Welcome! Here are the website rules, as well as some tips for using this forum.
Need to contact us? Visit https://heatinghelp.com/contact-us/.
Click here to Find a Contractor in your area.
FULL THREAD. PLEASE DO NOT ADD ANY MORE OR IT WILL CRASH.
Comments
-
10,000 nukular plants...
would be needed to replace fossil fuels globally. The figure is from a speech by Caltech vice provost and professor of physics and applied physics David Goodstein from an April 29, 2004 program of a group called Caltech Associates. His talk can be found at http://www.energybulletin.net/2327.html. Register as a new user and search for Goodstein.
A Goodstein book titled Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil was published Feb. 2004 by W. W. Norton.0 -
serious research there perry, thanks! very informative.
I am having a hard time finding out how decomissioning works though.. do you have that info handy? storage costs and such have got to be very large, and I see no information on who pays. Nor, at this time, where it's all really going to go... yucca mountain still being contested (and apparently costing $50 to $100 billion split between nuclear energy consumers and the fed for nuclear weapon waste disposal).
What I'm particularly curious about is how much of the cleanup ends up falling to public funds, if any. I'm barely old enough to remember the "superfund", but I do remember it, and how big messes are not often cleaned up by those who made them..0 -
This is...
one of the first threads with over 100 responses that I have read EVERY one! This has been very informative!
Also, if Perry works at a nuclear power plant, he needs to get a little more sleep ;-)
JimThere was an error rendering this rich post.
0 -
The dog ate my homework!
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070306-warming-credits.html?0 -
Steve -- EXCEPTIONAL
And EXACTLY why I love "The Wall" and so many of the truly good people who come here...
I'd kind of like to know why Dan had to remove a post I started in this very same vein. Perhaps because I began with a statement that it "wasn't political".0 -
-
The reason that NOBODY can fully explain or even understand the carbon cycle is the humans haven't been around long enough to understand what happens when it changes.
I for one don't subscribe to the theory of slow and relatively constant change. It's the cataclysmic events that truly matter. Life will just be life--once started it survives regardless...0 -
Look outside your borders
global warming, whatever the cause isn't just a "made in the USA" concept of Al Gore.
The EU has already put plans into motion and many other countries, not under the influence of Al are also concerned, and acting about the issue.
I see no harm, regardless of your political views not to start reducing our dependency on energy wasting and high emission means of generating power, powering our vehicles and heating and cooling our buildings.
hot rod
To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"0 -
A Brief Answer to Decomissioning
Hope you all don't mind that I had other things to do this weekend.
Like all the other cost discussed above; Decommision cost are principally funded by a charge on each KWHr sold from the plant.
Each plant builds a fund for decommisioning during its operating life. By and large the older plants have intitially saved up very robust decomissiong funds (i.e more than what is the expected cost). The younger plants are still building their funds up.
If the decomisioning funds are not adequate - then the power company that owns the plant is responsibile for paying for the shortfall. Should a plant not run 25+ years that can create a problem - and several utilities and their customers have taken it in the shorts on this issue for plants that were shutdown early for a variety of reasons.
In a worst case accident I am fairly sure that the multi billion dollar disaster insurance fund is designed to help.
The nuclear industry has decomissioned several full sized plants (complete deomoliton and return of the site to unrestriced use) so that we know about what it cost. All that is remaining is dry fuel storage areas for the spent fuel from the plant. Without looking it up - my memory is that it is costing about 1/3 to 1/2 $billion to decommission, demolish, and return the site for other use for a nuclear power plant.
A number of other plants are shutdown, partially demolished, and plans are to wait for the future as some of the worst radioligical contamination decays out to acceptable levels. This especially helps plants like TMI unit 2 that did not run long enough to have a robust decommissioning fund.
I admit two areas of personal concern here.
1) A recent survey several years ago showed that in genearal that must nuclear plants decomissioning funds were on the light side of the equation. I am not sure what - if anything - the NRC is doing about that issue at the time.
2) The reason many plants have a miminal decomissing fund is that most of the nuclear units now in the US have been sold to companies who specialize in the ownership and operation of nuclear plants. In almost all of these cases the plants being sold have very robust decommissiong funds - but "excess" funds above the minimum are being striped out as profit by the utility selling the plant. My plant is being sold - and several hundred million dollars will be returned to the current owner of the plant from the decomissioning fund.
I admit that there are real reasons why it is more economical per plant for these sales as the administrative and regulatory overhead is huge - not to mention the ability to negotiate better prices if you are buying supplies and services for multiple plants instead of just one or two. However, personally I think that the decommissiong funds should be retained intact. If their is extra after the plant is decommissioned - then the last plant owner benifits from that.
I will return and answer some of the other questions above this week.
I owe, I owe, it's off to work I go..
Perry0 -
Energy Efficiency..................
Hi Everyone,
Energy efficiency of heating systems is an area greatly ignored by the experts.
AFUE is a joke. All boilers tested at 140 degrees. Designing systems for low water temperature is one of the best methods for improving efficiency.
The first step to improve something is to compare it.
We don't even have a proper method of comparison available.
Is a hot air system for or less efficient then hydronics? Can a low water temperature radiant heating system with ODR and a Mod/Con boiler match the fuel savings of a geothermal heating system? Without the large holes in the ground?
If we cannot compare one to another then we cannot make the best choices in design. Also comparison brings out competition. Proper competition will bring out huge strides in efficiency improvements.
Yet no one seems to care. No one wants to get involved.
Improvements in heating system efficiency will easily cut this countries home heating fuel consumption in half.
Read my paper to find out more.
http://www.comfortableheat.com/OverallEfficiency080706.pdf
JR0 -
Good, sensical video
From the BBC. Important to watch in it's entirety.0 -
EXACTLY
There are many excellent reasons for reducing the Carbon footprint of your home / office / whatever.
GLOBAL warming (if it is a manmade issue) is a GLOBAL problem.
I will continue to install the best most fuel efficient, and properly sized equipment I can convince customers to buy.
KYOTO is no the best way in my opinion. But there are many things that can be done in all countries. The idea should be to try and get an international standard for pollution, but based on the individual countries devellopment level ie Zimbabwe cannot be expected to ave the same polution controls as the USA or Canada, but China could be.0 -
The ice is melting
Or is it?
Melting ice
Mark H
P.S. The debate is not over.......in fact.....it NEVER started.
To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"0 -
mark
'they' will never admit 'they' are wrong, incorrect, or may be 'they' jumped to conclusions, thats the big problem!0 -
Who's going to pay, john?
who's going to pay for ALL these new installations?
so if you find forced air is inefficient, are you proposing a band on all types of heating equipment "except" such and such?
0 -
Yup
and intimidation never hurts either.
Mark H
To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"0 -
Vermont Is Green with Nuclear
Burlington, VT just got rated the greenest city in the U.S.
Green Cities
But they get a third of their power from the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant! This plant will shut down in five years.
Five years! Will we just buy the missing third from other fossil fuel burning plants? We need more green nuclear.
Another nuclear advocate is Patrick Moore - one of the founders of Greenpeace.
Washington Post article where he addresses the issues
0 -
The oil companies pay...... Of Course!!!!!!!!!
J Paul,
Who pays?
You know the answer to that one.
The oil companies pay. Every time you make an improvement to the heating system you are taking money from the oil companies.
The homeowner has already allotted the money for fuel $3000.00 a year. Instead of paying all of it to the oil companies, he will pay half of it to the oil companies $1500 per year. The other $1500.00 per year goes to the heating contractor making the improvements. The homeowner spends the same amount of money and the one who loses out is some rich oil company.
It is all about education. By competition we will learn which is the best. We will take the best and make it better. Home owners will make the proper decisions when picking contractors and equipment. We will publish our results. Contractors will design better systems. The DOE will design rules that improve efficiency in the field instead of some meaningless lab test.
You have to have vision. That is important. These changes won't happen over night. It will take decades to see the results.
JR
To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"0 -
For fun
Go to:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638
Just 75 minutes, and it's free!0 -
-
Coal fired power plants...
Regardless of how much CO2 emmissions - principally from Coal and oil affect global warming...
Coal fired power plants kill more people than almost any other form of energy utilization, and cause many other serious health effects.
Well over 5000 coal miners are killed each year; and have been forever... But, that is accepted as part of using coal.
The chemical waste (nor C02) from acid rain, bottom ash gunk, particulate emmisions is known to cause significant enviormental problems - which no one denies (and in many cases some of the most damaging acid rain problems can be traced back to the coal plants that burned the specific type of coal becasue it is possible through trace constituant analysis to identify 500 to 1000 miles away which coal mine the coal came from that is creating the problem.
Asthma and other breathing disorders have been linked.
I used to work in coal plants; due to my asthma I can no longer work there.... Most people have no idea just how filthy the coal process is - from many angles.
Oh, coal plants emit far more radiation each day than a nuclear power plant... Trace radiotive elements in the coal either go up the stack or into the bottom ash.
So bottom line; global warming or not... I think the world would be a much better place if coal was reduced to 10% or less of current usage.
Off to bed now (since I need the sleep).. I'll take up Bill's questions later as I'm not going to dig up the links tonight I've been on the computer only about 15 min tonight).
Perry0 -
Read this
Link
The last line of the story is a perfect example of "blind faith".
Mark H
To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"0 -
-
China Coal
The New York Times has as a series of articles available.
The Energy Challenge
Down the list there is an article on China and coal.
They are building a new plant every week to 10 days? If trends continue, by 2025 China will produce twice as much carbon dioxide as the US, or 40% of the world's total.
Pollution From Chinese Coal Casts a Global Shadow
Seems like Al Gore should spend more time in China. All our hybrids, condensing boilers, CFLs are no match for this CO2 generator.
The answer is clear - nu-clear.0 -
Unpredictable
Today the forecast says high of 60. Last Tuesday it was
-16 at 6 A.M., never hit 0.
When a "computer model" can predict tomorrow's weather accurately every time I'll consider what they predict 40 years from now.0 -
inaccuarate reporting Mark
the first paragraph is incorrect:
"""""A North Pole expedition meant to bring attention to global warming was called off after one of the explorers got frostbite. The explorers, Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen, on Saturday called off what was intended to be a 530-mile trek across the Arctic Ocean after Arnesen suffered frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme cold temperatures drained the batteries in some of their electronic equipment."""""
cold temps DO NOT drain batteries, they get too cold and do not want to work, warm them up and they are fine.....
you can't trust a reporter these days to get anything correct!!!!!!0 -
That's the way
Deflect focus from the real point. Who gives a rat's a*# about batteries ?0 -
Not likely
Man made CO2 makes up less than 1/2 of 1 % of the total now. If China gets to 40% of the total I'm betting CO2 will be less of a problem than sulfur and acid rain, problems that do exist.0 -
Mark
You the Man! I love the irony! She just didn't buy enough carbon credits. Or maybe Al bought too many and caused this freezing cold Feb.0 -
I like your sense of humor J Paul
You are correct! Darn reporters!
Best wishes!
Mark H
To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"0 -
Well
Like the penguins say in the movie "Madagascar".......
"Just smile and wave boys..........smile and wave.."
The scary part is that these two people set out to PROVE something about which thay have NO CLUE. They believed "The Prophet"(peas be upon him)....They actually thought that the Earth had warmed sufficiently enough to make such a journey. Where did they EVER get THAT idea??? Hmmmmm?????
Exit question..........How are the poles melting when the temperature at the poles is WELL below freezing??
Exit question #2.........Has anyone recorded the ADT at the peak of Everest?
Exit question #3..........Do glaciers move?
Mark "smilin' and wavin'" H
To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"0 -
Go with me on this or not!
O.K. Let's just say for the sake of arguement that the average temp. of the earth AIR temp is higher. Would this not have an effect on the average Earth surface temp..? If you raise the temp. over a long period of time would it not increase the temp of the objects in that area? We are not talking about a temp. change that just happened, in the last 2 years. We are talking about a change that some say has been happening since man found fire. So would this not raise the Earth surface temp as well. Do I have a point or should I have my internal monolog checked again for viruses. Just a question I have had for years.0 -
I'm wondering what
kinda tent that they had. The article stated that they were measuring -50's inside the tent, while measuring -100 outside of it! If that is true, why are we wasting money on insulation? We should just get this manufacture to start building house tents!
Leo g0 -
What specific scientists were quoted in the movie?
Since a number of friends of mine take much of what they saw in Gore's movie at face value --I haven't seen it yet--I'd like to know which scientists from which universities or institutes provided the info the movie was based on. (hope this wasn't already covered in this great long thread.) That would speak to the film's credibility.
Thanks,
David
0 -
Good point
Those who have the video or who have planned to rent it, try to take note of scientists named by Gore in the movie and listed, if so, in the credits.0 -
Global Warming is very real!!!!
David,
Global warming is very real. All of the climatalogics came together and made a statement, 300 or so of them. It was at a big conference. Out of the 300, not one, I repeat not one disagreed. They said that global warming was happening and man was the cause of it.
The CO2 levels in our atmosphere are higher then anything in the last 650,000 years. If you plot the levels on a curve, the curve becomes extremely steap in the last few decades. The curve is practically pointing straight up!!
Now if you want to sit here and tell me this isn't a major problem then you are not being very smart. The not so smart doubters have a huge ptoential of destroying this world for our kids. We have to face the facts.
The only experts that are duobters are scientists being sponsered to do studies for political groups that are paying for a certain outcome. You can find groups of experts for hire. Pay them big money and they will do studies and produce results just like you are looking for. I have read many of these articles myself and the last three that I traced were funded by the oil companies. One article said global warming wasn't that bad. The other article pointed out problems with using wind power. The wind power article was published just before a wind farm was to be built of the coast of Long Island.
These greedy selfish people only care about the bottum line of the big company they work for. They are getting rich and they don't care about you or your kids future. Who do you think paid for the research behind the article bashing Al Gore? I'll bet it is paid for by the Republicans or some big oil company.
I am a member of ASHRAE. American Society of Heating and Refrgeration engineers. I have been to there conference's. Every expert at the conference, engineer or scientist a like agrees that global warming is happening and they are working hard to try and reduce CO2 emissions.
JR
To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"0 -
much not true
Diversity of opinion at the UN conference was not reflected in the UN document because it is a political body and the subject matter has political considerations. Some very prominent scientists' requests to have their names removed from that document. Few of them received funding from oil companies. Start by getting a list of the attendees. Call them if you want. I voted for Gore, but he is flat out lying
on the score that all scientists agree that global warming is related to C02.
The globe has always gone through warming and cooling cycles. What about the Middle Warming or the Little Ice Age? What happened to CO2 then? It has not been proven that elevated level of CO2 (which are true) cause warming. In fact, the opposite appears to be the case. Gore is a politician and this is his last shot at being President.
Wind power helps a little bit here and there, but it is a waste of time in the grande scheme. The numbers just aren't ever going to be there.0 -
it's never black and white
If it's one thing this thread proves, it's that it's not a black and white issue.
I haven't made up my mind on all this yet; these days EVERY faction has an agenda, and we all have to try to sort out what might be true and what might not be. Seems from at least one article posted on this thread that some qualified sources who DIFFER from Gore's thesis have been threatened. There are many competing interests out there; oil companies, yes, scientific and political groups yes...
David0 -
My facts are right...........
Bill,
There is some argument about how severe the steps are that need to be taken. Also some argument about how to go about handling the situation. Don't you go twisting things around and say that the scientists disagree that global warming is hapening.
Don't forget there are many scientists all over the world. Yes, some scientists in unrelated fields do(not climatalogy) disagree. Not one of the disagreeing scientists are doing studies. They just disagree. It is there personal opinion. Any reporter can ask any scientist (Maybe somebody that works with Animal virus's) That scientist might disagree personally with the studies results. He is not an expert in the field of climatology.
The 300 climatalogists are real and so is what they said.
JR
To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"0 -
Yes it is BLACK AND WHITE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
David,
It is black and white!!!!!!!!!
Global Warming is happening and man caused it!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Admit it, say it!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is a very serious issue here. Everyone needs to face reality.
I ask you are you willing to sacrafice the future of our next generation?
Because if you are then you are a selfish.
All you have to do is admit it is happening. You don't actually have to do anything. You leave that up to us scientist, engineers, inventors and contractors. We will go out and save this world. While I am working hard to save the next generation, the last thing that I want is some do nothing person telling me that I am wasting my time!!!!!
JR
To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 86.4K THE MAIN WALL
- 3.1K A-C, Heat Pumps & Refrigeration
- 53 Biomass
- 423 Carbon Monoxide Awareness
- 94 Chimneys & Flues
- 2K Domestic Hot Water
- 5.5K Gas Heating
- 101 Geothermal
- 156 Indoor-Air Quality
- 3.5K Oil Heating
- 64 Pipe Deterioration
- 925 Plumbing
- 6.1K Radiant Heating
- 383 Solar
- 15K Strictly Steam
- 3.3K Thermostats and Controls
- 54 Water Quality
- 41 Industry Classes
- 47 Job Opportunities
- 17 Recall Announcements