wind power
 

Today's Citizen has an article on the State of NH recently passing a law, HB 310, on 7/11/08 which regulates small wind power - electrical generating systems.

It would seem that an island location could be a good spot to catch the wind.

Could the owner of an island lot install a wind mill for year round use that would sell electricity into the grid?

Ever see the small wind generators, with three foot propellers, on the stern of 30' ocean going, sail boats?

It creates a state law that encourages local wind power and addresses local zoning rules with regards to height, location and noise.

Sunday, July 27, 2008, Union Leader article; For Homeowners, Powering with Wind

www.gencourt.state.nh.us

Finishing the second, empty reactor at Seabrook nuclear power plant would take care of this small state's energy concerns for the next 50 years. Wind power is nothing more than a small part of any future energy needs.

Probably there's no do-it-yourself, nuclear power plants designed with the home owner in mind.

Check out the Mallard 800E, an 800 watt, wind generator, made from a remanufactured GM alternator, with 59" wind blades, for $435 at www.mikeswindmillshop.com.

Wind power is a small part? It is a no brainer unless you happen to want to put one in Teddy's back yard.

BTW I like nukes too!

Solar...day AND night
 

Those geeks at MIT have done it again.

http://www.forbes.com/energy/2008/07...0731solar.html

Lol, sure there is. Check out some of the small uits that are used in Canada. Speaking of Canada what happend to all that hydro-electric power we were going to get from Quebec on the cheap ?

There are devices that will allow you to sync with the grid and backfeed what you generate from solar or wind. Your electric meter will actually run backwards when you are generating more than you are using. I believe Federal regulations require the electric company to pay you for any excess power you feed to the grid.

I think there will be a lot of home generated power in our futures. Solar is actually better in many ways because there are no moving parts and almost no maintenance.

However we will always need to have large power plants. Electricity can't be stored in quantity, and the wind and sun are inconstant providers.

More rules and regs
 

The Co-op requires you to use approved equipment installed by an approved installer before back feeding any power into the grid. It would be interesting to see the payout after all these requirements are met.

So you think you can just generate it to use yourself? Ordnance rich Moultonboro is putting together new rules on what they will allow for wind power for any purpose. How many new committees will be formed? How many hearings does one need to attend? How long will the process take? Will anybody want to bother with alternative energy when the government is done?

I have been looking into this a lot in the last few months. There can be a number of Gov. incentives to putting these things in. For example in MA you can get us much as I think it was 6,000 in tax breaks, Maine I think used to be 5,000 I beleive but their funds have dried up (but that is for another thread!! :( ) NH has VERY FEW incentives. Solar is still some what inifficient. It converts power at less then 25%. The new technologies that some of the companies are working on are very promissing but are probably a few years off.

What seems to make the most sence to me is to use solar to heat your water. You can then use this water to heat the house and so on.

' Ordnance rich Moultonboro is putting together new rules on what they will allow for wind power for any purpose."

HB 310, passed on July 11, addresses that somewhat by taking it out of the town's regulations with a state wide law.

NH's HB 310 allows for up to $6000 in tax incentive. Not sure how NH can do that considering NH has no state income tax.

There's a very large new home, just built on Squam Lake in Holderness, easily seen from Route 3, that has the entire roof covered with solar panels. Believe they face to the south.

Wind and solar sounds all ice and fuzzy,but won't run your car or get a plane off the ground.We need to drill for oil and natural gas....there is plenty of it and the bears will just move a few miles away from the drill rigs and be happy.

Energy toys
 

So, I want to install a wind generator on my property. All my neighbors don't want their view destroyed, or the noise pollution, or their neighborhood birds chopped up. So they fight it in court. Bye, bye wind generator. Have you considered how much resistance there is to cell towers that simply stand there and are even camouflaged? Good luck with wind generators. Solar panels might have a better shot if they are all on an existing structure like a roof but no one is going to want to look at a farm of stand alone solar arrays either. Are these technologies truly efficient enough in this climate, without major subsidies, to replace commonly used energy solutions?

The article on using solar power and a catalytic reaction to generate hydrogen for fuel is interesting but it sounds like a Rube Goldberg device at this point. Let's see, we need Solar Panels and all the supporting infrastructure for that, a catalytic engine, a storage system for the hydrogen, a hydrogen fuel cell or other mechanism to "burn" the hydrogen and convert it back to electricity. Sounds pretty big, complex, expensive, and difficult to maintain (you aren't going to get service from your local oil company). Further there are multiple conversion steps; solar to electrical to chemical (hydrogen separation) to chemical (hydrogen burning) to electrical at least and probably other side conversions as well to make the whole thing work. Every conversion loses efficiency. When there is a commercial installation that proves viable for say 5 years without huge subsidies I'll consider that it is a viable technology. Until then it's an interesting toy.

By the way, most of the "alternate" energy schemes are just that, toys. Just like the "rich" buy themselves fancy houses, boats, planes, and jewelry the energy elite buy themselves sheek energy solutions. The only difference is that the rich waste their own money; the energy elite wastes ours. Consider for a second that most of these "alternate" energy solutions are heavily subsidized and would not even be considered for use unless those subsidies existed. A subsidy takes money from a large group of people, the taxpayers, and redistributes it to a small favored group, in this case the energy elite. Now project this out. If these "wonderful" technologies were put into widespread usage you would have to pay lots more taxes for the government to pay a subsidy back to you. You would be subsidizing yourself. :emb::emb::emb:

We have working, even if they are not perfect, energy solutions now; untapped oil reserves, nuclear, natural gas, coal, and in some cherry picked areas solar and wind. Unless we are all ready to return to the life style of 100 years ago let's get on with developing and enhancing these. Let's also allocate a reasonable increase in an across the board energy tax (2%?? on gasoline, jet fuel, electricity, fuel oil, natural and propane gas ) to fund energy R&D ONLY (lets not fund another highway tax to be raided). The projects to support should be selected by a scientific panel (NOT politicians!!) with impeccable credentials and a set of guidelines that bias toward developing energy for broadly usable, non-subsidized, commercial use or toward practical energy conservation technologies (improving car mileage, low cost lighting, appliance efficiency, industrial efficiencies). The more energy we use the more money that would be generated to learn to use what we have wisely and find effective and efficient alternatives to what we use now. The bigger the energy hog you are the more you pay toward better solutions.

Why is this so hard?

The Co-Op (NHEC) has no say in it. There are federal regulations in place. The NHEC program you refer to is for their rebate program. They will give you up to $5,000 in rebates if you do things their way. If you don't like it their way, you can have the installation done by any master electrician and your meter will run backwards.

The "Small Steps" energy plan for home generation is the future. The "Go Find More Oil" approach has its days numbered.

And wind generators don't chop up birds.

We are as a society of people generally lazy. The majority of people would rather just pay the electric bill every month and be able to switch it on and off at will. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, it just is. When it comes down to brass tax the "go find more oil" approach will be the easiest and I do not feel it's days are numbered. Is it right or wrong, we all have our opinions but I do know it's the simplest way to solve the problem.

Its days are numbered. There is a finite amount of oil under the ground. You can have theories and opinions about how long that oil will last. However one day, if we keep pumping oil, it will be ALL gone! That is not open to opinion.

Some day the Sun will stop burning and life in this Solar System, as we know it, will die.

That is not open to opinion, either.

Do you really think you will live long enough to witness either event?

The cavemen had their quirks; life continues, sometimes for the better.

Think synthetic oil...

Finite?
 

Finite yes. When? Not in yours or mine, or my children's, children's children's lifetime. I don't like the panic selling that Al Gore and others are trying to sell. I'm not an oil exploration scientist and neither are you but IMHO it will be a longer time that . Its just my opinion but the botom line is that the market will find a solution, (as long as we still have a market driven economy). This forum is getting too confrontational, but I can't stand still when panic selling is permeating the main stream media. Your statement "Its days are numbered" on this forum is not the main stream media, but you do acknowledge I hope that it is continuing half the "story". I know that some say that this is the only way to wake up the American Public but I am concerned that the whole truth is not being told out there. Yes, the days are numbered and we must handle our energy consumption better, and explore other means of energy. However, we are not going to exhaust all the oil we can drill for in 10 years, as former VP, Al Gore has alluded to with his "call to arms". One last point, American ingenuity in private enterprise will get us to the next level; not the government. I know you didn't say anything about the government; I just think that too many people think the big "G" will take care of this.:)

Well said ! A serious nation looks at drilling oil, using coal, and like France, extensive use of nuclear. These other sources have their place, but they really are toys.

What a shocker that B.I. is against conventional power.Maybe he could figure out a way to harvest methane from his nesting duck......would require a government subsidy.
We have many lifetimes of oil and natural gas within our borders if only the elite greenies would stop the lawsuits to keep us from using it.

Greenies?
 

That was a simplistic answer.We need energy no question.I want to be able to run my boat just like every one else here.however there are some places I would rather not see ruined.I would rather give up the boat then see all the natural beauty of the world gone in search for energy.How would you feel if a large deposit of oil or gas was found under Winni.Would you become a Grennie?

