Make yellow Stone a geothermal plant?

Originally posted by Buck Division
I disagree that a nuclear power plant takes a billion dollars to make. This ignores "economy of scale. I assume we would have a standard design, some sort of standard infrastructure, etc. The Perry Ohio nuclear plant cost $6 billion dollars -- often held up as the model for what a plant typically costs. But I have heard that most of the cost was in "redesign" and to replicate this plant would cost around $200 million. Using this idea, we could build 1000 plants for around $200 billion dollars. That is about the same cost as prosecuting the war in Iraq for 20 months.

You are actually quite right, I was being FAR too generous in my estimation. It is actually much, much higher than what I stated. Unfortunately, we don't get the luxury of realizing economies of scale up front. Economies of scale only kick in much farther down the line. Let me use Progress Energy's two proposed reactors in Florida as an example.

Source: News Observer 03/11/2008

Building two nuclear reactors in Florida would cost Progress Energy $17 billion, which would increase the bills of the company's customers in that state by an average of 3 percent to 4 percent a year for 10 years.

Given this 17 billion dollar cost per two reactors, (which is slightly inflated due to a 3 billion addition for Progress Energy to include needed transmission lines and substations) your first 24 reactors will have used all of your proposed 200 billion dollar allotment. How do you propose to build those other 976 reactors given that you have already blown your 200 billion dollar budget? Economies of scale? Sorry, but 24 reactors does not even touch that threshold.

Several years ago, the company was projecting a cost of $2 billion to $3 billion per reactor, but since then the cost of labor and materials has skyrocketed amid increasing global demand for energy.

In the space of several years the projected price of these reactors has increased from approx. 2.5 billion to 8.5 billion each. This is a comon factor in these type of projects as you will notice here in this example.

In the 1970s, for example, the construction of Shearon Harris was originally projected to cost $1.1 billion for four reactors, but the actual cost was $3.9 billion for one reactor.

As you can see, the projected cost more than tripled during construction. So what do you suppose will happen to our present projected price of 8.5 billion dollars per reactor if it were not to be completed until....oh, say 2016 or 2018?

The first of Progress' planned nuclear plants in Florida is expected to begin operation in 2016, with the second unit going online in 2017.

Thats 9 years out provided there are no delays in construction. Plenty of time for the cost to triple and given the present state of our economy, that's probably even a conservative suggestion. Your first 100 reactors could easily top a trillion dollars (if not three trillion). Only 900 to go....

Originally posted by Buck Division
I also disagree that the cost of waste containment would be significant. The French have this problem licked. They built some warehouses.

I think we should be able to agree that in this day and age, "building some warehouses" is not going to be acceptable to many people (especially our poloticians and their contractor buddies).

Yucca Mountain is the way the government likes to do things. With an estimated cost of 77 billion, and and not even completed yet, it may be as long as two dedades before completion (if ever completed at all). At this point it would cost 10 Billion just to scrap it. At current waste production, some say the facility will be at capacity the day it opens.

I think we had plenty of chance for nuclear to bail us out, but we were asleep at the wheel and let too much time pass us by. Now unfortunately we have less time and money than ever to catch up to the problem.

Holy crap I got off topic there, didnt mean to take it that far.

I'm curious to know how the cost of geothermal plants compares to nuclear. And how the construction timeframe compares as well. I'll try and dig some of that up after abit.

reply to post by Shazam The Unbowed


I think you've nailed something here, Shazam This problem really started with Jimmy Carter, strangely enough.

So people mistrust nuclear power. I'm done arguing about that.

What I really find fascinating about this thread is that I just don’t see how anyone can possibly argue against geothermal power. It is the simplest, safest, and most gentle type of power generation that can actually meet our power needs! And the fact that we are not exploiting it is so peculiar and odd! It is the unanswered question that you, Shazam, posed in the OP. Why aren’t we tapping into that massive source of “free energy”?

I think the answer is the same as why we aren’t tapping into nuclear power. It is being blocked for the profit of people who are making money off of existing energy sources. We are collectively being messed with. I don’t think there is any other answer. I can’t build a power plant myself – I have to rely on enablers to do that – and these enablers are making too much money to help me (and you) out.

Seems pretty obvious. We're being played for suckers here.

reply to post by Shazam The Unbowed


Wow.

If we could close the fuel cycle concerning nuclear power, why not? My main concern about nuclear problem is the waste. This seems to solve that problem.

Thanks! I'm going to look into what you posted a lot deeper.

Originally posted by SystemiK

Originally posted by Buck Division
Using this idea, we could build 1000 plants for around $200 billion dollars. That is about the same cost as prosecuting the war in Iraq for 20 months.

I was being FAR too generous in my estimation. Let me use Progress Energy's two proposed reactors in Florida as an example. Given this 17 billion dollar cost per two reactors, your first 24 reactors will have used all of your proposed 200 billion dollar allotment.

[edit on 6-5-2008 by Buck Division]

You know -- I'm wiping out my previous reply, which was sort of rolling over and accepting what you said, SystemiK, like being taken advantage of by the power company was just something that was inevitable and had to be handled without protest. I appreciate the info above -- it is true that Progress Energy is charging a ridiculous amount for new power plants here in Florida.

I'm going to be a bit more defiant.

I am sure that Progress Energy will get as much money as they possibly can for this -- they are taking advantage of public fear. And that fear is mainly caused by ignorance and lies, perpetuated by people like -- well -- like Progress Energy.

I'm going to stand by my original proposition here, which is that a single 500 MWatt nuclear power plant can be built for around 200 million dollars. I might be off a bit, but not by the orders of magnitude that it sounds like.

So -- I'll reply after a bit more investigation. I wanted to wipe out my previous post. I'll get back after I've studied this whole deal a bit more. (That may take a while, but I might be able to finish tonight.)

Being a citizen of Florida -- a thoroughly corrupt state in many ways -- I'm not surprised that Progress Energy is trying to take advantage of the situation. After I've investigated, if I'm wrong, I'll happily admit it.


[edit on 6-5-2008 by Buck Division]

Originally posted by Shazam The Unbowed
One word olves this problem, "reprocessing". [edit on 5/6/2008 by Shazam The Unbowed]

While I was researching nuclear, I saw an article stating that the US has never built a reprocessing facility. Not sure of the date of the article though. Why would the US never build a facility to save costs of fuel and also reduce waste? Too much money to be made otherwise would be my guess. Very bad decision though thats for sure.

Originally posted by Buck Division
You know -- I'm wiping out my previous reply, which was sort of rolling over and accepting what you said, SystemiK, [snip]
I'm going to be a bit more defiant.

[edit on 6-5-2008 by Buck Division]

No problem Buck, thats what a good discussion is all about. I will say though that you should increase your estimate to at least 1 billion, hell, you could spend easily 100 million just in environmental studies, lobbying, advertising (gotta sell the public on a stack nearby) land, etc. Your 200 million just does not allow much to work with.

Originally posted by jpm1602
That's like leaving your blow dryer on.

Not true. A blow dryer uses about 1000 watts. Your computer uses 300-500 watts depending on your setup.

reply to post by SystemiK

First, I want to thank SystemiK, who earlier challenged me on the cost of Nuclear Power Plants. I originally said that a 500 Megawatt power plant could be built for $200 Million. He pointed me to Progress Energy (in my native state of Florida), which was spending $16 Billion on two power plants with a capacity of around 2 Gigawatts. It’s a big dollar separation, and I was astounded. How could I be so wrong?

Okay. I’ve learned a ton about Nuclear Power Plant construction in the last hour or so. Here are the facts as I see them. As I suspected – Florida is building some really gold-plated and expensive nuclear power plants.

Permit me to introduce you to the Westinghouse AP1000 Nuclear Power Plant:

www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com...

This reactor is certainly the most beautiful and safe nuclear power plant humans can conceive of. And Florida is paying for that, at about $7000 per Kilowatt of capacity. At that price, the cost to build a 500 Megawatt reactor is about $3.5 billion dollars. (To build the 2 Gigawatt complex in Florida is four times more, or about $14 billion dollars.)

Is $7000 per Killowatt hour reasonable? No. The GE ABWR reactor sells for about $1500 dollars per Kilowatt of capacity, which means that a 500 Megawatt reactor would cost around $750 million dollars.

www.gepower.com...

But now – here is what I really don’t understand. This one website, Copyright 2008, says the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor will drop to $1000 per kilowatt of capacity AFTER THE FIRST reactor is built. That places a 500 Megawatt reactor at around the $500 million range, which is at least within range of my original estimation of $200 million. I wasn't too embarrassingly off.

nuclearinfo.net...

So I can only conclude that Florida is – as usual – being stupid. Sometimes I don’t understand why the people I associate with here are very smart – but the state as a whole is really really dumb. Or naïve, or corrupt. It is a big diverse state. **

#

For the record, I will revise my original estimate as follows: for $200 billion dollars, I think we could probably build around 500 nuclear power plants, once we got moving on this project. I will cut my original estimate in half. This would assume that given such a massive project we could reduce the price of reactor construction to around $900 per kilowatt of capacity.

#

I’m very sorry to run so far off topic. It all plays into the economics of energy, which was what the OP was all about. (I became a little obsessive. Thanks for understanding.)

**Edit: Before it is all over, Florida will have spent $80 billion dollars, and the entire facility will be knocked out of operation for five years when the first hurricane strikes the Florida gulf coast. For sure.

[edit on 6-5-2008 by Buck Division]

Originally posted by Buck Division


Being a citizen of Florida --

A fellow resident of the land of milk and honey. Whats up!




[edit on 6-5-2008 by Buck Division]

Originally posted by METACOMET

Wow.

If we could close the fuel cycle concerning nuclear power, why not? My main concern about nuclear problem is the waste. This seems to solve that problem.

Thanks! I'm going to look into what you posted a lot deeper.

No problem. Glad I could show you something interesting.

Originally posted by Buck Division


I think you've nailed something here, Shazam This problem really started with Jimmy Carter, strangely enough.

Strangely enough? Aint that like saying "and strangely enough, vampires drink blood!"?

It is being blocked for the profit of people who are making money off of existing energy sources.

You know I get why people say that. It sounds right. Its an easy answer. But easy answers are usually not good answers.
The truth is most of our energy problem is caused by environmentalism (even the founder of green epace thinks greenpeace are idiots for objecting to nuke power, think about that.), NIMBYism, and plain old human ignorance. Now Im not saying that environmentalists hearts aint in the right place, but thier heads? Their heads are up thier own chocolate starfishes, if you get my point.
See heres why I dont beleive in the NWO.
Cause if you understand how deep human ignorance and selfishness can run, theres no need for grand conspiracies. And if you understand how easy it is for the best of intentions to turn wrong, and horiffically so, you begin to understand why the only successful conspiracies that have ever existed, were carried out by small groups of very, very comitted people.

Originally posted by Shazam The Unbowed
You know I get why people say that. It sounds right. Its an easy answer. The truth is most of our energy problem is caused by environmentalism

Okay -- this sounds crazy, but I contend that the reason we don't have a lot of nuclear power today is mainly because of the Bilderberg group, and the major influence of Robert O. Anderson, President of Atlantic Richfield Oil Company. It is a long story, and I have it documented at the end of the following thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

In that thread, I discuss the point at which we turned away from nuclear energy. It all began with a report created by the Ford Foundation called "A Time To Choose: America's Energy Future".

This report was influenced heavily by meetings of the Bilderberg group, specifically the May 1973 Saltsjoebaden meeting. The main premise of the report: nuclear power plants might lead to nuclear weapons proliferation. The report was a pure fraud -- a successful hoax that permanently damaged the nuclear power industry in this country.

#

The Bilderberg group is highly conservative. But that group also heavy into environmentalism. (So strange that the environmentalists, who hate the oil and energy companies, are actually allied with this mysterious organization)

I believe that the Bilderberg group manipulated the Green Movement to discourage nuclear power in this country, so that the Bilderberg members (which included a lot of energy tycoons) could solidify their control over things. All this was occurring during the big oil crunch during the 1970's, when the price of oil skyrocketed by 400%.

This is all well documented speculation by F. William Engdahl, available here:

earth.prohosting.com...

At the above external link, scroll down until you see the chapter "Taking The Bloom Off The Nuclear Rose", which backs this all up with some really sound evidence. You will be amazed.

The energy companies were losing control. They needed to take steps. One of those steps was to push back on nuclear power. It was a highly successful strategy. It induced incredible fear. Given Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl, two relatively minor (but highly publicized and over-exaggerated) nuclear accidents, the nuclear power industry was stopped for decades.

I understand you will find all of this unbelievable -- but this is one of those strange secrets that sound bizarre, but make perfect sense (at least to me.)

#

So that is it for me tonight. This was an awesome thread you started Shazam. Great work! Flagged!

Edit: To fix spelling.

[edit on 7-5-2008 by Buck Division]

Originally posted by Buck Division


Okay -- this sounds crazy,

No. The human mind has evolved to see patterns. As a result we are really, really good at it. The downside is sometimes, even when they arent there, we still see them. Figuring out if we are seeing a pattern thats there, or one that isn't; well, thats the trick.

but I contend that the reason we don't have a lot of nuclear power today is mainly because of the Bilderberg group, and the major influence of Robert O. Anderson, President of Atlantic Richfield Oil Company. It is a long story, and I have it documented at the end of the following thread.

I will check it out tomorrow. But in the interim, let me just state my general, non-researched (as of yet) feeling on them. I have a lot of trouble beliving The bilderber group could ever be a functional conspiracy, simply because of its size. If we are to believe, as many want us too, that secret NWO meetings have been taking palce at Bilderberg meetings; then we also have to accept that all, or at least most attendees were aware of this. The problem is the atendee list of the Bilderberg group over the last 40 years numbers in the thousands. Add staff, chauffers,. security, personal assistants etc....

Thats a lot of people to be involved ina secret conspiracy. A whole Lot.

There were less than 50 who knew about the 9/11 plans (assuming of course we are discussing the "official version" and yet, if our intelligence services and law enforcement agencies hadn't been hobbled by unescessary rules, we could have seen it coming.
And thats a conspiracy which had less than a tenth of the memebrs of the Bilderberg group that we know of.
Then I add to the mix some of the personalities who have attended at the same time as their ideological opposite and the idea that all these people many of whom hate what the other stands for, over a period of 6-7decades managed to conspire to take over the world secretly?

It seems a stretch. But I am open to other interpertations.

The Bilderberg group is highly conservative. But that group also heavy into environmentalism. (So strange that the environmentalists, who hate the oil and energy companies, are actually allied with this mysterious organization)

OK I will point out, in the name of full disclosure, that I am a hunter. I have always belived that conservatives, many of whom actually spend time int he "wilderness that environmentalists only "march" to save, are probably more honestly described as "environmentalist" than the so called "environmental lobby".
That being said, you just made the point I made earlier.
Look at all the different ideological approaches represented by the Bilderberg group's various "guests" over the years, how likely is it that people that philosophically different could agree on a conspiracy?

Like I said, Ill get into the substance of your post tomorrow. But this is just my intial reaction at hearing Bilderberg.

reply to post by Shazam The Unbowed


look i posted on ATS a very detailed and in depth plan to both neutralize the yellowstone volcano from exploding and also to use it a heat source to power the whole of the usa in addition to using it mass produce free housing from the surplus molton lave which would have been poured into molds.

i was attacked without mercy because everyone was so jealous of the idea.

i even offered them full credit but their all consuming jealousy consumed all their rational thought processes.

i answered every single question.

every single objection.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

all i got was stick in the mud luddites coming up with spurious objections to satisfy their dinosaur egos.

some people can be so jealous that it blinds them that they are willing to die for their stupidity.

well die then.



[edit on 7-5-2008 by esecall

[edit on 7-5-2008 by esecallum]