Clean and green
Dennis Mosebey, Emporia
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
I SAW IN the edition of Nov.12 that two KU professors had completed a study indicating that Kansas will be in for some warmer summers over the next 90 years due to greenhouse gas emissions. I know we are building a lot of wind farms — I see trucks carrying the blades when I go to work.
May I suggest that all folks write our state legislators and urge them to encourage the KCC to loosen up their tight fists on rates and work with utilities to build another nuclear plant in Kansas, and I recommend the Westinghouse AP 1000, a new reactor design of 1000 Mwe which has many passive safety features and has much less equipment to cause problems. For example, instead of forced fan cooling of the Containment in an accident should one occur, it uses the natural convection of air flow to remove the heat. No fans to fail, no cooling water penetrations to the cooling part of the fans.
Missouri is already working with Ameren UE who runs Callaway Nuclear Plant, and they have already filed a license application for another reactor at the Callaway site.
You can go clean and green and by the way stop the flow of money to nations that use it against us. One fuel load into a nuclear reactor has enough energy such that the equivalent coal for same amount of energy is not even mined yet. Don’t wait for Obama, let’s say “Yes We Can” and as Larry the Cable Guy says, “Get ‘er done.”
The waste issue is political only, the technology is and has always been well understood as other nations such as France and Japan have proved. But until the KCC starts being a little more progressive, I am afraid these gentlemen at KU may have predicted a lot of long, hot summers if we keep using fossil fuels.
So give it some thought.
cyberspace (anonymous) says...
Could you please explain how nuclear waste is a political issue only? I am not convinced that nuclear waste is not a health/environmental hazard. Does it not have the potential to contaminate our environment for 100s of years?
December 9, 2008 at 1:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rcr (anonymous) says...
Having toured the proposed facility at Yucca Mountain Nevada, I can say that the debate over the Technology of storing spent fuel is a political debate. The technology I witnessed firsthand is sound and will provide for a long term solution to the storage issue. An added benefit is that the fuel stored there is readily available, should the US decide to start reprocessing the used fuel, such as is common in Japan, Sweden and France. The more knowledgable our citizens become on the Nuclear Power front, the better equipped we will be to break our reliance on Carbon Based Energy sources.
December 9, 2008 at 2:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
Observation,
Here's your wind turbine self-destructing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nSB1S...
However, that is a VERY isolated incident, as was 3-mile Island. Personally I think Kansas should become the leader in solar and wind power. Its the two things Kansas DOES have a lot of. You know, "Where the skies are not cloudy all day," and all that jazz.
I'm going to end this by saying this.
Flinthills + Wind Turbines = GOOD
December 9, 2008 at 4:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
Observation,
That was actually a prototype, and the turbine brakes went out, I believe. Ok, haha, I am going to try and keep this short. There are two types of power generation: Base Load and Variable Load. Coal plants and nuclear plants are base load plants. They pretty much produce the same amount of power all the time. Variable load plants are natural gas, wind, and solar. These are brought into operation/power added to the grid when it is needed, such as hot summer days when most people run their AC. Wind is actually a pretty poor variable load generator, because, the wind doesn't always blow. However, they are overcoming that by interlinking wind farms, and a few other means. I digress. Both base load and variable load means are needed. Right now in the US, the main source of power comes from fossil fuels, as I'm sure you are aware. Getting away from this is much more sustainable, and will be cheaper in the long run, the only problem is initial cost. The ideal system is to have a nuclear base load, and the supplement that with wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, etc. Nuclear power is safe power. I believe France is almost 90% nuclear right now (need to double check that, once again, I'm not positive). Not to mention the microeconomics of doing that locally. If Wolf Creek were to put in another reactor, and someone were to put up a 100 turbine wind farm in Lyon County, the amount of money flowing into Emporia would blow all of our minds, in my opinion. Sorry to be so long winded, but I feel really strongly about this!
Matt
P.S.-If the US auto industry could go electric, powered by US generated electricity, what better way would there be to flip the proverbial bird to the Middle East?
December 9, 2008 at 6:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
Besides, if Emporia were to be powered by "green" energy, Al Gore would like us! (rolls eyes)
December 9, 2008 at 6:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dalelinn (Dale Linn) says...
cyberspace, It's been awhile since I studied it, but going from memory, the radioactivity has a detoxification rate of 1/2 per year. In other words the activity would decrease by 50% the 1st year. After the 2nd year, it would detox by another 50% of that 50%, etc. There is a conter reaction to anything. Of course there's risk, but in my opinion, it's a manageable risk. That's just my opinion. Frankly, I don't think our economy is going to be able to stand Al Gore's "green standards". We need the clean technology of the most modern coal plant. we need nuclear, we need wind, etc.
December 9, 2008 at 8:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
Observation,
They have banned asbestos, the product that causes the dust that people breathed in. They didn't just ban exposure to the dust. I know exactly where you are going with this, and I will admit, you did give it the good old college try.
December 9, 2008 at 9:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaGarrison (Melissa Garrison) says...
Observation - My dad has worked at Wolf Creek since before I was born, and I'm 19. I can guarantee that he does not have mesothelioma and that that both of my sisters and I only have one head... But thank you for your *observation*. ;)
December 9, 2008 at 11:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
glarson (anonymous) says...
Anyone care to weigh in on the outcome of the wind farms in the Flint Hills debate after Sebelius leaves office? I expect it will come up then.
December 10, 2008 at 6:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Gwen, I'll bite.
To me nothing would be more scenic then thousands of wind turbins lining the length of the entire Kansas turnpike.
Free CLEAN electrical power and the income from it. Clean economic development for Kansas , we could advertise our state as the" Holland of the U.S." The only downside to this is not doing it. In 50 years you won't be able to see the Flint Hills because of the smog. This should get people fired up Gwen.
Regards
Steve
December 10, 2008 at 8:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ZaneRokklyn (anonymous) says...
I think it is misleading to say that nuclear power is "green" or "carbon neutral" or not a fossil fuel. Waste issues aside, the amount of uranium available is limited and never going to increase (unless we can survive another supernova explosion!), and mining and refining uranium requires a monumental amount of petroleum. Even if nuclear reactors were safe (in which case private insurers would be willing to insure them, which they are not), or cost-effective (in which case private industries would be willing to build them without subsidies, which they are not), the cost of each ton of uranium is likely to be higher than the ones before it because we mine the easier places first. Oh, and there's not a lot of uranium in Kansas, so why put a reactor here? Wind and sun and biomass are here; those are the resources we should focus on.
December 10, 2008 at 9:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
Well, maybe not the "Holland of the US," because then we would get too many California hippies ;). Maybe we could say we are not only the breadbasket of the US, but the battery too...
December 10, 2008 at 9:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
ZaneRokklyn,
Right now the nuke plants in the US use fuel from Russian nuclear warheads. As far as storing, it seems the best storage now is temporary above-ground storage because reprocessing technology, among other things, is changing so fast, that its likely we'll be able to re-use a lot of that in a few years.
December 10, 2008 at 10:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
Looks to me like the only choice we have for power in Ks.is nuclear, Wolfcreek just got an extention,our esteemed govenor won't let any coal fired plants, our estemmed govenor won't let wind power north of 54 hyway and we don't have the ability to generate with water. As for asbestos in nuclear plants, I think you don't know what you are talking about, I seriously doubt thre is none, but I will give you that until I speak to my brother who works at one tomorrow. This whole energy deal is just like the smoking ban. The people who make the rules don't know s*** 0r come here from sicum
December 10, 2008 at 10:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rcr (anonymous) says...
First off, let me say that the issue of "blowing up" is a myth. Stored fuel, transported fuel and active Nuclear plants won't blow up. Nuclear warheads will. It's all about the design. Currently, at other plants spent fuel is stored in dry cask storage units that prevent the stored bundles from sustaining a chain reaction. These casks are designed to withstand the worst accident and maintain their integrity. The storage in Yucca mtn. and the transport to Yucca will utilize the the same technology. The Soviet reactor s completely different which led to the accident at Chernobyl. That type of accident cannot happen in the US, and cannot happen with spent fuel storage. So the current state is that we have all these bundles, stored throught the US. Yucca would concentrate the storage locations to better control the waste. It is a solid design and a great location. A few miles away is the testing grounds where the government tested above ground nuclear explosions. No individual will ever live in that region. Not a good thing it happened, but now why don't we utilize that area for the upmost good.
December 11, 2008 at 9:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
alfalfa (anonymous) says...
There are plenty of landowners willing to put up wind turbines, or have them put on their land. The problem is, there are also a sizeable number against it, they tend to be the wealthier ones, with the most acres. With the help of Sebelius, they were able to keep those willing from having any on their land. I think it would be more palatable to everyone to have more numerous windfarms with fewer turbines, I don't know how economically feasible that would be. The prospect for some people of looking out their window and seeing 200-300 turbines is not very attractive, it might be an easier sell if they only had to look at 20-30, or less, then their total view would not be obstructed.
December 11, 2008 at 12:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...
I think nuclear power is the best option. The technology is advancing on a daily basis. They can even make reactors now that power city blocks, large buildings, etc. Taking them off of the grid. They are trying this in Japan.
http://www.coolscifi.com/forums/showt...
As far as wind, I think it would also be a great source of energy production. The problem is as alfalfa described. People will whine and pout about obstruction of their view. That kind of selfish and slightly stupid thinking is one of many reasons we are in the bind we are in now. I can not understand the narrow scope of thought people have when it comes to this issue. We, as every preceding generation, have a responsibility to try to solve these problems. Or at least make a start on them for future generations, and to think that some wealthy land owner would be so obtuse for the sake of being able to see the prairie leaves me speechless (for once).
December 11, 2008 at 2:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mikkokantonen (anonymous) says...
Does anyone besides me remember just a few decades ago when we were told we are heading for a new ice age? Now it is global warming? What will it be in ten years when agendas change? Last time I checked, we have been warming up a teeny-weeny bit all the time since the last ice age? Once the government's agenda of having their fingers in everything is fulfilled, global warming will go by the wayside and be replaced by the newest fad thought.
December 16, 2008 at 6:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
mikkokantonen,
Therein lies the problem. By all thoughts, we SHOULD be heading for an ice age, but the planet's mean temperature has been rising steadily since the 70's.
December 16, 2008 at 6:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
alfalfa (anonymous) says...
I remember well in the 70s being told in school we were headed for another ice age. So, which is worse? If nature takes its course and we enter an ice age, or global warming?? Seems to me no matter what we do, the climate is going to change, just as it has over the centuries.
December 16, 2008 at 6:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mikkokantonen (anonymous) says...
Governments need more money. When taxes can't be raised anymore, they can only profit further by nationalization of the most profitable sectors - energy. Create global warming facts that do not exist in order to levy more taxes, enforce more laws, require more upgrades, and eventually break the energy industry so the government can bail them out and own them. Then the government won't have to gain revenue off taxing energy. The government will own all energy and the profit is theirs. If you can't tax it anymore, then break it and own it. Why do you think IMF and the International Monetary Fund is so willing to bail out nations? Because once they loan millions and billions, they own you. Who owns you once the government bails you out? By the way, bail outs are done with your taxes but you'll never get anything back.
December 21, 2008 at 2:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Folks, I believe that no matter what kind of alternative power source that is implemented the cost of any kind of energy will not get lower ! Why, you ask, because the special interest lobbyists that represent every conceivable energy conglomerate in the U.S. will paymembers of Congress huge sums of money not to interfere with their pricing and not to pose price regulations on price gouging. And that includes all energy sectors Oil, Coal, Nuclear, Geo-Thermal, Solar, Natural (Methane), etc.. It doesn't matter what source the energy is derived from, the Greed of the Individual Companys, their CEO's and Stock Holders and the members of the U.S. Government has run rampant for so long I doubt that any measure can stop it, except and I hate to say it, let alone think it, government intervention in the way of fair and equitable price regulation and banning all lobbying and lobbyists !
December 21, 2008 at 9:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
mikkokantonen,
I must confess that you have me at a loss. I read some of the other story threads before I read this one, and I understood you to say that you were in favor of the smoking ban. However, in this story, you seem opposed to the government being in control of our every move. Maybe I have misunderstood, but to me, you are an enigma. Maybe you didn't read the stories and haven't kept up with the process through which the smoking ban came about, but to fill you in, it was a local governing body that passed the ban. This government, called a city commission, is made up of five people in this town of <30,000. To many of us, this is an example of government taking over our decision making for us, much like if bigger government owned the energy industry. I am curious to know how you reconcile this same concept so differently on two different subjects. Is it simply a recognition of only your own personal convenience vs. inconvenience?
December 21, 2008 at 1:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
As I said before, I feel the main reason the US should change energy policies is to stick it to the middle east. Do I think the government should own the energy industry, absolutely not. Do I feel there should be government intervention/oversight in energy? I feel some is needed (see also Enron), because the energy industry is something the entire US is dependent on.
December 21, 2008 at 2:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Matt
Don't forget stickin it Venezuela. I love to see that with the price of oil going down their socialist government is in a world of hurt(not that they were doing that great with $100+ for a barrel of oil). Your right some times government intervention is necessary and helpful. While other times such as say.......................a smoking ban it is ridiculously unnecessary.
December 21, 2008 at 2:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
I probably shouldn't have questioned mikkokantonen. I really wasn't trying to weigh in on the topic, I just got a bit of a "ping-pong" feeling that gave me a headache. I believe there is a balance in governing and it should be to protect the American people--not micro-managing and not providing for them. I hope I didn't come off sounding anti-government.
December 21, 2008 at 4:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )