Skip to comments.New push to deregulate energy: Schwarzenegger electricity plan fuels fears of another debacle
Posted on 10/11/2003 8:32:00 AM PDT by Pokey78Edited on 04/13/2004 2:44:20 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
click here to read article
I sure hope so, especially for those with potential co-generation capability.
And you are stuck. Gray Davis committed California to long-term contracts and that power has to be delivered to somebody.
Don't blame me, I voted for McClintock. ;-)
I think Arnold should focus on creating more supply, and worry about deregulating prices (and even direct access) later.
Yup. We'll see what he does, but given his political affiliations, I am concerned.
You have a cow and a bull. The bull is depressed because it has spent its life living a lie. It goes away for two weeks and comes back after a taxpayer-paid sex-change operation. You now have two cows. One makes milk; the other doesn't. You try to sell the transgender cow but its lawyer sues you for discrimination. You lose in court and have to sell the milk-generating cow to pay the damages. You now have one rich, transgender, non-milk-producing cow.
You change your business to beef. PETA pickets your farm. Jesse Jackson makes a speech in your driveway. Cruz Bustamante calls for higher farm taxes to help "working cows". Hillary Clinton calls for the nationalization of 1/7 of your farm "for the children". Gray Davis signs a law giving your farm to Mexico. The L.A. Times quotes five anonymous cows claiming you groped their teats.
You declare bankruptcy and shut down all operations. The cow starves to death. The L.A. Times` analysis shows your business failure is Bush's fault
Be careful with that - remember that it was the unpredictability of the weather that exposed the problems with the first deregulation scheme ;)
That's akin to saying that taking the pasties off an exotic dancer is an act of public lewdness.
I think you're spot-on in desiring nuclear generation - the state of California is overly dependent on natural gas for its power, and natural gas is awfully volatile, obviously. Unfortunately, I think it'll be a cold, cold day in hell before the greenies allow something like that to happen....
Because maroons like these folks will pitch a fit. Other than that, there's no good reason that I can think of. And the sad truth is, people like that are convinced that nuclear power is inherently evil, no matter how safe you can make it - they simply don't believe it, and they'll resort to half-truths and outright deceptions to persuade others. In most other places, you can get around them with some work, but unfortunately, California seems to have a somewhat higher concentration of fruits and nuts than other states. And by the time they get done with you, your nuclear power plant will end up costing about six times what it otherwise should, thus destroying any economic advantage it might have had. Be sure to thank them the next time you get a $900 electric bill ;)
Because the design is an antique and smaller, intrinsically safe, gravity cooled, distributed units have lower line losses, are more secure, and easier to decommission. There is one being planned for installation in Alaska now.
There is a heat exchanger that produces steam, but it's not a water cooled reactor. Posted here:
Not a huge, Three Mile Island-type power plant but a new generation of small nuclear reactor about the size of a big spruce tree. Designers say the technology is safe, simple and cheap enough to replace diesel-fired generators as the primary energy source for villages across rural Alaska.
The Galena design is part of a new generation of small nuclear reactors that can be built in a factory and transported by barge, truck or helicopter. A federal study, funded at Stevens' request and published in May 2001, found they are inherently safe and easy to operate, resistant to sabotage or theft, cost effective and transportable.
Toshiba Corp., the Japanese electronics giant, calls its reactor the 4S system: super-safe, small and simple.
The reactor core would be constructed and sealed at a factory, then shipped to the site. There it is connected with the other, nonnuclear parts of the power plant to form a steel tube about 70 feet long with the nuclear core welded into the bottom like the eraser in a pencil, Rosinski said. The assembly is then lowered into a concrete housing buried in the ground, making it as immune to attack or theft as a missile in its silo.
The reactor has almost no moving parts and doesn't need an operator. The nuclear reaction is controlled by a reflector that slowly slides over the uranium core and keeps the nuclear fission "critical." If the reflector stops moving, the reactor loses power. If the shield moves too fast, the core "burns" more quickly, yielding the same amount of power but reducing the reactor's life, Rosinski said.
Because of its design and small size, the Toshiba reactor can't overheat or melt down, he said, unlike what happened in the 1986 accident at Chernobyl that killed 30 people and spewed radiation across northern Europe.
The nuclear reaction heats liquid sodium in the upper portion of the reactor assembly. It circulates by convection, eliminating pumps and valves that need maintenance and can cause problems, Rosinski said. The liquid is contained in a separate chamber so it isn't radioactive. Because the reactor assembly is enclosed in a thick steel tube, it will withstand earthquakes and floods, Rosinski said.
"What comes out (of the ground) are two pipes with steam that power a turbine," he said. "You wouldn't even know it's there," except for the steam generator building above it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.