Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Vermont produced just 17 tons of CO2 for electrical generation in 2003.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 04:09 PM
Original message
Vermont produced just 17 tons of CO2 for electrical generation in 2003.
Electrical generation in that state produced zero tons of NOx, zero tons of SO2. The state is last in the United States in the production of these pollutants, behind the city of Washington DC.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at_a_glance/states/statesvt.html

I guess it comes from being close to those French people.

This kind of electrical generation profile is exactly what I would like to see for the rest of the country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Throckmorton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 04:15 PM
Response to Original message
1. Give it up NNadir,
Edited on Sat Oct-01-05 04:16 PM by Throckmorton
the Greens will never cede the point on nuclear power. What they really want is a population reduction to 1% of todays levels. I'd bet that at this very moment many of them are working on Captain Trips to make it a reality.

Then they can all go back to the land and sing Kumbya around the solar powered campfire light emitting device every night before bedtime.

Standing by for uninformed greens to attack me and tell me how solar, wind, or brainwaves will save us. But first I must feed some more poor brown children to the reactor god.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lcordero2 Donating Member (832 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. I would still want to take as many safer avenues as I can
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Poppyseedman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. My wife and I always joke that if the Greens really believed in
half the stuff they want us to do, they should lead the way and either live in a cave or be the first to sacrifice themselves to reduce the population level that will sustain their way of life they want to force on us

I believe in conservation of energy, but we need nuclear power to get us over the hump technically until we can develop pollution free energy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lcordero2 Donating Member (832 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 04:17 PM
Response to Original message
2. off-topic...and an unrestricted right to carry
I'm moving there when I retire.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
achtung_circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 04:19 PM
Response to Original message
3. Um,
Edited on Sat Oct-01-05 04:19 PM by achtung_circus
that's not 17 tons, that's 17 thousand tons. Check the heading of the column.

On edt: still.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!
Beat me to it!!!!

Talk about yer Larouchian Twit scientific illiteracy!!!!!!!

:rofl:

Made my day...

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. Whoops, 17 thousand. Less than 3 millionths of US output.
The point is still the same. A few thousand diesel powered trucks carrying plywood to board up the houses from global warming induced hurricanes can put out more CO2 than the entire state of Vermont.

Sorry for the typo. Even a factor of 1000 makes almost no difference on the basic point.

It does appear that Vermont depends on natural gas for 2% of its electrical energy. Vermont will not see much of a surge in electricity prices this year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Bullshit
Vermont is part of ISO New England and will pay higher prices for gas-fired electricity produced within the pool this winter.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Good. They'll be inspired to build more nuclear plants to save money.
Edited on Sat Oct-01-05 09:36 PM by NNadir
This is a win-win. It is good for the environment and good for the pocket-book.

Energy should be more expensive than it was in 2002 when the denizens of fossil fuels set off on quixotic adventures to kill people for the privilege of maintaining access to fossil fuels.



Source: US Utility Data Inst. (pre 1995), Resource Data International (1995- )
Note: the above data refer to fuel plus operation and maintenance costs only, they exclude capital, since this varies greatly among utilities and states, as well as with the age of the plant. On the basis of the OECD projections opposite, capital costs in USA are 55% of total for nuclear, 45% of total for coal and 16% of total for gas. Grossing these up on this basis for 2001 gives 3.73 c/kWh for nuclear, 3.27 c/kWh for coal and 5.87 c/kWh for gas.

It's about time people had some fucking energy sense drilled into their pathetic little heads.

I note in passing that no matter how high electricity from natural gas rises this winter, it will be fucking nowhere near as expensive as the magical solar PV power proposed by frauds and weak thinkers.

http://www.solarbuzz.com/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 05:17 PM
Response to Original message
7. Here's some interesting articles on Vermont Yankee...
Stressing over Vermont Yankee: Power-boost request raises concerns about dryer cracks

http://www.keenesentinel.com/main.asp?SectionID=49&SubSectionID=555&ArticleID=36370

VERNON, Vt. — When it comes to getting approval to boost power at the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant by 20 percent, the odds are in the company’s favor. But when it comes to running smoothly ever after, the plant’s odds aren’t nearly so certain.

