhouse, windloading is not a consideration
there as it has the lowest winds in the country.


Wind turbines don't have to be located in the back yard of the Safeco
Field, Dee (Safeco Field replaced the King Dome). They can be placed on the
other side of Puget Sound, where there is plenty of wind. Another
alternative is some of the islands north of Seattle at the mouth of the
Sound (also plenty of wind).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...

Wind is actually a good source, if there is a consistent breeze blowing
enough to keep the blades of the windmill moving, and would seem to be
fairly inexpensive to construct as well.

As far as solar, the cost of setting up systems are extremely expensive
still as the manufacturers of such materials are willing to lower their
prices any.......

I've lived in Seattle. Too little sun and almost no wind. According to a
book I was reading when I wanted to build a greenhouse, windloading is not a
consideration there as it has the lowest winds in the country.

Oh, tell us ALL about WESTERN Washington, Dee.

The whole state is "just like Seattle," isn't it?

I doubt you've ever been beyond the Puget Sound area.

You don't know EASTERN Washington.

Did you get all your personal-experience-geography from that radiotelegraph
joy book?

LHA

In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

If they're the kind that have the single tubular pylon and
3 bladed horizontal - axle turbine, they're not just
attractive - they're beautiful!

Not when you have dozens and dozens of them spread across a hillside.

Rev. Jim don't see no turbine wind farms in PA.

Or maybe he DOES...through his mind...?

LHA

Dee D. Flint wrote:
"Clint" rattlehead@computronDOTnet wrote in message
...
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote in message

No new nuclear power generation is
planned, 'least not that I know of...

Kim W5TIT



that's because the environmental wackos are doing thier damndest
to fight them, at every level of governement and in every manner
of social disobedience...

This is why california hasn't built any new power plants in 10 years
while experiencing a DOUBLING of population.... resulting in
the blackouts they just had.

You might make it clear that California hasn't built any new plants of ANY
KIND because the environmentalists wackos are blocking them. It's not just
nuclear they are blocking. They have taken the step that any risk
whatsoever is unacceptable. Actually I'm amazed that there even willing to
take the risk of getting out bed. Maybe they don't even use beds since they
could fall out and break their necks.

It would be good to clear up a couple of things about California
electricity generation, since the above really is becoming urban
legend.

The assertion that no new power generation capacity has been built
in California recently just isn't true. About 4.5 GW of generating
capacity was added in the 1990's, and more since then. The
non-renewable plants which have been built recently have mostly been
natural gas fired plants, mostly because the technology for natural
gas generation has made huge efficiency gains over the past couple
of decades (and small plants have become as efficient as large ones,
meaning you can locate them closer to consumers and save transmission
costs too), making it about the most cost effective way to generate
electricity until fuel costs began to rise even more recently. In
recent years new coal and oil fired plants have produced more expensive
electricity than natural gas (for equal emissions out the chimney)
when the costs of the plants are included, while I think the cost of
nuclear power plant construction, maintenance and subsidies makes
their output more expensive than even the non-hydro renewables
(including wood!).

Also note that all but, perhaps, a lunatic fringe in California, would
love to build more hydro plants. The problem is that to do this you
need to get sufficient output from the facility to pay for the cost
of building it, and the output from a hydraulic plant is proportional
to the river's flow rate times the vertical distance from the top of
a dam you can afford to build to the turbines at the bottom. A river's
flow rate and topography are dictated by God, not by people, and
unfortunately just about all the economic hydro sites in California
have already been developed (Yosemite is an exception, I guess, but
I don't think it is "wacko" to oppose flooding that).

As for the blackouts of 2000-2001 being caused by the lack of adequate
generating capacity, I'd just point out that the system of generators
which produced rolling blackouts in the winter of 2001 at a 28 GW
demand level was pretty much identically the same system that
comfortably met a 53 GW peak load on a hot day in the summer of 1999,
so any theory that it was the lack of new generating capacity which
caused the problem would also need to explain where 25 GW of existing
capacity disappeared to. The fact is that much of it was taken out of
service (by its new, post-deregulation owners) for "maintenance", an
action which most now view as having a lot more to do with the ability
of generators to make more money by selling less power in the new,
deregulated market than it did with any immediate need for 20 GW of
generating capacity to receive simultaneous repairs.

