You had made a point of recent problems being non-existant other than at fuel processing plants, so I was pointing out that problems at Braidwood were recent: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2006/2006-03-21-02.asp. Sounds like Indian Point has yet more troubles as well in that article. It is amazing to me that anyone would let tritium escape. Helium-3 is very valuable.
Containment mostly worked at Three Mile Island, but it needn't have. There was sufficient energy to breach containment in the hydrogen build up. There were noble gases (fision products) that vented 13 Mcuries but you are correct that solids were mostly contained. What we know for sure is that continued use of nuclear power will lead a major accident just as we know that continued use of jets will lead to mid-air collisions. This is what bothers me about comparing nuclear power to coal. People point to mining deaths and deaths from pollution, all problems, but one large accident, which will happen, evens the score and then some. With the behavior of Entergy, it may happen sooner, but even the most flawless operation can't avoid the eventual large accident. Both coal and nuclear power need to be phased out.
If we limit the scope to just college students, the research may still have some explanatory power. I've had the impression over the years that the smartest conservatives used to be liberals. If we consider that liberals may consider a broader range of possibilities and are more liable to change their minds, then it is not to surprising that some would end up adopting conservative positions when they are exposed to them at school. On the other hand, conservatives, who are stuck in a rut, are simply holding onto older liberal positions such as the idea that tyrants are are bad that are no longer contoversial. Their exposure to ideas in school can have little traction. They won't often notice when an idea is in conflict with their beliefs. So, the heart of the conservative intellectual ferment is supported by the conversion of liberals who find older liberal ideas more congenial than new liberal ideas. They have the strength of thier convictions rather than just the force of habit and thus exert greater influence on the foundations of conservatism. But, since the foundations of conservatism are fundementally inertia, that influence is likely to be small though they may discover broader justification for the older liberal concepts than these had initially. -- Rethink solar: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users-selling-solar.html
Well, contaminating ground water with tritium seems like a failure to me, a large one. There were a lot of things that went wrong at Three Mile Island, and I don't think that containment can be said to have been adequate to the accident. Hydrogen accumulation, in particular, might have gone either way.
Entergy does seem to have trouble dealing with its union. The first reactions to the cooling tower collapse suggested sabotage owing to on going contract negotiations. With that kind of speculation going on, it sounds as though your maxum of spending enough to avoid an outage is not something Entergy observes. One wonders why shareholders would put up with management that cannot work well with unions. But, as with the cooling tower collapse, I expect that the problem with the valve will turn out to be a mangagment problem, forgetting to assign the task perhaps. I don't know if you've driven a ford lately. I buy American and I don't have high expectations, but I do kind of wish Ford had decided to compete on quality, efficiency, safety and price rather than putting so much into light trucks. Seems like they've shut themselves out of the market. Can't tell you how disapointed I was that my windshield cracked from having the hose run on it. Blaming unions for what are the effects of management decisions to throw reputaion out the window is something that will lead to continuance of the actual problem. At least the automakers are finally beginning to talk about single payer healthcare. Waking up to the real problems for American competitiveness is a start.
In response to the cooling tower collapse, the NRC is adding scrutiny to the license application: http://www.wptz.com/news/14021491/detail.html. On the other hand, the NRC puts this sort of thing on OSHA: http://www.reformer.com/localnews/ci_6746693. To me, the idea of applying for a license extention while running a plant into the ground would seem to be something that might be intended to deceive potential investors, so the SEC would be the relevant agency to make the kind of inquiry you are raising.
I think that reactors are scaled up for economy. Vermont Yankee is small by commercial standards and its price for electricity is high (5 cents/kWh) compared to the industry average (a little under 2 cents/kWh). The larger scale to gain economy is also the reason why containment can fail and large scale accidents are possible. Going to smaller reactors, while safer, may not lead to reduced costs even considering reduced costs for transmission.
I feel that the solution being offered in the sig is relevant to the current problem. Producing power right at the point of use really does help with transmission costs and now that the cost of producing solar panels has come down, people can start saving money while eliminating the need for coal and nuclear power generation. It probably seemed a little heavy because I rudely took the first three posts. I had relevant information that was a little too detailed for a summary and had to leave the house fairly early. No offense was intended but you have my apology if any was taken.