While, nationally, all 101 applications for power increases for nuclear reactors — called uprates — have been approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, four of the eight reactors with uprates of 15 percent or more experienced steam dryer problems that temporarily shut down the plants.

In July, the federal agency said that the ability of Vermont Yankee’s steam dryer to withstand increased stress is the object of its greatest concern as it reviews the Vermont plant’s uprate request. Signs of stress are already evident: 20 cracks were found in the plant’s steam dryer during a refueling outage in April.

<snip>

In the case of the two reactors at Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station in Cordova, Ill., serious cracking and loose parts forced plant officials to revert to pre-uprate power levels indefinitely.

<more>

Scrutiny is ordered for Vermont Yankee: The Vermont state request gets nod from the NRC

http://www.keenesentinel.com/main.asp?SectionID=49&SubSectionID=555&ArticleID=23536

Missing: 2 fuel rods -- Vermont Yankee inspection raises questions for some

http://www.keenesentinel.com/main.asp?SectionID=49&SubSectionID=555&ArticleID=23532

Nuclear insider cites dangers of Vermont Yankee casks

http://www.vermontguardian.com/local/0105/CaskWarning.shtml

...and what the local cave-dwelling-folk-song-singing-greenie twits have to say...

http://www.afsc.org/pwork/0509/050916.htm


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. It's always fun folks from the provinces pretend to understand nuclear
Edited on Sat Oct-01-05 10:01 PM by NNadir
engineering by citing newspaper articles.

It's the sort of thing that wide eyed 19 year old third tier freshmen at intellectual backwaters might believe of course, which is how but not what someone who's held a real job in the real world could take seriously.

You can always tell the level of education and understanding when you hear these sort of things.

The bottom line is that the risk from this reactor is not comparable to the risk of 5 tons on sulfur dioxide, not even remotely comparable to the risk of global climate change.

One of the hallmarks of scientifically illiterate, as in observationally bereft self admiring hacks, is to focus on what could be or what might be as opposed to what is.
Here is what is happening: The climate is collapsing.

By the way, I'm dying to hear about the last metal fatigue problem, the most horrible environmental industrial event that ever occurred in the history of humankind, the tragic leaky pipe at Sellafield that completely depopulated all of Cumbria and will eventually kill everyone in Europe.

All the whining about metal fatigue in the world will not make Vermont Yankee as dangerous as a typical coal plant, any more than all of the crying and weeping over the disappeared oil and gas platforms has anything to do with environmentalism.

Most real environmentalists - as opposed to trust fund spoiled brats who have never ventured beyond the hallowed halls of their provincial institutions - know that the solution to the world's energy and environmental problems does not involve hysteric searches for the platforms or panicked worry about when and if they may return.

Vermont produced zero nitrogen oxides in generating electrical energy last year. Zero. None. Nada. This is very, very, very, very close to the number of megawatt-hours of energy produced by solar scam fraud daydreams in Vermont. Vermont produced zero sulfur dioxides last year in generating it's electricity, as in zip, as in nothing at all.

Speaking of nothing at all, if I had spent 20 years of my life in rarefied isolation lecturing the credulous freshmen on solar magic, and someone called my bluff, I'd probably try talking about some other subject, like say cracks in a steam dryer, even if I had no fucking clue what a steam dryer is or what it does.

The United States has taken a sucker punch to its fossil fuel underpinnings and anyone with a milligram of sense - and we know what a milligram is, don't we, you know like in a microscopic quantity of uranium - knows that the sucker punch in particular was particularly exacerbated by global climate change. For all the decades posturing, egged on by the set of self-referential mostly illiterate faculty of the sort of closed institution where nothing useful is done or discovered, for all the representations by lower tier college freshmen everywhere about how sexy, cool and positively dreamy solar power is, solar power is completely powerless to address the crisis.

As in zero.

