| Tuesday,
November 3, 2009
We have mail on nuclear power
Nuclear piece from Monday's mail on cost of new
plants
Jerry, appreciate the support for nuclear in
yesterday’s mail <http://jerrypournelle.com/view/2009/Q4/view595.html#Monday>
.
The cost for a new nuclear plant in the US, however,
is more in the range of $6-$8B per plant. Maybe one day we could get it down
to $2B but not anytime soon. Even though they’re expensive to build, new
nuclear plants are still competitive against other technologies because of
their low operating costs. Below is a link where you can find a Nuclear
Energy Institute paper titled "The Cost of New Generating Capacity in
Perspective":
http://www.nei.org/financialcenter/. This paper could give you a good
start on finding information on the economics and finance of new nuclear
power plants in the US if you’re interested.
Regards,
David Bradish
NEI
That is the cost in the present US legal
environment; it is not what it would cost if we took energy independence
seriously, and give it a national security priority. Simple legal changes
would bring the price down by half simply by taking uncertainties out of
the process. Having to have a bunch of capital committed but not working
while the legal buzzards circle is one of the major costs. In France they
don't cost so much. Nor in Japan.
==
Nuclear economy
Hi.
You said in
http://jerrypournelle.com/view/2009/Q4/view595.html#Monday that
"One estimate is that 500 nuclear power plants would
make America energy independent."
Keep in mind that we've got about a 100-year supply of
uranium at our current rate of consumption (A) using current once-through
technology and (B) at about the current price of uranium ($130/kgU ->
~0.4¢/kW•h). To quintuple nuclear power, we need to expand production
considerably and/or shift to breeder reactors. Fortunately, both are
possible.
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html
the Integral Fast Reactor
http://bravenewclimate.com/
or the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (aka Molten Salt Reactor)
http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/
Or more speculatively, Bussard's polywell fusion, or
Lerner's focus fusion,
http://www.economist.com/
sciencetechnology/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14698355 .
-- Bill Woods
Doc Bussard was a long time friend. There are new
technologies in the technology stream, but for now we don't need them to
get going. If we had turned to nuclear power on 12 September 2001 where
might we be now? We would not be in Iraq and we would have gone to
Afghanistan and got out again. And as we stop buying oil from the Middle
East the need for involvement there would be smaller and small. Of course
I was saying all this before the FIRST Gulf War.
I think most people who think about these matters
KNOW these things, but apparently those who control our destiny find other
interests more important. All I can do is keep trying to get the message
out.
The way to make an economy boom is to have low
cost energy and freedom.
==
Nuclear and transportation is an easy enough
problem.
1) Build nuclear plants in West Virginia,
Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Michigan's Bay area—anywhere with coal and water. 2)
Set up a co-generation facility where the steam from the plant and the coal
extracted locally are used in Fischer–Tropsch generation of petrochemicals
(including transportation fuels).
It reduces resistance to nuclear from the coal
producers by both directly adding jobs in coal-producing areas and by
creating a new market for coal. It serves national security/energy
independence purposes by moving the source of transportation fuel to
domestic resources. It cuts carbon emissions less than the Sierra Club
wants, but still some when you move the energy base of the country from
coal-and-oil to coal-and-nuclear. Make the nukes fast reactors with on-site
waste reprocessing, and they can even eliminate the problem of long-term
nuclear waste storage, since you consume all the actinides.
Is it more expensive energy than the late-1990s
coal-oil base? Sure. It's also long-term stable-priced energy from domestic
resources. But since you're building new infrastructure, you have to beat
the NIMBYs and BANANAs and the anti-nukes to do it.
-- Steven Ehrbar
We send a trillion a year to the Near East.
==
Nuclear power plants
… or, politically even easier, the Administration
could direct 1/4-1/3 of the outstanding unallocated stimulus funds toward
building nuclear power plants, thus “creating and saving” jobs in their
most-favored locations in to-be-rewarded-for-political-support states. It
would get the ball rolling. And, allocating more money wouldn’t necessarily
get them built any faster than could be done with this level of funding (due
to limited resources and ramp-up time), nor get any more built during this
administration’s reign. As you say, it would work…
Allen P
It would work.
============
: Solar Power
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_o30sCBMjTtk/SusH3gTRjuI/AAAAAAAAAWE/UDg1nj-_VWc/s320/solar+power+area+on+globe.png
See it? That little black square in the middle
of Saudi Arabia? It's 231 kilometres on a side, covering some fifty-three
thousand square kilometres. That's the total area of solar panels needed to
supply global electricity needs at its current rate of consumption, some 2
trillion Watts. Calculated by Professor Raymond Pierrehumbert of Chicago
University, in an open letter <http://bit.ly/3Pdk0i>
that corrects global-warming denying innumeracy in Superfreakonomics.
http://unlikelyworlds.blogspot.com/2009/10/solar-power-footprint.html
L
==
Hidden Solar Cells: 3-D System Based On Optical
Fiber Could Provide New Options For Photovoltaics
"Using this technology, we can make photovoltaic
generators that are foldable, concealed and mobile," said Zhong Lin Wang, a
Regents professor in the Georgia Tech School of Materials Science and
Engineering.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/
releases/2009/11/091102172517.htm
Bill Shields
The chief problem with solar power is the expense
of storage; and of course it is irregular and not entirely reliable...
=================
Smart Grid
I've worked for several of the largest utilities in
the country, so this is first hand knowledge.
The utility companies are pretty well stuck. They've
been vilified by the current administration only slightly less than
insurance companies. As regulated utilities, they have a moral and ethical
duty to provide safe, reliable, inexpensive power to their consumers, yet
they've been hijacked by the green movement. In many places, rather than
building clean-coal plants for example, which are the cheapest generation
capacity currently available, they are building wind and solar facilities
with are the most expensive. More important, these new technologies are
unreliable, and can only be used for peak power demands, rather than
base-load generation. Power storage technology simply isn't advanced enough
to address the situation on a large scale, and across every climate in the
country. Even if we had additional generation capacity, we don't have the
transmission capacity to move the power to population centers.
As demand increases, we are headed for widespread
brown and blackouts, and the utilities know it. The lead time on new plants
can be up to 25 years, and transmission lines can be 10 years. For some,
Smart Grid is a desperate attempt to stave off the inevitable for a few more
years by reducing power consumption, since they can't build cost- effective
new base load generation capacity (coal, gas, hydro, nuclear), for others,
it's simply a means to advance a green agenda and control our standard of
living, and for the rest, a way to boost profits and defer costs.
What they call Smart Grid has been wrapped up in nice
pretty packaging, but from the consumer standpoint it involves installing a
meter that has two-way transmission capability. This will allow them to do
several things, beginning with automated meter reading, and moving on to
variable rates, which means charging different rates at different times of
the day. Later, it could allow them to ration power, create rolling
brown/blackouts on a property by property basis, and expand the use of
'saver switches' on a mandatory basis to turn off certain appliances (e.g.
dryers and air conditioners) whenever the utility company (or in theory, the
hacker) wants. I have yet to have anyone explain to me how letting the
utilities (and government) monitor and manage my power usage benefits me. It
doesn't.
Now there are modifications to the electric grid
itself, but those are somewhat different. Until recently, the grid was
managed using a protocol called SCADA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCADA , which is not accessible
outside the SCADA network. That software has been written and tested over
many many years, and works very well. Currently there are modifications
underway to transition that network over to TCP/IP. It's not so much that
there is new software, as that there's a new protocol.
Of course there will be firewalls, and private
networks and other mechanisms to prevent remote access, but we all know that
those aren't perfect. So essentially, we're moving from a network that is
non- routable to the Internet, to one that is routable to the Internet. I'm
not so much worried about solar flares bringing down the grid (which can
still happen), rather somewhat concerned about hackers doing so. It's
probably not a huge risk, but it is definitely non- zero.
In this case, the primary motivator behind the
transition is money. SCADA requires the construction of dedicated network
lines to each facility to be controlled, which are expensive. It requires
knowledge of an increasingly arcane technology, and specialized, low-volume
hardware components. By moving to TCP/IP they can leverage existing network
links, reuse existing hardware and software, and reduce costs. Not a bad
motivator, but security and reliability have somewhat taken a back seat.
So the net is, that Smart Grid doesn't do much for the
consumer at all. For people that are retired, spend most of the time at home
(or work there), it will likely result in significantly increased utility
bills for those who need to use air conditioning, or like to do laundry
during the day. I see zero benefit for the consumer in the long run, and
many paths to future crises.
==
Dr. Pournelle,
I see a different reason for the smart grid. One that
doesn't even require the grid to be reliable.
One of the favorite methods of determining unpaid
taxes in the underground economy is to divide economic activity by power
usage. When there is much power used that doesn't get reported on taxes, one
has found an excellent place to audit. An example is growing marijuana under
electric lights. Another is working a factory off the books. Alternative
energy threatens to take this method away from the taxman.