To tell the truth, while there are a lot of things I could find fault
with in California, electricity generation and consumption isn't one
of them. California has kept its per-capita electricity consumption
almost constant over the past quarter-century, compared to a 50%
per-capita increase in the rest of the country, while increasing its
per-capita GDP at a rate substantially higher than the rest of the
country, without any other associated pain or inconvenience that I
can figure out and at prices that were, until recently, lower
than, say, the US northeast. About 10% of the electricity comes from
non-hydro renewable sources (there are about 6,000 wind turbines in
the Altamont pass about an hour from where I live; I-80 passes through
there). The response to the 2001 blackouts, and subsequent rate
increases (probably assisted by the economy), was that California
residents and businesses lowered consumption by 15% over the next
year. If you look at http://www.caiso.com you'll probably find
demand peaking at about one kilowatt per person on a summer day
with temperatures in the urban areas ranging from the low 80's
to mid 90's. I don't think there is anywhere else in the country
that can match this, yet here it is done effortlessly.

I hence don't think there are so many negatives to be learned from how
the construction of electric generation, and consumption of that
power, has been managed in California. If you want to learn what not
to do, I think the best lesson might concern how not to deregulate
an electricity market.

In any case, for non-renewable energy sources I think natural gas
still has big cost advantages over coal for equal emissions out
the stack, while oil which, unlike the others, needs to be imported
from unstable places, should be saved for those things which can't
currently be done as well any other way (e.g. transportation). Natural
gas is also a good substance to derive hydrogen from should we ever
have the infrastructure to use it, this eliminating its greenhouse
gas emissions as well. I'm not entirely opposed to nuclear power,
particularly since its fuel costs tend to be uncorrelated with fossil
fuel costs, but I think if you honestly added up the full cost of
providing that power, including all the hidden government subsidies,
you'd find it to be more expensive than just about anything else (I'd
also be more impressed by their claims of safety if they'd buy
liability insurance or self-insure, like all other power producers do,
instead of threatening to close up existing plants and build no more
if congress doesn't continue to reauthorize the Price Anderson Act's
liability cap, yet another big subsidy). These days you can get more
energy out of a pound of silicon, which is mostly just sand, then you
can by turning a pound of nuclear fuel into really unpleasant stuff.
And it mystifies me why people so commonly complain about the
environmentalist wackos who want to keep oil reserves in the Alaska
Wildlife Refuge from being exploited but have no comment or care about
the Alaska politicians who have insisted the development of natural gas
reserves in the existing fields, useful to replace declining production
in other domestic fields, be tightly wrapped in a pork barrel straight
jacket.

Of course, I may have been reading too much written by Amory Lovins
recently.

Dennis Ferguson

In article , (Dennis
Ferguson) writes:

Dee D. Flint wrote:
"Clint" rattlehead@computronDOTnet wrote in message
...
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote in message

No new nuclear power generation is
planned, 'least not that I know of...

Kim W5TIT



that's because the environmental wackos are doing thier damndest
to fight them, at every level of governement and in every manner
of social disobedience...

This is why california hasn't built any new power plants in 10 years
while experiencing a DOUBLING of population.... resulting in
the blackouts they just had.

You might make it clear that California hasn't built any new plants of ANY
KIND because the environmentalists wackos are blocking them. It's not just
nuclear they are blocking. They have taken the step that any risk
whatsoever is unacceptable. Actually I'm amazed that there even willing to
take the risk of getting out bed. Maybe they don't even use beds since they
could fall out and break their necks.

It would be good to clear up a couple of things about California
electricity generation, since the above really is becoming urban
legend.

The assertion that no new power generation capacity has been built
in California recently just isn't true. About 4.5 GW of generating
capacity was added in the 1990's, and more since then. The
non-renewable plants which have been built recently have mostly been
natural gas fired plants, mostly because the technology for natural
gas generation has made huge efficiency gains over the past couple
of decades (and small plants have become as efficient as large ones,
meaning you can locate them closer to consumers and save transmission
costs too), making it about the most cost effective way to generate
electricity until fuel costs began to rise even more recently. In
recent years new coal and oil fired plants have produced more expensive
electricity than natural gas (for equal emissions out the chimney)
when the costs of the plants are included, while I think the cost of
nuclear power plant construction, maintenance and subsidies makes
their output more expensive than even the non-hydro renewables
(including wood!).

Also note that all but, perhaps, a lunatic fringe in California, would
love to build more hydro plants. The problem is that to do this you
need to get sufficient output from the facility to pay for the cost
of building it, and the output from a hydraulic plant is proportional
to the river's flow rate times the vertical distance from the top of
a dam you can afford to build to the turbines at the bottom. A river's
flow rate and topography are dictated by God, not by people, and
unfortunately just about all the economic hydro sites in California
have already been developed (Yosemite is an exception, I guess, but
I don't think it is "wacko" to oppose flooding that).

As for the blackouts of 2000-2001 being caused by the lack of adequate
generating capacity, I'd just point out that the system of generators
which produced rolling blackouts in the winter of 2001 at a 28 GW
demand level was pretty much identically the same system that
comfortably met a 53 GW peak load on a hot day in the summer of 1999,
so any theory that it was the lack of new generating capacity which
caused the problem would also need to explain where 25 GW of existing
capacity disappeared to. The fact is that much of it was taken out of
service (by its new, post-deregulation owners) for "maintenance", an
action which most now view as having a lot more to do with the ability
of generators to make more money by selling less power in the new,
deregulated market than it did with any immediate need for 20 GW of
generating capacity to receive simultaneous repairs.

To tell the truth, while there are a lot of things I could find fault
with in California, electricity generation and consumption isn't one
of them. California has kept its per-capita electricity consumption
almost constant over the past quarter-century, compared to a 50%
per-capita increase in the rest of the country, while increasing its
per-capita GDP at a rate substantially higher than the rest of the
country, without any other associated pain or inconvenience that I
can figure out and at prices that were, until recently, lower
than, say, the US northeast. About 10% of the electricity comes from
non-hydro renewable sources (there are about 6,000 wind turbines in
the Altamont pass about an hour from where I live; I-80 passes through
there). The response to the 2001 blackouts, and subsequent rate
increases (probably assisted by the economy), was that California
residents and businesses lowered consumption by 15% over the next
year. If you look at http://www.caiso.com you'll probably find
demand peaking at about one kilowatt per person on a summer day
with temperatures in the urban areas ranging from the low 80's
to mid 90's. I don't think there is anywhere else in the country
that can match this, yet here it is done effortlessly.

Thank you for that, Dennis!

I can only add that our Southern California DWP (Department of Water
and Power) *never* had any brown-outs, blackouts, or electric power
shortage during the private e-power scams elsewhere. Our DWP was
actually selling electric power to the rest of the Pacific Intertie while
that bogus "shortage" period was supposed to have happened.

I hence don't think there are so many negatives to be learned from how
the construction of electric generation, and consumption of that
power, has been managed in California. If you want to learn what not
to do, I think the best lesson might concern how not to deregulate
an electricity market.

Nobody seems inclined to mention anything about the infamous
multi-state, multi-day power LOSS in the northeast quadrant of the
USA. NYC totally blacked out, loss stretched into Canada.

No natural disaster cause. Still under investigation, but likely cause
is eastern POOR PLANNING and OPERATION.

Hasn't happened that way here. Government-run electric power
generation in the Pacific states had plenty of electric power all along.

LHA

"Len Over 21" wrote:

Isabel promises death, destruction, and terror for
all the USA according to the major news sources.


Well, in spite of the media hype, Isabel certainly ended up being not much
of a storm. Compared to some of the previous hurricanes to hit this area,
the damage was very light. Since most boaters in the area have a healthy
respect for hurricanes, the Coast Guard didn't receive a single distress
call. Furthermore, based on what I saw driving up the coast yesterday
afternoon, it appears most boats in the area made it through the storm
without any major damage (and only a few homes or commercial buildings were
damaged).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
link.net...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

I've lived in Seattle. Too little sun and almost no wind.
According to a book I was reading when I wanted to
build a greenhouse, windloading is not a consideration
there as it has the lowest winds in the country.


Wind turbines don't have to be located in the back yard of the Safeco
Field, Dee (Safeco Field replaced the King Dome). They can be placed on
the
other side of Puget Sound, where there is plenty of wind. Another
alternative is some of the islands north of Seattle at the mouth of the
Sound (also plenty of wind).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/



How much land will be used to build enough turbines to power Seattle and the
surrounding suburbs? And the other side of Puget Sound doesn't have "plenty
of wind". It's higher than Seattle but still much lower than many other
areas of the country.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message thlink.net...
"Len Over 21" wrote:

Isabel promises death, destruction, and terror for
all the USA according to the major news sources.


Well, in spite of the media hype, Isabel certainly ended up being not much
of a storm. Compared to some of the previous hurricanes to hit this area,
the damage was very light. Since most boaters in the area have a healthy
respect for hurricanes, the Coast Guard didn't receive a single distress
call. Furthermore, based on what I saw driving up the coast yesterday
afternoon, it appears most boats in the area made it through the storm
without any major damage (and only a few homes or commercial buildings were
damaged).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Dwight, your assessment won't stop FEMA from delivering millions of
dollars in emergency aid so that people can get their carpets
shampooed and a new set of trash cans.

"Brian" wrote:

Dwight, your assessment won't stop FEMA from
delivering millions of dollars in emergency aid so
that people can get their carpets shampooed and
a new set of trash cans.


Especially after the news reporters spiced up the stories for the cameras.
Did you pay attention to some of the broadcasts? Some of those reporters
were acting like the world was coming to an end.

The one that had me laughing the most was the woman holding onto the huge
cement flower pot as she talked about being blown away if she didn't hold
on. While all this was going on, her thin nylon windbreaker was hardly
moving. I saw the same reporter later hanging onto a light pole, again with
her clothing hardly moving in the wind.

Another funny moment happened towards the beginning of the storm. The
reporter was talking about how the area looks "like a ghost town," just as a
bunch of teenagers passed behind him playing catch with a football.

And, now, the same reporters are out searching for that one damaged
building, that one fallen tree, that one flooded street, in a mostly
undamaged area, to put on the evening news like that is the typical
situation throughout the path of the storm. It would all be hilarious if it
wasn't for the bad impression it creates elsewhere (and the mostly
unnecessary disaster aid it garnishes).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

In article k.net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"Len Over 21" wrote:

The FIRST Tacoma Narrows bridge was designed
WITHOUT sufficient thought about sparse, elegant-
looking minimal structures acting as airfoils during high
winds. At the time of construction, the first Tacoma
Narrows bridge was the third-longest single span in the
world. It was open for nearly a year and developed
such severe oscillation (as a result of the airfoil effects)
that it was dubbed "Galloping Gertie." :-)

The high winds in the Narrows region proved too
much for it in the 1940s just before WW2 and it went
into catastrophic structural oscillation. It was rebuilt a
decade later and has remained standing for half a
century. Tacoma Narrows bridge is a major passageway
for vehicular traffic from the Kitsap County to the
Tacoma city region but, at two lanes each way, has
become too crowded for modern traffic. A third Narrows
bridge, adjacent to the second, is planned to begin
construction in the near future. The second Tacoma
Narrows bridge still retains a little windsock at each end
and warning signs about High Winds affecting both
bicyclists and pedestrians. Every once in a while a high-
box trailer will begin fish-tailing while crossing and may
temporarily disrupt traffic, all due to high winds.

Good grief, Len. You sound like a tour guide.

Blame Gig Harbor then. :-) They have a tiny micro-museum there, only
three rooms, one of which featuring the Narrows bridges. Free entrance.

Actually, we lived in Tacoma
for about four years (mid-70's) before heading overseas to Germany and lived
in Bremerton for about a year and a half just a few years ago. I've drove
across that bridge many, many, times. When we lived in Tacoma, we used to
walk our dog on the beach under the bridge occasionally (on the side
opposite Tacoma - a fairly popular spot for nude and topless sunbathers at
that time). We used to park at the observation point on that side of the
bridge (there was a plaque there with much of the information you gave
above).

Never inspected the plaque (my dentist scraped it off...). Things have
changed more since construction on the highways leading up to the
Tacoma side has been completed.

The bridge was much more interesting in the mid-70's. At that time, the
side walls were cross-crossed metal strips allowing for a fairly
unobstructed view of the surrounding area and water below. In addition, the
roadway surface was open grating, allowing one to look straight down to the
water directly below the bridge. Today, the side walls are solid steel
plates and the roadway grating has been replaced with asphalt.

Really? Then its been remodeled since the 70s. Wife and I have
driven over it many a time also, but we can see the Narrows on both
sides from a compact wagon. Bridge roadway is both grating and
concrete now with what appears as non-slip asphalt surfacing?

What I think more interesting is the western side of the Narrows
bridge with three HV lines spanning the Narrows in a single run, each
about a mile in length. No catenaries, just the lines. They've been
there for years surviving many a windstorm. Easy to see them from
the bridge.

We'll have to cease talking territorially here, Dwight. This newsgroup is
only for railroading, gunnery, east-coasties-pumping-their-hoagietowns,
and general demeaning denigrations of no-coders by mighty macho
morsemen pounding their, er, keys. :-)

LHA

"Len Over 21" wrote:

(snip) We'll have to cease talking territorially here, Dwight. (snip)


Agreed. This newsgroup eats up too much of my time even without the side
discussions.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/