GP: RE: Decentralizing power

["kirk" <kirk@3rivers.net>]

Title:

As I said before nukes are centralized power. If radioactive materials on a scale to power a house or office become freely available we have antied the stakes for terrorists by an enormous amount. Sounds like suicidal brinksmanship to me.

The Jetson's gee whiz atomic lifestyle is cartoon material. The reality of man's track record of the relationship with nuclear materials and processes is abysmal as I said before.

As for energy being a "fat hog" or a "cash cow" lets look at some numbers

see http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/chg_stru_update/chapter4.html table 6

Table 6. Relative Size of Registered Holding Companies as of December 31, 1998
Holding Company System	Consolidated Assets (thousand dollars)	Twelve Months' Consolidated Operating Revenues (thousand dollars)	Number of Customers	Retained Earningsa (thousand dollars)

When they say (thousand dollars) dont forget to add the three zeros.

Look at the number of customers and retained earnings. That money came from the customers.

Energy is a strange business. According to industry PR nuke power is as safe as a romp through fields of buttercups yet it is an industry granted liability limits by law.

Why was this "unneeded" legislation passed? I let you draw your own conclusion.

Sadly we are wasting bandwidth on centralized power when we should be concentrating on what we can do to end this paradigm. Let's talk about something constructive. What can we do to escape being "retained earnings" for some corporation. What can we do to have light and heat when centralized power system customers are in the cold and dark. Can we do this at a lower cost than being a customer of a power company? Can the monopoly be broken and can power be supplied on a small scale--an example would be a cogen plant in a highrise. Could it also sell power across the street? Presently you can't. Only a utility company can run wires across a roadway.

Kirk

-----Original Message-----
From: AtomicRod@aol.com [mailto:AtomicRod@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 4:50 PM
To: kirk@3rivers.net; green-power@crest.org
Subject: GP: Decentralizing power



In a message dated 10/11/02 11:18:09 PM, kirk@3rivers.net writes:

>Nukes have another crippling flaw. They are high tech centralized power.
>That is the reason they are built, they fit in the centralized power
>paradigm which is a huge cash cow to a select few. Any analysis of
>centralized power should not restrict its scope to just CO2 and soot.
>Excluding evaluating the fragility of centralized systems in the light
>of
>terrorists, war, earthquake, civil unrest etc. etc. ignores potentially
>devastating consequences to society in general. I suppose we won't accept
>them as real until we experience a tragedy in the US.

Kirk:

I actually agree in general with your assessment of centralized power.
Interestingly enough, the smallest nuclear power system I have seen is the
size of a AA battery. It was designed to power a pacemaker for at least a
decade with about 1/10th of an ounce of a decaying isotope. Beat the hell out
of going back under the knife to replace chemical batteries or having to plug
into a hole in your chest.

Nuclear fission can be done in tiny packages that could be distributed as
readily as home air conditioners. They could be designed to supply reliable,
controllable, abundant power for decades without new fuel and without any
connections to a grid. The owner of such a plant would truly be independent
of centrally generated power or centrally produced and distributed fuels.

As a matter of fact, all of my personal experience with nuclear generation is
with plants that had no connection to any grid and which supplied lots of
power with tiny amounts of fuel.

Interestingly enough, I would have a very difficult time naming any
individuals that made a lot of money on nuclear energy. Instead, I can tell
you that a typical nuclear plant employs about 600-1000 people in decent,
well paying jobs and that communities that host nuclear plants are generally
clean and prosperous and have great school and recreation systems with low
property taxes on most residents. In contrast, a typical oil or gas fired
central power plant employs less than 100 people at the plant, has an on site
car wash freely available to employees, and sends more than 80% of its
revenue to the fuel supplier.

Paradigms are indeed hard to break.

Rod Adams

____________________________________________________________________________
This discussion group is sponsored in part by:
  * Center for Renewable Energy and Sustainable Technology, http://www.crest.org
  * Global Environmental Options, http://www.geonetwork.org
Archives and related documents can be found at at: http://www.green-power.com  



---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.393 / Virus Database: 223 - Release Date: 9/30/2002