If you are concerned about the use of coal and want to replace it quickly, renewables are really your only choice. Nuclear power takes a long time to build, and the approval process is a bottleneck. Solar and wind are growing at 45% per year. For solar, this means replacing all generating capacity in 22 years, for wind sooner because it has a head start. Nanosolar is coming on line this year with a wholesale price of $1/Watt and prices are expected to fall further and faster than any other power source so that converting to solar is going to have a big market push. At a system efficeincy of 17%, residential roof space is adequate to cover 46% of current generation http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/08/roof-pitch.htm l. Production of 40% efficient panels is planned for 2010 under a DARPA program, sooner than any new nuclear power can be built, and this makes residential roof space sufficent to cover 100% of current generation. Nuclear power just can't cut it when it comes to impacting CO2 emissions.
One obvious thing that the nuclear industry seems to miss is that sea level rise can impact site selection. Thus, they are leading their proposal for new a license for nuclear construction in a tidal region on the Cheseapeake. The need for expensive review seems pretty plain when the industry makes such obvious blunders. It is the industry which displays cluelessness. This may be a consequence of a regulation culture.
It is hard to be respectful when calling people stupid. Consider looking a little deeper into the issues people raise before coming on the way you do and you might learn faster.
If you want to start counting, Calvert Cliffs on the Chesapeake, Diablo Canyon of the Pacific, Humbolt 3 on the Pacific, San Onofro on the Pacific, Seabrook on the Atlantic, Pilgrim on the Atlantic, Millstone on the Atlantic, Salem and Hope Creek on the Delaware Bay, Surry on the Atlantic, Brunswick on the Atlantic, Waterford on the Gulf, South Texas on the Gulf, at least 2 in Florida, St. Lucie and Turkey Point. In the UK, at least four new build sites have problems: http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/media/reports/the-imp acts-of-climate-change-on-nuclear-power-station-si tes. That is 18 without trying too hard. Looking at a Florida map is very discouraging.
I think this is an interesting point. Up until recently, problems at US plants had to be disclosed to the public and so there was a flow of information that could be broadly helpful. In Japan there have been coverups of problems that have lasted years and at the UKs Sellafield plant outside monitoring by non-governmental groups were needed to document the existance of problems. In the US, the culture is changing. For Official Use Only desiganations are being used to hide serious hazards and the DOE project at Yucca Mountian has experienced data falsification. In the linked article we see the NRC taking the position that the legislation would be duplicative with the plant operator cheering them on. Since when does a federal agency tell congress they can't pass legislation? They sound mighty defensive. I think that you are right that the US industry experiences too many problems and day-late-dollar-short maintenance can be seen as part of the reason. But, I'm not sure that what is going on elsewhere is better or if we just don't hear about the problems. As the US moves to greater secrecy, things may get worse everywhere.
The IPCC is saying no more than a meter, more like 0.4 meters. Hansen has been misquoted in a few places saying 25 meters, but this is a misinterpretaion of this paper: http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/l3h462k 7p4068780/?p=0f73dea5b8974dfa837377d459559a91&pi=1. There the authors point out that 25 meters is where sea level got to the last time the Earth was as warm as we expect it to be. In that paper they discuss a few meters of sea level rise by the end of this century, and Hansen, in his paper on scientific reticents discussed 5 meters, but that group has not predicted 25 meters that quickly. They do make a persuasive case that ice sheets are lost in centuries rather than millenia.
A big problem for plants in tidal areas is that the London Dumping Convention does not allow nuclear waste to be dumped in the ocean, so existing waste, such as that stored at the decommissioned Humbolt 3 reactor will likely need to be moved. Humbolt 3 had a fairly quick decommissioning because it did not run all that long. Plants that have run longer may need a longer cool down time so getting a handle on how soon thier cores need to be moved to higher ground is something that needs to be done now so that their shut down can be scheduled. Building new plants in tidal regions seems pretty silly. I blogged on this not too long ago here: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/08/cliffhanger.ht ml.
I think it is hard to say that the safety at nuclear plants in the US is spectacular. The Three Mile Island accident is too large a blot on the record. It did have the effect though of reducing the growth of nuclear power and raising awareness so that some unsafe plants have been shut down. I think that finding ways to reduce worker exposure is an excellent thing, but double and triple checking is still needed. One worker's failure to complete a checklist should not cause a SCRAM since that failure should be caught. There have been recent problems handling fuel at the Erwin Plant and contamiantion problems at the Braidwood Plant. Security at plants has frequently been penetrated in drills. One gets the feeling that the learning curve is a bit too steep for the way the industry operates.
The Simpson's bit was about the napping. I'm sure there are plants that don't eschew redundancy and post guards in pairs. The post doughnut nap is pretty classic in the show. In the case of Vermont Yankee, there are clearly problems with their over-rating generation since they keep pushing to up the temperature limit on their discharge into the Connecticut River. They also seem to be skipping steps in their refueling procedure. The degree that this impacts safety should likely be judged independently.
Refueling still takes resources and during the down time there are other chores such as maintenance on valves and their bearing that need doing. If you reduce staff and shorten the down time, then there is a greater chance that something will be neglected, or won't fit into that peroid of time. We need to wait for the conclusion of the investigations but it would seem that sagging in the cooling tower or regular greasing of bearings might have been deferred or neglected owing to Entergy's policy on rapid refueling.
The Price-Anderson Act already limits the liability of the nuclear power industry for the consequences of a meltdown by shifting that liability to the government. This is getting to be a problem because if you consider property values and casualyy payouts for a large accident at Indian Point, it would be possible to make the federal government insolvent.
Vermont Governor Douglas expresses reservations about the idea that governors of neighboring states could call for a safety review. He feels there may be jurisdictional issues. In the context of nuclear safety, border crossing effect would seem to make this provision pretty sensible. It should be remembered that New England has pushed for scrubbers for mid-western coal plants because of cross-border effects on water quality. -- Rent solar power for you home: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
Entergy, the company that has been buying up old reactors to try to run them harder as they reach then end of their design lifetimes gets quite a few safety related criticisms. They use solo guards at security posts so it is not too surprising that one was found asleep at Indian Point last month: http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/08/27/ap405783 6.html.
They were recently reprimanded for for a worker taking a nap at the Pilgrim Reactor as well. The Simpsons is reality based television.
They also try to cut costs by refueling quickly. They boast of 90% up-times because of their quick refueling, but with reduced staff, how can they manage to both refuel and to scheduled maintenance, or avoid deferring maintenance that cannot fit within the shortened down time window? In the present case they seem to even be willing to run at reduced power rather than to promptly address the broken cooling tower. Was the ungreased bearing that caused their SCRAM on a list that just got skipped to get more up time? They give the impression that controlling costs it their primary function. Installing required warning sirens at both Indian Point http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/articl e?AID=/20070830/NEWS01/708300442/1025/NEWS09 and Vermont Yankee http://www.reformer.com/headlines/ci_6835609 has been lagging. In Vermont they want Boy Scouts to distribute warning radios rather than doing it themselves.
Nuclear power does have a safety culture, using systems like lessons-learned to attempt to improve safety. But, pushing aging reactors past their design capacity or refueling faster with fewer people seem like lessons learned just waiting to happen. Shoestring methods lack the kind of redundancy that provides for safety margins. -- Rent solar power for you home: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
Ellipticals have the shapes they do because their systems are dynamically hot. Stars are following orbits in all directions. But, some are oblate sheroids with some average rotational motion which can be measured via frequency shifts of stellar absorption lines. One that is "face one" (round in apperance) would not show this indication of rotation. But, there is no need that the eliptical have average rotation so you get less of a handle on what he is trying to measure I think.
Larger elliptical galaxies can be tri-axial and this is indicated by boxy isophotes, but these are rarer that smaller eliptical galaxies which can be described as axially symmetric. His sample will be dominated by these smaller ellipitcals. Regardless, aligning the major axis of triaxial objects would yield a similar observational result so long as a/b > b/c where a, b and are axis lengths in decreasing order. I would also say that randomization is a pretty normal method to examine to significance of a result (no pun intended).
I think you are correct. It works out OK if you run a growth curve backward: solar was 40% more expensive in each of the last five years which leaves about 18% ot play with, but that is not how they put it.
There seem to be several informative posts marked troll. At first I thought it was because the moderator did not have a calculator. In one post I failed to say that a 250 W panel weighs about 42 pounds but anyone with a clue could figure out that you can lift a panel so it is very easy to figure out that
the same weight of silicon produces much more energy as that of coal. In another, I stated that the post recycling EROEI for solar is about 100 but provided all the numbers needed to check that. But, marking a list of companies that have installed solar (with links) as a troll can't have anything to do with being mathamatically challenged. So, either this is personal or there is an anti-solar agenda behind this moderator. Those with a strange love for nuclear power can be pretty rude as ACs so that may be what is going on.
It appears that coal has reached peak energy production http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/08/many-more-ghos ts.html in the US already though this might change if a lot of new power plants are built. The energy per unit mass mined will certainly continue to decline. The world coal energy production
may peak around 2030. On the other hand, bringing new nuclear power on line has a long lead time and it may face a market where in cannot compete on price as soon as it starts producing or within just a few year there after. In this circumstance, offering federal loan guaranties seems the height of folly. The solution would look to be a greater than 45% growth rate in renewables and a transition of transportation to more efficient electric power. Since wind is expected to install 3 GW in the US this year: http://www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/AWEA_First_Q uarter_Market_Report_2007.html and solar PV installed 0.14 GW in the US last year http://www.solarbuzz.com/Marketbuzz2007-intro.htm (0.2 GW this year at 45% growth) we are seeing the equivilent of 2 or so nuclear plants a year while the NRC seems inclined to handle applications for new nuclear power one at a time. It is difficult to see then how new nuclear power finds a market unless
coal plants are shut down. By the time any new nuclear plant comes on line, solar, at 45% growth, will be installing at a rate equivilent to the new nuclear capacity. In order to make and economic case for nuclear power then, one needs to show which coal plant it will shut down and that it can operate long enough displacing coal to make financial sense since all other new generation will likely be less expensive (wind already is). But, solar alone can cover current generation in 22 years so the longest operation period that a reactor can anticipate is about 16 years, much shorter than the design lifetime. That then raises the cost of new nuclear power by about a factor of three. Long lead times make for investment uncertainty when competing disruptive technologies are involved. -- Save money renting solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
The article is is talking about the reducing cost of fabrication. This is not the same as the retail price which responds to demand. The article also explains that there is a supply bottleneck for silicon because it is transitioning from using chipmaker scrap to becoming the dominant user of purified silicon. So, owing to this, the fabrication costs for thin film solar has been declining while silicon solar is holding steady. Improvements in fabrication methods are balanced by increased raw materials costs. Since silicon still dominates the market, price indicies hold steady as your link shows. But, to realize the 45% growth the article discusses, the thin film solar will be gaining market share. Most companies are going to try to retain 100% margins on fabrication in order to invest in expanding production. -- Save money renting solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
Slashdot Mirror
You had made a point of recent problems being non-existant other than at fuel processing plants, so I was pointing out that problems at Braidwood were recent: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2006/2006-03-21-02.asp. Sounds like Indian Point has yet more troubles as well in that article. It is amazing to me that anyone would let tritium escape. Helium-3 is very valuable.
Containment mostly worked at Three Mile Island, but it needn't have. There was sufficient energy to breach containment in the hydrogen build up. There were noble gases (fision products) that vented 13 Mcuries but you are correct that solids were mostly contained. What we know for sure is that continued use of nuclear power will lead a major accident just as we know that continued use of jets will lead to mid-air collisions. This is what bothers me about comparing nuclear power to coal. People point to mining deaths and deaths from pollution, all problems, but one large accident, which will happen, evens the score and then some. With the behavior of Entergy, it may happen sooner, but even the most flawless operation can't avoid the eventual large accident. Both coal and nuclear power need to be phased out.
If we limit the scope to just college students, the research may still have some explanatory power. I've had the impression over the years that the smartest conservatives used to be liberals. If we consider that liberals may consider a broader range of possibilities and are more liable to change their minds, then it is not to surprising that some would end up adopting conservative positions when they are exposed to them at school. On the other hand, conservatives, who are stuck in a rut, are simply holding onto older liberal positions such as the idea that tyrants are are bad that are no longer contoversial. Their exposure to ideas in school can have little traction. They won't often notice when an idea is in conflict with their beliefs. So, the heart of the conservative intellectual ferment is supported by the conversion of liberals who find older liberal ideas more congenial than new liberal ideas. They have the strength of thier convictions rather than just the force of habit and thus exert greater influence on the foundations of conservatism. But, since the foundations of conservatism are fundementally inertia, that influence is likely to be small though they may discover broader justification for the older liberal concepts than these had initially.
--
Rethink solar: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users-selling-solar.html
Well, contaminating ground water with tritium seems like a failure to me, a large one. There were a lot of things that went wrong at Three Mile Island, and I don't think that containment can be said to have been adequate to the accident. Hydrogen accumulation, in particular, might have gone either way.
Entergy does seem to have trouble dealing with its union. The first reactions to the cooling tower collapse suggested sabotage owing to on going contract negotiations. With that kind of speculation going on, it sounds as though your maxum of spending enough to avoid an outage is not something Entergy observes. One wonders why shareholders would put up with management that cannot work well with unions. But, as with the cooling tower collapse, I expect that the problem with the valve will turn out to be a mangagment problem, forgetting to assign the task perhaps. I don't know if you've driven a ford lately. I buy American and I don't have high expectations, but I do kind of wish Ford had decided to compete on quality, efficiency, safety and price rather than putting so much into light trucks. Seems like they've shut themselves out of the market. Can't tell you how disapointed I was that my windshield cracked from having the hose run on it. Blaming unions for what are the effects of management decisions to throw reputaion out the window is something that will lead to continuance of the actual problem. At least the automakers are finally beginning to talk about single payer healthcare. Waking up to the real problems for American competitiveness is a start.
In response to the cooling tower collapse, the NRC is adding scrutiny to the license application: http://www.wptz.com/news/14021491/detail.html. On the other hand, the NRC puts this sort of thing on OSHA: http://www.reformer.com/localnews/ci_6746693. To me, the idea of applying for a license extention while running a plant into the ground would seem to be something that might be intended to deceive potential investors, so the SEC would be the relevant agency to make the kind of inquiry you are raising.
I think that reactors are scaled up for economy. Vermont Yankee is small by commercial standards and its price for electricity is high (5 cents/kWh) compared to the industry average (a little under 2 cents/kWh). The larger scale to gain economy is also the reason why containment can fail and large scale accidents are possible. Going to smaller reactors, while safer, may not lead to reduced costs even considering reduced costs for transmission.
I feel that the solution being offered in the sig is relevant to the current problem. Producing power right at the point of use really does help with transmission costs and now that the cost of producing solar panels has come down, people can start saving money while eliminating the need for coal and nuclear power generation. It probably seemed a little heavy because I rudely took the first three posts. I had relevant information that was a little too detailed for a summary and had to leave the house fairly early. No offense was intended but you have my apology if any was taken.
If you are concerned about the use of coal and want to replace it quickly, renewables are really your only choice. Nuclear power takes a long time to build, and the approval process is a bottleneck. Solar and wind are growing at 45% per year. For solar, this means replacing all generating capacity in 22 years, for wind sooner because it has a head start. Nanosolar is coming on line this year with a wholesale price of $1/Watt and prices are expected to fall further and faster than any other power source so that converting to solar is going to have a big market push. At a system efficeincy of 17%, residential roof space is adequate to cover 46% of current generation http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/08/roof-pitch.htm l. Production of 40% efficient panels is planned for 2010 under a DARPA program, sooner than any new nuclear power can be built, and this makes residential roof space sufficent to cover 100% of current generation. Nuclear power just can't cut it when it comes to impacting CO2 emissions.
One obvious thing that the nuclear industry seems to miss is that sea level rise can impact site selection. Thus, they are leading their proposal for new a license for nuclear construction in a tidal region on the Cheseapeake. The need for expensive review seems pretty plain when the industry makes such obvious blunders. It is the industry which displays cluelessness. This may be a consequence of a regulation culture.
It is hard to be respectful when calling people stupid. Consider looking a little deeper into the issues people raise before coming on the way you do and you might learn faster.
If you want to start counting, Calvert Cliffs on the Chesapeake, Diablo Canyon of the Pacific, Humbolt 3 on the Pacific, San Onofro on the Pacific, Seabrook on the Atlantic, Pilgrim on the Atlantic, Millstone on the Atlantic, Salem and Hope Creek on the Delaware Bay, Surry on the Atlantic, Brunswick on the Atlantic, Waterford on the Gulf, South Texas on the Gulf, at least 2 in Florida, St. Lucie and Turkey Point. In the UK, at least four new build sites have problems: http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/media/reports/the-imp acts-of-climate-change-on-nuclear-power-station-si tes. That is 18 without trying too hard. Looking at a Florida map is very discouraging.
I think this is an interesting point. Up until recently, problems at US plants had to be disclosed to the public and so there was a flow of information that could be broadly helpful. In Japan there have been coverups of problems that have lasted years and at the UKs Sellafield plant outside monitoring by non-governmental groups were needed to document the existance of problems. In the US, the culture is changing. For Official Use Only desiganations are being used to hide serious hazards and the DOE project at Yucca Mountian has experienced data falsification. In the linked article we see the NRC taking the position that the legislation would be duplicative with the plant operator cheering them on. Since when does a federal agency tell congress they can't pass legislation? They sound mighty defensive. I think that you are right that the US industry experiences too many problems and day-late-dollar-short maintenance can be seen as part of the reason. But, I'm not sure that what is going on elsewhere is better or if we just don't hear about the problems. As the US moves to greater secrecy, things may get worse everywhere.
The IPCC is saying no more than a meter, more like 0.4 meters. Hansen has been misquoted in a few places saying 25 meters, but this is a misinterpretaion of this paper: http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/l3h462k 7p4068780/?p=0f73dea5b8974dfa837377d459559a91&pi=1 . There the authors point out that 25 meters is where sea level got to the last time the Earth was as warm as we expect it to be. In that paper they discuss a few meters of sea level rise by the end of this century, and Hansen, in his paper on scientific reticents discussed 5 meters, but that group has not predicted 25 meters that quickly. They do make a persuasive case that ice sheets are lost in centuries rather than millenia.
t ml.
A big problem for plants in tidal areas is that the London Dumping Convention does not allow nuclear waste to be dumped in the ocean, so existing waste, such as that stored at the decommissioned Humbolt 3 reactor will likely need to be moved. Humbolt 3 had a fairly quick decommissioning because it did not run all that long. Plants that have run longer may need a longer cool down time so getting a handle on how soon thier cores need to be moved to higher ground is something that needs to be done now so that their shut down can be scheduled. Building new plants in tidal regions seems pretty silly. I blogged on this not too long ago here: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/08/cliffhanger.h
I think it is hard to say that the safety at nuclear plants in the US is spectacular. The Three Mile Island accident is too large a blot on the record. It did have the effect though of reducing the growth of nuclear power and raising awareness so that some unsafe plants have been shut down. I think that finding ways to reduce worker exposure is an excellent thing, but double and triple checking is still needed. One worker's failure to complete a checklist should not cause a SCRAM since that failure should be caught. There have been recent problems handling fuel at the Erwin Plant and contamiantion problems at the Braidwood Plant. Security at plants has frequently been penetrated in drills. One gets the feeling that the learning curve is a bit too steep for the way the industry operates.
The Simpson's bit was about the napping. I'm sure there are plants that don't eschew redundancy and post guards in pairs. The post doughnut nap is pretty classic in the show. In the case of Vermont Yankee, there are clearly problems with their over-rating generation since they keep pushing to up the temperature limit on their discharge into the Connecticut River. They also seem to be skipping steps in their refueling procedure. The degree that this impacts safety should likely be judged independently.
Refueling still takes resources and during the down time there are other chores such as maintenance on valves and their bearing that need doing. If you reduce staff and shorten the down time, then there is a greater chance that something will be neglected, or won't fit into that peroid of time. We need to wait for the conclusion of the investigations but it would seem that sagging in the cooling tower or regular greasing of bearings might have been deferred or neglected owing to Entergy's policy on rapid refueling.
The Price-Anderson Act already limits the liability of the nuclear power industry for the consequences of a meltdown by shifting that liability to the government. This is getting to be a problem because if you consider property values and casualyy payouts for a large accident at Indian Point, it would be possible to make the federal government insolvent.
Vermont limits the amount of net metering in the state no more than 1% of peak capacity http://www.dsireusa.org/library/includes/incentive 2.cfm?Incentive_Code=VT02R&state=VT&CurrentPageID= 1&RE=1&EE=1, while at the same time participating in the Northeast regional climate agreement to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Perhaps the issues arising at Vermont Yankee will prompt Vermont to follow New Jersey and remove the cap, or at least follow Maryland and California and raise it.s -selling-solar.html
--
Rent solar power for you home: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Vermont Governor Douglas expresses reservations about the idea that governors of neighboring states could call for a safety review. He feels there may be jurisdictional issues. In the context of nuclear safety, border crossing effect would seem to make this provision pretty sensible. It should be remembered that New England has pushed for scrubbers for mid-western coal plants because of cross-border effects on water quality.s -selling-solar.html
--
Rent solar power for you home: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Entergy, the company that has been buying up old reactors to try to run them harder as they reach then end of their design lifetimes gets quite a few safety related criticisms. They use solo guards at security posts so it is not too surprising that one was found asleep at Indian Point last month: http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/08/27/ap405783 6.html.
They were recently reprimanded for for a worker taking a nap at the Pilgrim Reactor as well. The Simpsons is reality based television.
l e?AID=/20070830/NEWS01/708300442/1025/NEWS09 and Vermont Yankee http://www.reformer.com/headlines/ci_6835609 has been lagging. In Vermont they want Boy Scouts to distribute warning radios rather than doing it themselves.
s -selling-solar.html
They also try to cut costs by refueling quickly. They boast of 90% up-times because of their quick refueling, but with reduced staff, how can they manage to both refuel and to scheduled maintenance, or avoid deferring maintenance that cannot fit within the shortened down time window? In the present case they seem to even be willing to run at reduced power rather than to promptly address the broken cooling tower. Was the ungreased bearing that caused their SCRAM on a list that just got skipped to get more up time? They give the impression that controlling costs it their primary function. Installing required warning sirens at both Indian Point http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic
Nuclear power does have a safety culture, using systems like lessons-learned to attempt to improve safety. But, pushing aging reactors past their design capacity or refueling faster with fewer people seem like lessons learned just waiting to happen. Shoestring methods lack the kind of redundancy that provides for safety margins.
--
Rent solar power for you home: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
No wifi in the system. Can't get lightscribe to work with anything. Might have the wrong disks though.
One of the systems sounds close to mine. FC works on this with just a few issues with the video driver (answered here on slashdot). This sounds like a smart move.s -selling-solar.html
--
Rent residential solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Ellipticals have the shapes they do because their systems are dynamically hot. Stars are following orbits in all directions. But, some are oblate sheroids with some average rotational motion which can be measured via frequency shifts of stellar absorption lines. One that is "face one" (round in apperance) would not show this indication of rotation. But, there is no need that the eliptical have average rotation so you get less of a handle on what he is trying to measure I think.
Larger elliptical galaxies can be tri-axial and this is indicated by boxy isophotes, but these are rarer that smaller eliptical galaxies which can be described as axially symmetric. His sample will be dominated by these smaller ellipitcals. Regardless, aligning the major axis of triaxial objects would yield a similar observational result so long as a/b > b/c where a, b and are axis lengths in decreasing order. I would also say that randomization is a pretty normal method to examine to significance of a result (no pun intended).
I think you are correct. It works out OK if you run a growth curve backward: solar was 40% more expensive in each of the last five years which leaves about 18% ot play with, but that is not how they put it.
There seem to be several informative posts marked troll. At first I thought it was because the moderator did not have a calculator. In one post I failed to say that a 250 W panel weighs about 42 pounds but anyone with a clue could figure out that you can lift a panel so it is very easy to figure out that the same weight of silicon produces much more energy as that of coal. In another, I stated that the post recycling EROEI for solar is about 100 but provided all the numbers needed to check that. But, marking a list of companies that have installed solar (with links) as a troll can't have anything to do with being mathamatically challenged. So, either this is personal or there is an anti-solar agenda behind this moderator. Those with a strange love for nuclear power can be pretty rude as ACs so that may be what is going on.
It appears that coal has reached peak energy production http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/08/many-more-ghos ts.html in the US already though this might change if a lot of new power plants are built. The energy per unit mass mined will certainly continue to decline. The world coal energy production
may peak around 2030. On the other hand, bringing new nuclear power on line has a long lead time and it may face a market where in cannot compete on price as soon as it starts producing or within just a few year there after. In this circumstance, offering federal loan guaranties seems the height of folly. The solution would look to be a greater than 45% growth rate in renewables and a transition of transportation to more efficient electric power. Since wind is expected to install 3 GW in the US this year: http://www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/AWEA_First_Q uarter_Market_Report_2007.html and solar PV installed 0.14 GW in the US last year http://www.solarbuzz.com/Marketbuzz2007-intro.htm (0.2 GW this year at 45% growth) we are seeing the equivilent of 2 or so nuclear plants a year while the NRC seems inclined to handle applications for new nuclear power one at a time. It is difficult to see then how new nuclear power finds a market unless
coal plants are shut down. By the time any new nuclear plant comes on line, solar, at 45% growth, will be installing at a rate equivilent to the new nuclear capacity. In order to make and economic case for nuclear power then, one needs to show which coal plant it will shut down and that it can operate long enough displacing coal to make financial sense since all other new generation will likely be less expensive (wind already is). But, solar alone can cover current generation in 22 years so the longest operation period that a reactor can anticipate is about 16 years, much shorter than the design lifetime. That then raises the cost of new nuclear power by about a factor of three. Long lead times make for investment uncertainty when competing disruptive technologies are involved. s -selling-solar.html
--
Save money renting solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
The article is is talking about the reducing cost of fabrication. This is not the same as the retail price which responds to demand. The article also explains that there is a supply bottleneck for silicon because it is transitioning from using chipmaker scrap to becoming the dominant user of purified silicon. So, owing to this, the fabrication costs for thin film solar has been declining while silicon solar is holding steady. Improvements in fabrication methods are balanced by increased raw materials costs. Since silicon still dominates the market, price indicies hold steady as your link shows. But, to realize the 45% growth the article discusses, the thin film solar will be gaining market share. Most companies are going to try to retain 100% margins on fabrication in order to invest in expanding production.s -selling-solar.html
--
Save money renting solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Walmart is not alone, there is Google, mentioned in the article, FedEx, GM, Coke, Kohls, Target, BJs, Cosco, and Staples (articles linked here: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/08/roof-pitch.htm l). I left out Macy's http://www.environmentalleader.com/2007/06/06/macy s-installs-solar-power-in-26-stores/, Alcoa http://www.environmentalleader.com/2007/08/24/alco a-installs-588-kw-solar-power-system/, Estee Lauder http://www.environmentalleader.com/2007/04/20/este e-lauder-installs-solar-power-system/ and Meyer http://www.environmentalleader.com/2007/03/22/meye r-installs-solar-power-system/.s -selling-solar.html
--
Save money with solar: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user