I think that the key is going to be distribution of our use of available power sources. That means some wind, some solar, some oil, some nuclear..... If we all switch to one form then the price of that one form will go up. If we can fill our cars with water then imagine how much your Evian is going to cost you then. :eek:

If I can have my power subsidised I am all for it. Last I checked I pay an inordanant amount of my income to the guberment and if I can get a little back then good for me. If it saves me some money in energy costs even better.

I had a lot of people laugh at me for buying my Ford Escape Hybrid. They said that milage is not good enough, cost of repairs to high...... Well I am the one laughing now, all the way to the bank, litterally. The amount of money that I save in fuel alone over my truck pays for the cars payment, insurance, taxes, and the fuel that I burn!!! Unlike a Prius this is no different then a normal Ford Escape, so you feel like you are in a "real" car. So far, one of my best purchasing decisions of 2008.

There is not a simple solution to any of this but as some one else said the American desire should find a solution. I hope that desire still lives. It certainly is not as strong as it once was but that is for another thread altogether.....

You are quite correct that this subject is manipulated for political purposes and scare tactics. However the only point I made was that someday there will be no more oil.

However the oil will run out long before the end of you children's, children's, children's lifetimes as you suggest. The crude oil under the earth would last a few hundred years if we extract it all, but that is impossible. The recoverable oil will be gone in 30, 65 or 95 years, depending on whose numbers you like.

Also simplistic
 

If you are a true believer in hard line environmental protection, I can respect that you have principled beliefs that I disagree with. I would expect that you would NOT own a boat or other toys, live in the smallest, most energy efficient housing possible, have a small hybrid powered car but bicycle whenever you can, recycle, etc.

If you only support environmental causes because you are a NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) person then you are a hypocrite, not a Greenie!

Penn & Teller recently did a zing piece on the environmental movement. They went to an environmental rally and passionately asked people to sign a petition to ban Dihydrogen Monoxide which they described in typical terms of something "bad" for the environment. They were quite successful in getting signatures, even the head of the rally signed. Only toward the end did they disclose that what they were asking to be banned was WATER!

A significant part of the environmental movement is based on just this kind of mindless reaction. Tell me that a caribou doesn't like oil drilling and I'll sign anything to stop oil drilling, even though the caribou have been thriving around the oil wells. Yet these same people continue to use the energy consuming technology that makes the problem worse. As will most people!

The choices that must be made are hard pragmatic choices based on the realities of people's behavior. Remember how successful prohibition was in trying to get people to stop drinking? People want contradictory things, a perfectly pristine world and the ability to jump on a plane to Florida and spend a week at a place that is lit up with millions of lights and has rides that gulp energy like soda pop. Most people vote with their behavior, they continue to go to Florida.

Given this reality, let's try to provide the energy that we have access to in the most environmentally friendly way that we can afford to. In general, our air and water have been getting cleaner and we are more aware of significant pollution threats from industries. We have been on the right path. Let's keep up the good work and enhance it over time with proven (not wishful) strategies.

Wind, solar, tidal, and hydroelectric are not toys to those who are serious about America's Energy Independence!

Your point is correct
 

Yes, it will run out eventually. The way my daughter drives she may not even have any children to worry about.:laugh:

I think though that many politicians assume they are empowered by those folks that encourage looking at new alternatives, and therefore are blocking further drilling. One is not mutually exclusive of the other. How hypocritical it is of those politicians that say "we don't want to drill in our backyard", but want to sue the Arab Nations for not pumping enough. I don't know how to convince both sides of the aisle the American people want a balanced approach. Congress lied to us when they said in the 70's that we didn't want to rely on foriegn oil when we were producing 60% of our needs back then. Today I believe we are only producing 25%. Both party's constituants need to get angry with their own party and tell them in no uncertain terms, fix it by coming together with a soultion or get out!

BTW, how is family? I see we have only one more egg to go.:)

BI: I think that the stats that you are talking about are more based on current usage, and current trends, and current oppinions on what is usable and not usable oil. There are HUGE deposites of oil in the world that are not worth going to get because there are cheaper options for deposits. As time goes on and that oil gets used up then we can turn to the more difficult stuff to get, refine..... Of course that may drive up the price all things staying the same...

Perhaps, perhaps not. But they are surely not-ready-for-prime-time mass-market energy alternatives. Yet, they should continue to be researched if there is a reasonable chance they can ever become economically viable. Until that time ever comes, we must expand our offshore drilling, build new refineries, and launch a mammoth project to build nuclear power plants. Whatever the long-term energy solution will be, we need a bridge to that time. Domestic oil and nuclear power can and should be that bridge.

These things are just not serious answers to our problems.

Thay most certainly are..
 

I beg to differ. Big oil has thousands of of acres of land under lease they are not drilling. Why then, do they want to panic everyone into granting more leases?

Couple simply facts that may give you the answer.
The good old USA dosen't have the "rigs" capacity to drill on the leases they already hold. Where are the rigs? In Africa, South America and the Middle East.
Chevron holds leases all over the USA and choose to drill in Africa with sweetheart deals with tyrants and dictators. Shipping our money to them.

All of the oil we could drill in the USA wouldn't put a tiny dent in the problem we have because even if we drilled it, we have no capacity to refine it. The USA hasn't built a new refinery in 30 plus years, and there isn't a single new refinery proposed anywhere in the USA.

I suggest the oil giants want to get more leases as an "insurance policy" for 40-50 years from now. To protect "their" supply. If leases were to be granted, and I were King, the winning bidder would have to drill it, refine it and get it to market in the USA in less than 10 years. Otherwise, it is foolish to even consider granting the leases.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12227

This site is also very interesting.

http://www.pickensplan.com/

In the 60's we put a man on the moon in less than 10 years. I refuse to believe that this country couldn't become energy independant in 10 years. Think of the jobs it would create, think of the fact that we consume 25% of the oil in the world, with 4% of the worlds population, but even the wildest estimates of the oil under our soil and under our coastal waters dosen't come close to 25% of the worlds oil.

Don't let the 60 second ads from either party influence your thinking. Just do a little research and you'll see for yourself.

Remember this old saying.
The perfect definition of Insanity - "keep doing things the same way.. and expect different results"

One more from a press release recent press release and discussion from MIT.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...r-on-the-cheap

I'm not a "Greenie" , but the path we are on is a very slippery slope. :confused: When the likes of T. Boone (Swiftboat) Pickens gets it, maybe we all should.

Ask the people in Russia suffering from the big "melt-down" how they woulda liked Wind instead of Nuclear. Yes maybe a rare event. but............

That plant was doomed from the beginning. Poorly built, even more poorly managed, in a country that was financally in a mess.

Winnidiver makes a good point about placing an oil rig in Winni and I can only say that exploration should be done in an enviromentally friendly way.Sure,we'd probably all give up our boats and toys.....but cars and trucks is another matter. Winnidiver thinks his Ford hybrid is the answer but studies show that they actually cost more energy to produce than a conventional vehicles.Their sole purpose on the planet is to make people feel good.Winni won't be laughing when it comes time to replace AND dispose of the battery pack.

Incredibly rare event, and would probably not ever be able to be duplicated. The engineers were running tests on the reactor, and made several mistakes that directly led to the melt down.

I was the one with the Ford hybrid. I have heard your argument before about the batteries being expensive, mess for the land fills....but that is false. First of all they will be able to recycle the batteries. You can and should be taking your car batteries, computer batteries, and so on in for recycling. I had my computer batterie refurbished for pennies of what a new one from Dell was going to cost me. Secondly my Ford battery has a 8 year 150,000 mile warrantee on it. I will sell the car more then likely LONG before that date/milage ever comes. The car does work for me as evidence by the fact that I am saving almost 6-7,000 dollars a year on fuel. :eek: I have all the creature comforts of back up sensors, sat radiom, comfortable leather seats, GPS, you name it the car has it so I feel like I gave up nothing. The additional expense was offset in part by tax incentives. 12,000 miles on the car since I purchased in Feb. and I am super happy with it. Beleive me I was the BIGGEST sceptic going into the purchase, but I am a beleiver now. Certainly NOT a car that the average Joe can work on but I stopped that stuff a few years ago and only change my oil now days.

Wow, that is a LOT of savings!! How is that even possible...what kind of mileage are you getting?

Sounds like you really did your homework before buying the car......I got my information from a series of newspaper and magazine stories but I can't argue with your reasoning and I will definately rethink my criticism of hybrids.
But...............I still like my SUV

Maybe so but I'd much rather live near a wind farm. Yeah I know radiation travels VERY far. I guess for some foolish reason I'd just be able to sleep at night that's all. :rolleye2:

The production and recycling problems may be fixed in the future but right now the Hybrids are not as good a deal as they seem to be. The mileage may be slightly better than the most efficient gas-only cars but when you consider the "dust to dust" energy costs the overall energy costs per mile are much higher. Here are the energy costs per mile over the lifetime (dust to dust) of these vehicles:

Prius: $3.25/mile
Viper: $2.18/mile
Range Rover: $2.42/mile
Escalade: $2.75/mile
Scion: $.48/mile

These figures take into consideration the entire vehicle cycle from inception until disposal, not just the cost of ownership.

To produce a Hybrid battery nickle is mined at a controversial facility in Canada and shipped in huge container ships to a refinery in Europe. From there it is shipped to China to create nickle foam. Then it is shipped to Japan for assembly. Finally, the completed batteries are shipped to the United States, finalizing the around-the-world trip required to produce a single Prius battery. The energy required for this process wipes out the small savings that the hybrid provides over the first 100,000 miles.

The bottom line is that a Scion or Aveo is much better for the environment right now than the feel-good cars embraced by the greenies. There isn't a single Hybrid in the top 10 list of efficient cars.

I agree with you 100%. It would make me feel better too. However, with only one major exception (Chernobyl), nuclear power has an excellent safety record. I think we hear the worse, so we assume the worse. Of course a catastrophic failure at a nuke plant would be quite a bit worse than a catastrophic failure of a wind farm. But it can happen...

http://www.blencathra.net/assets/ima...s/caldbeck.JPG
http://www.windcows.com/files/normal...-Germany06.jpg

I don't like the high gas prices anymore than anyone else! I think it just stinks. But unless we (and by WE I mean Americans) are hit in the pocketbook, we are happy to just go on living in blissful ignorance... Gas prices are not going to drop drastically anytime soon. I think we need to seriously rethink our positions on energy usage....

Nuclear power is a very viable option.... we just need to standardize the plant design (think small local plants) and take the construction of the plants out of the private sector and have the Army Corps of Engineers build them. This takes away the profiteering, corruption and graft. While nobody wants a nuke plant in thier backyard, It is a safe proven method of producing low cost electricity. The nuclear waste is an issue, but it is resolvable.

Solar Power... Every rooftop in America should have electricity generating solar panels installed. This will cut our electricity usage drastically. Solar panels do not generate large amounts of electricity. You make that up in great numbers of panels installed! Standardize on a panel design, sell them cheaply so there is a quick return on your investment and people will buy them.

Wind Power... another NIMBY situation that I dont get. Sure, they arent the most pleasing contraptions to look at but its a viable source of energy that needs to be exploited!

Now for the big slam...

MASS TRANSIT!!!

Prior to the end of WWII, America had the best Mass Transit system in the world. We need to invest BILLIONS into Mass Transit! Hi speed rail, Bus systems, Light rail (trolley) etc... Just think of how good mass Transit in all of New England would be if the Government spent 16 Billion on Mass Transit instead of burying a stoopid highway?

Yes its expensive, but its necessary evil. As long as America's population continues to grow and we continue to rely on personal autos for transportation we will never get ahead of the energy curve, regardless of how many hybrid or alternative fuel vehicles we produce.

Woodsy

ChipJ: I get average about 32 miles per gallon. That is with a 4wd version, averaging 75 on the highways and say speed limit to 5 mph over on the back roads. This car seems to get it's best milage at about 35-40. On one trip from Portland to Naples, ME I got 41 miles per gallon when I really tried to eak out every last trick I knew. It is like driving a video game when you work at tryint to get every last mile per gallon. My old truck was a deisel and it got about 14 miles per gallon. So if you take the more then double the miles per gallon and add to that a almost dollar per gallon savings in the cost of fuel and the amount that I drive it all adds up quickly.

Boater: I guess for me my point is that this car is saving me huge. What it cost to build, does not really factor into my purchase, what it saves me does. Sure my wifes Saab gets the same milage per gallon but I can not put a 60" plasma in her car either. This truck is also 4wd so in the snow she will get stuck while I keep on steaming down the road. The Ford is the fastest payback of all the "green" cars from what I have read. Find me a 4wd car/truck that has all the options that I listed and gets even close to the miles per gallon that I have and priced at about 35K. I sure could not find one. When you compaire apples to apples they are a great deal. When I say apples to apples I mean a regular gas Ford Escape Vs. the Hybrid.

Not serious because they aren't commercially viable
 

Here is a pointer to a blog that discusses the leased drilling issue.

In short, the leases are a speculative venture. No one knows if there is oil at a leased spot or not. Oil companies make their best guess, take out a lease (usually for a very large area to protect their access), and then do millions of dollars of testing to see if oil is really there. If not, no drilling. Even if there is oil it can take years to develop a field. If the "find" is small it may wait behind the development of larger discoveries.

I agree that along with drilling for more oil we need more refineries.

The US consumes about 25% of the world's oil because we generate about 25% of the world's revenue. The effort to put a man on the moon was not disruptive to the economy or infrastructure. It was an isolated effort that was simply funded. Whether we succeeded or not didn't threaten our personal safety and health or our business viability. Technology failures risked only the daring men who volunteered for the program. Further, the effort was repeated infrequently, under the same considerations. If we disrupt our infrastructure with unproven technology how will we respond when people die because electricity fails or we can't keep up with air conditioning loads and tens of thousands die in the next heat wave (like happens in Europe). Then what happens when our economy is totally devastated by the out of control costs of the venture. Have you heard about the wonderful successes they have had with providing wireless coverage in cities? This is what can happen when technology that works in a small scale is tried to be extended to a larger scale without consideration of cost or who will pay bills on an ongoing basis. This is usually what happens when government tries to do something. The reason things happen and persist is because someone can make a living at it, i.e. it is commercially viable. The reason this technology has not expanded on its own is simply because it is not commercially viable.

What Mr. Pickens "gets" is that he is the owner of a "wind" company and he wants to make money, whether or not it is really a good solution.

You Nailed it!
 

What Mr. Pickens "gets" is that he is the owner of a "wind" company and he wants to make money, whether or not it is really a good solution.

You are right on the money JeffK. TBoone is an oilman who know wants to make money in wind. He sounds so helpful on his commercial. YEAH, jsut like when the government says, We're here to help you." RIGHT.:rolleye1:

There's plenty of 4 cylinder versions of popular cars ( Camry, Altima, etc. ) that are getting mileage into the 30's. When you figure the difference between this and the added mileage from a Hybrid most of them are not worth the money.

Don't a lot of New Hampshire people already live or at least heat like 100 years ago? What would you call buying, cutting, splitting, stacking and burning wood?

Economic necessity
 

Some people are economically compelled to keep their heating costs under control. If they have access to a free or cheap wood supply that's what they use. Other's are attracted to the ambiance of a wood stove.

The problems are 1) is this really good for the environment? If you are around wood stoves, especially in certain still weather conditions the wood smoke smog outside is oppressive. 2) if everyone did it we would use up our forests very quickly. The same lesson is being learned with ethanol. It takes a LOT of growing stuff to produce the energy equivalent in gasoline or natural gas.

If we are to make our decisions based on cost, oil wins (for now)(or free firewood).

If we base our decision on what's best in the long run economically and for the environment then we have SOME alternatives in SOME cases. I have faith that technology will continue to provide better and better solutions, I just want to be sure we aren't buying snake oil. In my opinion, many of the alternatives are not viable (reliability, economically, practicality) for broad based distribution.

Toys for the future
 

The lakes region economy depends on cheap energy to get people here and to keep the locals warm in the winter. Alternate energy can't get here quick enough.

With any technology, there is a period of early adoption. In this phase, it is primative or quirky, costs are high and adoption is primarily by those with disposible income or obsessive about the technology. We've been at that stage with alternate energy since the 70's. Hybrid cars are a new phase but there is a long way to go. Wind, solar and geo-thermal have a part to play in our energy future, but it takes investments and unfortunately, government incentives. The oil industry is making more gross profit than any other, and they have a huge war chest to make sure their stockholders stay happy. They don't see the profit in alternate energies - so are not investing heavily there. It is hard to know the truth about domestic energy supplies. Money can educate the public to believe almost anything and laws can be bought - and there is no doubt that is happening.

Politically, we need to stop funding enemy states and the wars to ensure we get energy from them. The truth is; with the cost of energy rising, economies based on travel, heating or cooling will retreat. Maybe that is a good thing in the short term, but long term, the world needs a new source of energy and now would be a good time to start the investments.

Where have you been?
 

The second dome was DECONSTRUCTED in 2005!

I say load up the Winnipesaukee Islands with windmills and the Isles of Shoals as well! Mass Cape Wind comapny - will have nothing on the NH Seacoast Wind Turbine Field!!

Oil companies do invest
 

In just a short time poking around I found that:
Royal Dutch/Shell has invested $1 billion in a solar plant.
BP is investing $4 billion in a wind plant.
Exxon is spending over $400 million a year on alternate energy research.
Chevron is investing $330 million a year in alternate energy research.
Meanwhile it should be understood that these are private businesses. They are not required to spend on such things and may even be held liable for excess non profitable spending. Businesses are responsible to manage the assets of the company for the financial benefits of the shareholders, not to address society's problems. Reputable companies do dedicate funds for such uses in the public interest BUT IT IS NOT THEIR PROBLEM. Further, it's a little hard for me to mad at oil companies making 40 cents on a $4 gallon of gas when society thinks it's OK for Starbucks to make $$ on a $5 CUP of coffee (how much is that per gallon?). The difference is scale. Exxon sells A LOT of gas, making a modest profit profit per unit. Starbucks makes obscene profits on each unit sold. Most companies make a much better (less fair??) profit per unit than oil companies do. Oil companies are simply bigger; they need to be to carry out the huge exploration and development efforts that are required to deliver the oil we need.

Meanwhile the US government is spending about $770 million a year (in 2006)on alternate energy research which was less than 1% of all government research funds and much less than the oil companies. Govt spends over $20 billion a year on health care research. If energy management is truly the disastrous crisis that some say it is, maybe it's time to shift money from some other areas to beef up energy research?

And have you heard the old saying "If you want less of something, tax it"? Well the opposite applies. If the government is serious about getting more alternative energy research maybe they should quit their bitchin and offer better tax incentives to promote such activity. Either that or fund it themselves. It IS the government's responsibility. Maybe they should stop trying to pass the buck.

Reconstruct it.....in the long run we will come out ahead:)

You must be a government employee!!
 

They just took the thing apart three years ago - now you wanna rebuild it? :laugh:

The French get close to 80% of their electric needs from nuclear. We need to start building new nuclear plants. If not at Seabrook, then at another location, but Seabrook would make the most sense. I suspect there will be 50 or 60 new nuclear plants built in the next 20 years.....I would like to see NH position herself for one of those plants.

I fail to see what's so funny, or strange about activating a second plant at Seabrook ? I understand the plant was deconstruced......so reconstruct it. If we don't get another plant, some other state will.

Oh yeah, have it constructed too close to your home and see what happens to YOUR value. We need jails too but who wants them in their back yards? I just don't get it nobody wants wind fields cause of the eye sore but they would rather have nuke plants. :rolleye1: I'm not saying wind is the answer but lets not be to quick to write it off either. :D

I have just one question. What happens to all the used oil that comes from oil changes from every car across this country? Can this be burned as heat? Is there a furnace that can take it (with some conditioning I'm sure?) Is it currently being done? Well three questions! :eek:

waste oil furnaces
 

are very common.

here's a link to one:

http://www.americanautomotiveequipme...FQNfFQodAWqhqA

Many auto shops, including my mechanics, are putting in furnaces that burn motor oil. He loves it, calls it his free heat. I told him that I should charge him for the used oil. ;)

So this type of heater would not be practical for a home / camp? Besides the obvious transporting issues is it ok / safe to use in a home?

Yes very safe. Some require you to hook up air from an air compressor to make it work. My brother used to just run his used oil in his regular heater. I was always amazed at how much crap he could run through the heater and it would keep on trucking. He just changed his filters a little more often and adjusted the flame based on what was in the tank. Certainly NOT for everyone but it did work....

First, my property taxes would most likely go down by half, so yes, bring the plant on:) I live in a town with a prison......so, what next ?

It's just funny - but also serious?!
 

If you fail to see whats funny about that then I am not sure I could point it out without hurting your feelings.

Another issue with Seabrook is the fact that having one reactor is problematic enough for folks who live here on the coast. Ever try getting off the barrier islands (seabrook, salisbury and hampton are ALL barrier islands) at 4pm on a hot steamy summer day? Now let's add in a catastrophic failiure - emergency horns sound the alarm at 2pm - the temperature is a steamy 90 degrees the beaches are PACKED - where do people go??? If there is a seabreeze - then what about all the folks inland? Chernobyl and Three Mile Island are worst case scenarios, but Plymouth MA and Vermont's power stations have had critical problems which both turned into evacuation events...that had OK endings.

I vote yes to NH building one - but let's put it in Berlin or Gorham - use one of the old paper mill sites....it'll bring jobs to that region and energy to the state.

I doubt you will see PSNH adding a second reactor anytime soon. The anticipated cost of a scrubber for the Bow coal-fired plant just went from ~$200 million, to over $450 million. Say hello to higher rates to pay for cleaner emissions!

i did this too in the past
 

i no longer heat with oil, but when i did i had an old (circa 1957) boiler and i would just pour old motor oil into the tank. I strained it first through cheese cloth and dumped it in. A gallon of used motor oil (typical of an oil change) represents a fraction of a percent of the capacity of a 275 gallon heating oil tank. I always added when the tank was at least 1/2 full so i was still burning a mixture that was 99%+ heating oil. I never had a problem and the burner tech never mentioned or asked if I was burning anything unusual.

Just because YOU think you have stumbled upon some universal truth that a second reactor at Seabrook is some wild idea (even though it was built for 2 reactors in the 70s) does not make it true. It's JYO. Nothing more, nothing less. And as far as hurting my feelings.....go for it. I have no problem with putting a reactor in the places you mentioned, but the fact is.....Seabrook 1 is going to be up & running for at least another 30 years. Since the site was built for a second reactor, putting one there is not so far fetched an idea. There is risk in every thing. No matter where you put a second reactor there will be issues.

Chill....
 

I have not stumbled upon any great universal truth regarding Seabrook nor did I state any of my opinions as anything but - my opinions...so again....CHILL

What are you twelve?

Irish mist, eh? AGAIN - JMO!:cool: But I'd lay off the stuff when you're writing to the forum.

You said: : If you fail to see whats funny about that then I am not sure I could point it out without hurting your feelings".

Your point here then was what ? That my suggestion of reconstructing the second Seabrook plant was so beyond any rational thought that if you wanted to....you would be able to humiliate me with your superior logic ? That my feelings would be so hurt by exposing the weakness of my arguement that you were going to spare me that public pain, lol.

I've been civil to you, even though I found your post condesending, and silly, at best. Here's the deal. If there is going to be second nuclear power plant built in NH Seabrook would be as good a spot as any to build it on. If you find that thought incredible.....so beyond any logic that you would hurt my feeligs by exposing me....then state your case. If you can show me that what I am suggesting at Seabrook is foolish, and not even worth debating, then argue it in an adult manner with some skill.

Nice crack about taking my posting name.....and then trying to imply I'm a drunk. And I'm the one who is 12 years old ?

Umm......wow.
 

:confused:Not exactly. That comment was that I said your suggestion to rebuild was funny - not "funny ha ha", but rather "funny peculiar" in that the NRC just took the darn thing down 3 years ago! Nothing to do with humilating you with "superior logic." But yes, it is beyond logic that they would deconstruct the reactor only to then spend millions three years later to rebuild it. As for the superior logic and humiliation comments...You clearly have issues....and I am not going down that road.

:rolleye2:I dont come to Winnipesaukee dot com to argue anything...but i did answer your questions. I said they wont rebuild it because they JUST took it down. Do you think that decision to remove the older unused site was made in a split second? That was a long term discussion and the decision to remove the second shell pretty much makes it clear (at least to me and many others) that Seabrook is a 1 unit station....now and for the foreseeable future.

:cool:For all I know you are twelve - you sort of act like it - at least in this thread. And as for Irish Mist comment- yeah I stand by that comment as well. By the way - I didn't TRY to imply anything - I IMPLIED IT - it was pretty explicit of me...nothing subtle in that comment.

Anyway - that is all for me on this thread. That's a FACT.:eek:

My only "issue" concerning this thread is your incivility. Things have changed concerning our energy needs in the last 3 years. They may not reconstruct Seabrook 2 but my point was, and is, that it's worth looking at if there s going to be a a second nuke plant in NH. I think when McCain was here several weeks ago this very thing was talked about if I remember.

As for your IMPLYING a member of this forum is a drunk because you don't agree with, or like their postings, or their posting name....is childish; and beneath contempt. You have some anger-management issues. You're a master at projection. You have made a total ass of yourself on this thread. It's best you leave this thread....you could not debate your way out of a wet paper-bag:)

What a surprise.....you're from Massachusetts, too funny:)

[QUOTE=Irish mist;78391][QUOTE=wildwoodfam;78388]:confused:Not exactly. That comment was that I said your suggestion to rebuild was funny - not "funny ha ha", but rather "funny peculiar" in that the NRC just took the darn thing down 3 years ago! Nothing to do with humilating you with "superior logic." But yes, it is beyond logic that they would deconstruct the reactor only to then spend millions three years later to rebuild it. As for the superior logic and humiliation comments...You clearly have issues....and I am not going down that road.

Wow, and I'm being monitored for my posts?? I've not said anything near as offensive as this, good lord let's get past this and stop bullying each other!

If anyone is interested in this anymore, I just bought a small wind turbine. :)

Will report on how well it works after a few months with it running

Union Leader article on Seabrook 2
 

Checkout the Sunday August 17th article in the Union Leader on the possible recommissioning of the Seabrook 2 nuclear power plant. Our 2 U.S. senators feel this is a good idea, and industry sources say it will be cheaper to use the Seabrook site even thought the plant was recently decommissioned. Great article. I said as much last week......

Driving down Route 93, one would never know that there is a large wood chips to electricity power plant just one mile from exit 24, in Bridgewater NH. It has a large smoke stack, too.

Before another expensive Seabrook nuclear power plant gets built, it's got to be much cheaper to burn wood chips. With all the rain over the last three summers, all the pulp quality trees are growing big time and crowding out the views.

With the paper & cardboard mills in Berlin, Gorham, Groveton, Littleton, Statford, & Lancaster permanently closed, all the trees up north are a renewable resource to power electricity.

Nuclear-electricity is way more expensive to build than wood chips-electricity and it's getting so you cannot see the lakes and mountains anymore because of all the recent tree growth.