Re: Windscaling
- From: Johnny <big@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 04:49:06 GMT
John P. Mullen wrote:
Michael O'Neill wrote:
kevinmccabe@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Féachadóir wrote:
To Windscale: To rename without changing the essence.
Daily Ireland is to relaunch itself after one year as Republican
Daily. According to ABC the newspaper sells just over 10,000 copies -
mostly in Dublin and along the border - despite its claim to be an
all-Ireland newspaper. To put that in perspective, a provincial paper
like the Donegal Democrat has a larger readership.
Meanwhile, a new free magazine called Polski Express is to be launched
aimed at one of Ireland's largest immigrant communities.
--
'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
© Féachadóir
I've not forgotten my promise to get back to you on this issue. I have
done some reading on the facility and have reached a couple of
preliminary conclusions:
1) Sellafield, like Chernobyl, demonstrates that reactors for civilian
power ought not be based on military fuel production designs. Its no
mistake that some American designs are better. These designs, while
also based on military technologies, were based on naval power plants
for carriers.
2) The facility strikes me a similar to Hanford in my own homestate.
That is to say, its been botch up after botch up and a model of
irresponsibility for near fifty years. But, I think this is part of the
natural process of learning responsibility and that the real challenge
is to make sure those lessons are fully integrated into a future power
grid that is based on the ultimate development and full implementation
of renewables, but that realizes that these systems require a backup. I
am getting to the point where I'm convinced that nuclear represents a
better backup (and bridge fuel technology) than coal.
McCabe
Have you never wondered why, with all its technology and huge hours of
sunlight, Middle America never really embraced solar power?
Do they all ride around at night, or what?
M.
It depends where you are.
In Iowa, I saw a lot of solar applications. That works well there because in the winter, when they can really use the solar input, days tend to be bright and sunny.
Here, in New Mexico,, there was a lot of solar about 25-30 years ago, but when the tax credits quit, most of the business shut down. Now, most of the solar setups are not working because of high maintenance costs and the lack of anyone around who understands them. You see, at this altitude (4000+ feet), there is a large amount of ultraviolet light and that tears up most of the solar equipment.
Ultraviolet filters are very cheap.
We do have a very large solar oven here which NASA uses from time to time. But, that, too, is expensive to keep up.
For solar to work, there it has to be available when it is needed and the benefit has to exceed the costs of installation and maintenance. So far, in this neck of the woods, the technology is not there for most applications.
If you can't make solar power work in somewhere like New Mexico, there really isn't much hope for anyone else.
There is one local use, however, that is interesting. We have school zone warning lights that are solar powered. They soak up enough energy during the day to charge their batteries enough for a couple of hour's use each day. I also have solar powered lights in my back yard. In these applications, however, it is low installation cost, rather than savings in energy, that drive the application. There is no need to run wires to the devices.
For my back yard lights, a set of nicads lasts about three years. As I replace them, I idly wonder if the energy I've captured from the sun is worth the cost in materials and the expense of disposal for the batteries. I suspect the answer is "no."
The answer is 'no'. Solar garden lighting generally uses 6-10watt lamps. So 8 hours a day, at 365 days a year, is at most equivalent to about 30 cents worth of electricity from the grid per year.
If you can replace a set of nicads every three years for less than a dollar, you're a winner... otherwise, they're costing more than ten times what an equivalent wired product costs, as long as your labor is free. Either way, the energy cost is minute compared to the real electrical energy guzzlers like dishwashers and (especially) clothes driers. Even the typical refrigerator uses 700kwh per year, or $70 or so (depending on where you live).
It's a convenience product. You just stick them in the ground where you want a light, and hey presto... if you don't like it there, you pull it up and stick it somewhere else. If your main goal is to save energy, they're a waste of time, effort and money.
.
- References:
- Re: Windscaling
- From: kevinmccabe@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: Windscaling
- From: Michael O'Neill
- Re: Windscaling
- From: John P. Mullen
- Re: Windscaling
- Prev by Date: Re: So.. Here's A Question..
- Next by Date: Re: Sean South?
- Previous by thread: Re: Windscaling
- Next by thread: Patrick O'Brien
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