As in useless.

As in capable of nothing.

One can imply, dream, wish for, work one's self into a frenzy, blah, blah, blah about the imagined risks of imagined failures of this nuclear facility or that nuclear facility, try to sound self serious with balderdash and blabber, but no nuclear power accident that has caused a single death has occurred anywhere on earth for almost twenty years. In fact the worst imaginable nuclear disaster, the loss of the vast bulk of the radioactive inventory of a reactor at the end of a fuel cycle no less - an accident represented by one event in the entire history of nuclear power - has caused less death and injury that the normal operations of the fossil fuel powered plants in a typical month.

And let's be clear what the spoiled rich brats who never grew up - because no one ever demanded they grow up - are selling. They are selling fossil fuels in general and more specifically coal. It's because they have no sense of industry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oerdin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 03:13 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. Good response.
People like JPAK will never admit to reality no matter how well written a post may be. They will continue to live in their fantasy world where solar power will magically solve all problems if it wasn't for the evil corporations which are some how sabotaging his imagined miracle energy source.

The rest of us have to deal with little issues like price per kilowatt produced including things like capital costs and opportunity costs. Personally, he lost all creditability with me when he claimed the world would run out of fissile material in the next ten years. I'm happy that JPAK has since backed away from that claim after people rubbed his nose in it but that doesn't change the fact that he knew so little science that he supported such a laughable claim. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. I never made that claim - it is a fucking lie.
Please provide a link to this "claim" or STFU.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. Speaking of credibility
NNADIR was off by 3 orders of magnitude twice in one day.
Once in this thread, once in this post http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4942295&mesg_id=4943652
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Bwwwahahahaha!!!!!
This idiot's claim to fame is contaminating himself and his coworkers with 125I in the laboratory.

He further claimed to have "controlled" his level of contamination with iodized table salt.

The amount of KI required for a prophylactic dose to the thyroid is ~130 mg.

The concentration of KI or NaI in iodized table salt is ~10 mg/kg.

One would have to consume ~10 kg of iodized table salt to provide the protective dose of a single iodine "radiation" pill.

That amount of salt would kill you.

Typical Larouchian nut case quackery.

But hey - He's our "resident expert" and will become Fabulously Rich with his super-secret advanced molten salt breeder reactor reactor design!!!!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 08:57 AM
Response to Original message
13. "Considering a Switch to Electric Heat? Think Again"
Edited on Sun Oct-02-05 08:59 AM by bananas
I don't think people in Vermont will be screaming for more nuclear power plants this winter. Even the electric companies are telling
consumers to use non-electric heat.
There's a nice chart of fuel costs that won't cut-and-paste.

http://216.239.63.104/search?q=cache:CLA-c2MgGZwJ:www.efficiencyvermont.com/Docs/Heating%2520Switch%2520Release_FINAL.doc+vermont+energy+heat+gas&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Joint Announcement from: Efficiency Vermont, Burlington Electric Department, Central Vermont Public Service and Green Mountain Power.

<snip>

Considering a Switch to Electric Heat? – Think Again

September 14, 2005 – Burlington, VT – With fuel oil prices topping $2.60 per gallon, it’s no wonder that people are thinking about how they can reduce their energy costs this winter. And one of the first options that many Vermonters have considered is whether they should switch the type of heating fuel they use.

Over the past two weeks since Hurricane Katrina struck, Efficiency Vermont has received up to 10 calls a day from homeowners asking whether they should switch to electric heat from fuel oil or propane. At first look, electricity may seem attractive because rates are relatively stable compared to soaring fuel costs. But on closer examination, electricity is still Vermont’s most expensive heating option.

Efficiency Vermont and the state’s large utilities agree that switching to portable electric space heaters or electric baseboard heating are not good heating alternatives.

<snip, including a nice chart>

For a typical Vermont household, firewood and natural gas are the most cost-effective heating solutions with annual energy costs of roughly $1,400, while electric heat remains the most expensive energy source at nearly $4,000 a year.

<snip>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 05:41 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC