90 amps for electric car charge!

Bless you. Maths is hard, that's why so many would rather hold hands and sing Kumbuya.

I will offer the correction that "clean" has nothing to do with Carbon sequestration.

Reply to
HeyBub
Loading thread data ...

Well I guess we'll soon find out how long it takes to build one based on this breaking news:

"President Obama traveled to Lanham, Md., today, to the headquarters of the IBEW Local 26, to announce that his administration plans to offer $8 billion in loan guarantees to build a new nuclear power facility. And more loan guarantees for clean energy are on the way.

In his remarks, Obama addressed safety and environmental concerns about nuclear energy:

Now, I know it has long been assumed that those who champion the environment are opposed to nuclear power. But the fact is, even though we have not broken ground on a new nuclear plant in nearly thirty years, nuclear energy remains our largest source of fuel that produces no carbon emissions. To meet our growing energy needs and prevent the worst consequences of climate change, we'll need to increase our supply of nuclear power. It's that simple. This one plant, for example, will cut carbon pollution by 16 million tons each year when compared to a similar coal plant. That's like taking 3.5 million cars off the road. "On an issue which affects our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, we cannot continue to be mired in the same old debates between left and right; between environmentalists and entrepreneurs," he said. "

I'm actually quite surprised that he's finally backing up his prior statements about new nukes with some positive action. The real test will come when we see if there is any action to stop endless court and political challenges from the usual environmental extremists.

Reply to
trader4

You're the first residential user that I ever heard of that notified the power company because they were installing a hot tub. In the rest of the residential world, no one is keeping track of what loads get added. You put in a 200amp service and that's the end of the story. If you need more capacity, THEN you call the electric company and upgrade to 300amps.

Reply to
trader4

It puts me in awe of the power of gasoline when you consider that the equivalent POWER flow through an ordinary filling station hose at the gas station when you fill up your car is measured in MEGAWATTS!!!

Mark

Reply to
Mark

Right now it's not an even comparison. But I think you'll all agree we're closer to the end of reasonably priced gas than we are from the beginning. No matter how much you think is left it's definitely a finite resource. On the other hand there are all sorts of potential new sources of electricity. Many that are of limited practicality right now have potential to become more practical either because of technology improvements or just volume increase. Most are "green" and do not add to the carbon dioxide load. Like it or not the days of gasoline powered transportation are numbered.

Reply to
jamesgangnc

Not sure exactly what you mean by the last sentence. But if you're saying that CO2 emission is not being treated as a pollutant, well I guess you better take that up with the Supreme Court and the EPA.

Reply to
trader4

No, I think co2 is a problem. No matter what you call it. I'm saying that many of the new sources of electricity do not create more co2 and that's a good thing.

But more importantly I'm saying we can't just go on thinking that we're going to be able to get cheap gasoline forever. We're going to have to change something and electric appears to be the most viable.

Reply to
jamesgangnc

On 2/15/2010 7:16 AM snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net spake thus:

This point can't be emphasized enough, as it's true that the pinhead media always seems to get this one wrong and leaves the mistaken impression that "green" electric cars run on pixie dust or some such.

Just last night I heard a local news report about recovering methane from landfills for use as fuel. While this is a good thing overall, the stupid reporter (or editor) got away with saying that this would reduce carbon dioxide emissions! Of course this is totally untrue: while the methane would be captured instead of simply venting to the atmosphere, the carbon dioxide would be released later when it was burned. All that's being done is delaying the release of the CO2. Sheesh; are we

*really* that much a nation of idiots?

Now, you and I are on opposite sides of this debate in lots of ways concerning the overall viability of renewable energy, nuclear power, etc. But I agree 100% with you here. Such stupid oversights on the part of the media (and even on the part of some who promote green energy) can only set things back.

Reply to
David Nebenzahl

'Worse efficiency' but it could still cost less to the consumer. And not all electricity comes from coal.

daestrom

Reply to
daestrom

Reducing Carbon emissions is the LEAST important reason for implementing nuclear power.

Reply to
HeyBub

Heh! CO2 is *NOT* being treated as a pollutant. By any agency of government. In any country.

The Supreme Court merely said that the EPA can regulate CO2 or just about anything else it feels like regulating. The EPA has not yet regulated CO2.

Is there anyone else you might suggest I "take it up with"?

Reply to
HeyBub

The SUN is a finite resource!

Just yesterday:

"HOUSTON - ExxonMobil Corp. added two billion barrels of oil equivalent to its proved oil and gas reserves in 2009, or 133 per cent of its production for that year, the largest U.S. oil company said Tuesday..."

formatting link
That is, Exxon FOUND a third more oil than they recovered.

I agree. If you had asked the average New Yorker in 1910 what would transportation be like in a hundred years, with a population increase of five-fold, he'd have probably wondered a) Where would we get enough horses, and b) What would we do with all the horse shit.

I'm personally rooting for teleportation.

Reply to
HeyBub

The only way the EPA can regulate CO2 or anything else is if it is indeed treated as a pollutant. The whole purpose of the lawsuit was whether the EPA in the Bush administration could refuse to consider CO2 a "pollutant" because it's naturally ocurring. That appears to be the losing argument that you are trying to make here, pretending it has not been decided otherwise.

Here's a Washington Post excerpt on the Supreme Court ruling with a direct quote from the ruling by Justice Stevens:

"The Supreme Court rebuked the Bush administration yesterday for refusing to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, siding with environmentalists in the court's first examination of the phenomenon of global warming.

The court ruled 5 to 4 that the Environmental Protection Agency violated the Clean Air Act by improperly declining to regulate new- vehicle emissions standards to control the pollutants that scientists say contribute to global warming.

"EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. The agency "identifies nothing suggesting that Congress meant to curtail EPA's power to treat greenhouse gases as air pollutants," the opinion continued."

The court specifically ordered the EPA to make the determination if CO2 pollution was a problem, which they did. From the EPA:

formatting link
"(Washington, D.C. =96 April 17, 2009) After a thorough scientific review ordered in 2007 by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a proposed finding Friday that greenhouse gases contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health or welfare.

The proposed finding, which now moves to a public comment period, identified six greenhouse gases that pose a potential threat.

=93This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations.

And internationally, nothing could be further from the truth that CO2 is not being treated as a pollutant. Just because it's naturally ocurring doesn't mean that spewing out too much of it isn't harmful. And again, note that I said it was decided by the Supreme Court and the EPA that CO2 was a pollutant, not that I'm convinced global warming is caused by CO2 emissions.

Reply to
trader4

- Hide quoted text -

You get permit for electrical work from the local municipality. They usually charge a fee and send out an inspector to make sure the work is done according to code. What does any of that have to do with your claim that the power company routinely gets notified when you add a large residential load like a hot tub? Please provide a cite for that. I'd also welcome hearing from anyone else here that notified the power company that they were adding a hot tub or similar load. You notify the power company when you need an upgrade in the service capacity to the house.

Reply to
trader4

Complete nonsense. As long as your usage is within your service capabilities you have no obligation to inform anyone of added loads. In some jurisdictions you're required to (though few do) pull a permit for electrical work, though in reality this is for *tax* purposes. The power company doesn't know anything about it. You assume government is looking out for something other than themselves. Laughable.

Reply to
keithw86

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Co2 (carbon dioxide) or whatever ..........................

Under the right (or is that wrong?) circumstances even oxygen, essential for human life can be toxic!

And if one tries to live on good food, but of one kind only, health can be affected, even to death!.

It's all about the right amounts in the right measures and right places. Correct?

Reply to
terry

The suggestion that the city building/inspection/permitting department talks to the power company, even if they are both city departments (which is certainly not universal, as you suggest).

Reply to
keithw86

...or in fact that there is any reason to do so. The power company knows what the trends are by usage statistics. The certainly don't micromanage planning down to the hot tub. Yes, it *is* laughable.

Reply to
keithw86

On 2/17/2010 10:29 AM terry spake thus:

Yes. Most educated people know that CO2 is essential for life on earth. (It's what green plants take in.) The thing is to have just enough, but not too much, of it.

Reply to
David Nebenzahl

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.