I believe the smart grid is simply intended to
preserve this method of social control and to extend it. Currently this
method only extends to areas and groups. It is a back-office method that,
however useful, does not cover individuals. With the smart grid power use
may be admissible in court. Also, it is paid for by the consumer. Finally,
it becomes more accurate.
For the government, what's not to love?
Yours,
David Bullis
The purpose of government is to hire and pay
government workers; to this end it must collect taxes since it has no
other reliable source of income...
============
News on Scribd
Dr. Pournelle,
I saw this on a litigation news reporter I subscribe
to and thought you might have some interest. Mssg below:
Andrews Telecommunications Industry Litigation
Reporter October 28, 2009
Online
PUBLISHING SITE COMMITTED MASSIVE COPYRIGHT
VIOLATIONS, CLASS ACTION SAYS
Scott v. Scribd Inc.
Copyright © 2009 Thomson Reuters .
In addition to wholesale, direct infringement, a
filtering system used by online publishing and document repository Web
site Scribd itself infringes the copyrights of authors whose works it
purports to protect, according to a putative class-action lawsuit.
Scott v. Scribd Inc., No. 09-CV-03039, complaint
filed (S.D. Tex., Houston Div. Sept. 18, 2009).
Author Elaine Scott filed suit in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, seeking to lead a class of all
authors whose copyrights Scribd has infringed.
Scott describes herself as a successful children's
book author. In a strongly worded complaint, she accuses the defendant of
being an “egregious infringer” that has “broken barriers to copyright
infringement on a global scale” and “shamelessly profits from the stolen
copyrighted works of innumerable authors.”
Scott also takes issue with Scribd's system for
dealing with copyright infringement. When the company receives a notice of
infringement from a copyright holder, it removes the work in question and
archives it in a filtering system to keep it from being uploaded again.
Under the guise of helping authors, this practice still constitutes
infringement and benefits Scribd, the complaint alleges.
Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C.
§ 512, operators of Web sites are not normally liable for damages stemming
from any information posted to them. However, Scribd is not entitled to
such protection, Scott says, because it directly profits from copyright
infringement.
Further, the company allegedly fails to maintain a
designated agent to receive notices of infringement.
The complaint alleges copyright infringement.
Scott seeks a declaration that Scribd is not
protected by the DMCA's “safe harbor” provisions. She also seeks damages,
costs, injunctive relief and attorney fees.
According to the complaint, Scott will seek a ruling
on her DMCA declaration on an “expedited basis.”
She is represented by K.A.D. Camara of Camara &
Sibley in Houston, TX. Company: Scribd Inc.
==============
Subject: eBooks and reading more
Jerry,
Re: the conversation on eBooks, and the idea that
people are reading more because of them. I am an avid reader…I have been
since discovering Tom Swift and the Hardy Boys in 4th grade…umm…let’s just
say it was sometime in the middle of the last century. I’m now on my fourth
eBook now having gone through an eBook Reader, a Sony Reader, and my second
Kindle.
I would propose that Amazon’s assumption that
electronic book reading people are reading more is probably flawed. I am
reading more books from Amazon, simply because they are easier to get on the
Kindle and I can start reading right away, which Amazon would view as
increased business from me. It’s also making me branch out a bit more,
because the book I want is not always available on the Kindle, so I’ll look
around a bit for new material. The point is, I’m in a regular bookstore much
less than I used to be, I may make a monthly trip now as opposed to weekly
trips before, so I’m buying far fewer books from Barnes & Noble or Borders.
I do read a lot as I spend a lot of time on airplanes
and I don’t like working during those periods. Speaking of which…I really
wish the airlines would address eBooks and let us read them for the first
and last 10 minutes of the flight…it’s annoying to have to turn it off
during taxi, takeoff and reaching 10,000 feet…I don’t believe the eBook
generates enough power to interfere with the flight instruments (obviously
the Kindle and other books can’t be in wireless mode during any part of the
flight). I also read every night before bed and often when I have a few
minutes during the day. My Kindle goes everywhere with me…in the car, on the
airplane, on my Harley, and I find it much easier to load the Kindle with a
dozen books before I go overseas than to carry that many with me.
I’d probably read just as much or nearly as much if I
didn’t have a eBook reader, although it does make it more convenient to
catch a few minutes with my nose in the book, and perhaps the time I would
have spent driving to and from the bookstore is spent in other ways,
including reading.
I also wish the Kindle did a better job of formatting
Adobe documents ….I wouldn’t mind sending some Adobe documents from work to
the Kindle so I could review them at various times…even share them with
others wirelessly.
Certainly eBooks are changing the landscape for many
of us….and not just early adopters of technology.
Tracy Walters, CISSP
I don't think an ebook generates enough anything
to harm an airplane but the simple thing to do is turn off the wireless
part of it. And I agree about Kindle formatting of pdf. But over time
things are happening...
===========
Dell chief stuffs data center into suitcase
It occurs to me that a market exists for this…either
develop and sell boxes to clients that could be prepositioned in a disaster
situation…they could literally put them anywhere they had power and access
to communication lines….they could even be updated to keep current along
with the in place systems.
…or build boxes ready to ship and contract with a
customer for a monthly fee guaranteeing the system to be onsite within 24
hours and operational within 48 hours of a disaster call. You could shelve
several of these at a central hub (like UPS or Fedex), keep them current
with updates from a software and hardware perspective, depending on the
customer need and willingness to pay the fee.
Could be a paradigm for a new business opportunity if
someone were willing to take it on.
Original URL:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/27/data_center_in_a_briefcase/
Tracy
================
Chronically ill people 'happier if they abandon
hope', say docs
Jerry,
My ‘Conspiracy Theory’ antenna just started
spinning…what if the ‘researchers’ are getting us ready for ObamaCare and
the Last Year of Life syndrome.
Original URL:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/
2009/11/02/best_just_give_up/
Chronically ill people 'happier if they abandon hope',
say docs
Promises to 'reconnect bowels' make people sad
By Lewis Page
Posted in Biology, 2nd November 2009 12:26 GMT
Health researchers in America have suggested that it
is better for people suffering from severe illness to give up any hope that
their condition might improve.
“Hope is an important part of happiness,” said Dr
Peter A Ubel, one of the authors of the "happily hopeless" study, “but
there’s a dark side of hope".
Essentially, according to Ubel and his colleagues,
it's often better to just resign yourself to how awful things are rather
than raging against your situation and hoping desperately that it will get
better.
The doctors based this on surveys of patients who had
their colons removed. Some were told that was it, they were on colostomy
bags for life; others were informed that doctors would "reconnect their
bowels" at some future date. Apparently the first group reported higher
levels of happiness over the next six months.
“We think they were happier because they got on with
their lives. They realized the cards they were dealt, and recognized that
they had no choice but to play with those cards,” says Ubel, who was teamed
up with social scientist George Loewenstein on the study.
The better-living-through-bad-news profs say that the
same psychology is seen in other situations. It's better, they argue, to
have your spouse die than to have them divorce you.
“If your husband or wife dies, you have closure. There
aren’t any lingering possibilities," says Loewenstein.
The very worst thing a doctor can do, according to the
profs, is to sugar-coat any medical bad news, or to rashly lay any stress on
chances of survival or recovery.
“Hopeful messages may not be in the best interests of
the patient and may interfere with the patient’s emotional adaptation,” says
Ubel. “I don’t think we should take hope away. But I think we have to be
careful about building up people’s hope so much that they put off living
their lives."
There's more from Michigan Uni here
http://www2.med.umich.edu/prmc/
media/newsroom/details.cfm?ID=1359 . ®
Tracy Walters, CISSP
Social science, voodoo science...
==
So do the grouches of the world still need to
apologize? -
Not Earth shattering, but I was amused by this.
http://www.reuters.com/article/
lifestyleMolt/idUSTRE5A10ZP20091102
R, Rose
=========
Follow $
Jerry,
Even the New York Times can eventually figure out to
follow the money:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/
business/energy-environment/03gore.html
<snip>
Critics, mostly on the political right and among
global warming skeptics, say Mr. Gore is poised to become the world’s
first “carbon billionaire,” profiteering from government policies he
supports that would direct billions of dollars to the business ventures he
has invested in.
Representative Marsha Blackburn, Republican of
Tennessee, asserted at a hearing this year <http://energycommerce.house.gov/
Press_111/20090424/transcript_20090424_ee.pdf> that Mr. Gore
stood to benefit personally from the energy and climate policies he was
urging Congress to adopt.
Mr. Gore says that he is simply putting his money
where his mouth is.<snip>
==========
Subject: How eInk works.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/
2009/11/01/e_ink_technology/
Tracy Walters, CISSP
===================w
f
g
For a PDF copy of A Step Farther Out:
TOP
CURRENT
VIEW Tuesday |
