• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

power grid collapsing in NY

ttwtt78640 said:
The bigger factor would be from electrical transmission line loss over great distances.

A Tiny Revolution: Transmission Line Losses
Click to expand...

Interesting site and the following from that site has implications for these remote wind and solar farms too.


"Partly due to history, and partly due to physics, the US electrical transmission grid is actually rather localized. The electrical energy we use is generated pretty near where we use it (also, pretty much just before we use it). This is a big problem if you propose to harvest energy in one place where it is abundant (for instance, via concentrated solar in Arizona, or via wind turbines in North Dakota) for use someplace else far away.

The historical portion of this surprising fact, I think, has to do with how the electric power industry evolved in the early 1900’s - generally as municipal utilities, many publicly owned. The physics contribution has to do mainly with transmission losses.

Now it’s not hard to dredge up the figure that transmission losses account for about 10% of the electrical energy generated in the US - that is, out of every 10W of power generated, we lose 1W getting that power to where it’s put to use. Because we use a lot of power, this represents a huge waste, but measured as a calculation of efficiency it’s pretty good - that’s 90%."
 
Diving Mullah said:
When I hear (or read people) say that, can't help but smile and node politely.... Because Cheap Nuclear power plant is as abundant and plentiful as a 50 year virgin hooker!

Just little facts about about nuclear power...To be honest I love nuclear power and I dedicated big portion of my college years studying and researching in that field.

First of all No Private company will touch nuclear power with a 100 foot poll. The basic capital of breaking ground for nuclear power is horrendous. So government has to step in and build the plant. Even after the government foots all the bills and with huge tax incentives beg private corporation to take over and run it (basically they are giving it away), private companies wouldn't touch it until congress passed limited liability clause and limited the companies liability in case of disaster and government or rather the tax payer would assume 99% of the responsibility.

Now say you did all of that...You have one brand new Nuclear Power Plant. Imagine you filled all the pyramids of Egypt with uranium back during the Egypt's "modern Era" which was 2000 years ago. That would mean Egypt would have had 25 years electricity worth. But to this day they still would have had spend money and resource guarding the waste.

This is not even the kicker...The kicker is If you collect all the Uranium supplies on earth, you would have had about 50 years of fuel rod worth (assuming you use military grade) or about 200 years commercial grade. Lets say you build ten and give each 10 years worth of fuel and after 20 years you will have 10 very shiny buildings that would utterly be worthless but still have to spend **** load of money guard and maintain them and hope no leak would find its way to underground water supply food source, or ocean.

Not exactly a bargain is it??

Many nuclear power plants around the world (specially Europe) are being phased out, because people realize despite the high risks and trouble the return is very little.

Diving Mullah
Click to expand...

That scenario you paint presupposes generation one technology and the same fuel cycles. Looking at generation 4 technology and breeder type cycles eliminates a lot of the 1st gen problems including and especially used fuel rods, and irradiated materials.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Interesting site and the following from that site has implications for these remote wind and solar farms too.


"Partly due to history, and partly due to physics, the US electrical transmission grid is actually rather localized. The electrical energy we use is generated pretty near where we use it (also, pretty much just before we use it). This is a big problem if you propose to harvest energy in one place where it is abundant (for instance, via concentrated solar in Arizona, or via wind turbines in North Dakota) for use someplace else far away.

The historical portion of this surprising fact, I think, has to do with how the electric power industry evolved in the early 1900’s - generally as municipal utilities, many publicly owned. The physics contribution has to do mainly with transmission losses.

Now it’s not hard to dredge up the figure that transmission losses account for about 10% of the electrical energy generated in the US - that is, out of every 10W of power generated, we lose 1W getting that power to where it’s put to use. Because we use a lot of power, this represents a huge waste, but measured as a calculation of efficiency it’s pretty good - that’s 90%."
Click to expand...

It also speaks well for fossil fuels as they lose nothing in potency during transit, only the need to apply enough pressure to pipe them to the point of use. ;)
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Long post to make a short point.:lol: Yes they got tax breaks but not cash subsidies and land grants like these wind and solar farms get. I am fine with tax breaks to produce clean energy but not cash handouts to subsidize an industry that just can't compete in a free market.
Click to expand...

Says the guy posting on the Internet (developed with govt dollars) from his computer (which were developed using govt dollars)
 
sawyerloggingon said:
You are trying to compare critical infrastructure like uniting the east and west coast with a rail road with supporting an industry that can't compete and can't show a profit. That is where you went off the rails.
Click to expand...

My point is, none of these started as critical infrastructure, no matter how you want to romanticize it. Nor was it clear that they would be profitable. Many factors had to come in to play for them to reach that level like steel rails, boilers that didn't blow up, air brakes, safe car coupling, etc.

Had Morgan and Edison gotten their way, we'd all see dc supply as critical infrastructure despite the superior ac supply being available.

Very few new tech or alternative tech has been immediately successful. That's my point. It was through either collusion, illegal practices or generous gov't help that most industries we see as critical today ever made a profit.
 
sangha said:
Says the guy posting on the Internet (developed with govt dollars) from his computer (which were developed using govt dollars)
Click to expand...

Did IBM get gov subsidies when they first started out? The fact is spin off technologies from gov programs that mostly came about through war efforts stood on their own two feet from their inception unless perhaps it was an industry that was an integral part of a war effort. Wind and solar farms are failed technology being propped up with our tax dollars in the name of AGW which is a failed hypotheses.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Did IBM get gov subsidies when they first started out? The fact is spin off technologies from gov programs that mostly came about through war efforts stood on their own two feet from their inception unless perhaps it was an industry that was an integral part of a war effort. Wind and solar farms are failed technology being propped up with our tax dollars in the name of AGW which is a failed hypotheses.
Click to expand...

Yes, IBM got govt money and many of those industries did not "stand up on their own two feet".
 
Occam's Razor said:
My point is, none of these started as critical infrastructure, no matter how you want to romanticize it. Nor was it clear that they would be profitable. Many factors had to come in to play for them to reach that level like steel rails, boilers that didn't blow up, air brakes, safe car coupling, etc.

Had Morgan and Edison gotten their way, we'd all see dc supply as critical infrastructure despite the superior ac supply being available.

Very few new tech or alternative tech has been immediately successful. That's my point. It was through either collusion, illegal practices or generous gov't help that most industries we see as critical today ever made a profit.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree. The United States Government wanted desperately to open up and populate the west for expansion and commerce and rail roads were the only way to do that. They gave them every other section of land that the rails passed through so the rail road companies could justify the expense of laying tracks. As far as I know they were not given any up front cash to do the work. I don't think giving solar and wind companies public lands to build their money losing power plants on compares in any way shape or form not to mention the money grants they receive, Solyndra ring a bell?
 
sawyerloggingon said:
I have to disagree. The United States Government wanted desperately to open up and populate the west for expansion and commerce and rail roads were the only way to do that.
Click to expand...

Just because someone wants something, that doesn't make it "critical infrastructure" nor were the railroads the only way to do that.
 
sangha said:
Just because someone wants something, that doesn't make it "critical infrastructure" nor were the railroads the only way to do that.
Click to expand...




















0








"In 1862, the Pacific Railroad Act chartered the Central Pacific and the Union Pacific Railroad Companies, and tasked them with building a transcontinental railroad that would link the United States from east to west. Over the next seven years, the two companies would race toward each other from Sacramento, California on the one side and Omaha, Nebraska on the other, struggling against great risks before they met at Promontory, Utah, on May 10, 1869."
 
Fenton said:
There is nothing more incredibly stupid than Solar. It is the knee jerk reaction to mass hysteria from easily manipulated Americans all over a false narrative with political origins.
Click to expand...

Gee, guess I'll send my panels back then...

got any data to back that up?
 
sawyerloggingon said:
I have to disagree. The United States Government wanted desperately to open up and populate the west for expansion and commerce and rail roads were the only way to do that. They gave them every other section of land that the rails passed through so the rail road companies could justify the expense of laying tracks. As far as I know they were not given any up front cash to do the work. I don't think giving solar and wind companies public lands to build their money losing power plants on compares in any way shape or form not to mention the money grants they receive, Solyndra ring a bell?
Click to expand...

The railroads did NOT start with the transcontinental lines.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
You gave no answer so I will ask again. What gov subsidies did IBM get to develop the computer? You claimed they did so put up or shut up. :)
Click to expand...

I gave an answer, and posted a link to proof that my answer was correct.

And I never said that IBM got govt money to develop the computer. FYI, IBM didn't develop the computer; the govt did.

I was referring to the fact that IBM was receiving govt money since a time before IBM even sold computers. IBM has never stopped receiving govt money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom