Pat, I couldn't view the video despite changing browser settings. Maybe I fat-fingered something. I'll keep trying.
I was able to read some of the comments that followed. In doing so, I came across a reference to a "Travelling-Wave Reactor" (TWR) that breeds its fuel at the same time (or almost at the same time) that it consumes it. Was this the presentation that Bill Gates gave in the video? If so, then this completely eliminates all arguments surrounding spent-fuel. Regards, Edgar On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 9:36 PM, Pat Naughtin < [email protected]> wrote: > Dear Stan, > > I think that this talk by Bill Gates will interest you. > > http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html > > Cheers, > > Pat Naughtin > Author of the ebook, *Metrication Leaders Guide,* that you can obtain > from http://metricationmatters.com/MetricationLeadersGuideInfo.html > PO Box 305 Belmont 3216, > Geelong, Australia > Phone: 61 3 5241 2008 > > Metric system consultant, writer, and speaker, Pat Naughtin, has helped > thousands of people and hundreds of companies upgrade to the modern metric > system smoothly, quickly, and so economically that they now save thousands > each year when buying, processing, or selling for their businesses. Pat > provides services and resources for many different trades, crafts, and > professions for commercial, industrial and government metrication leaders in > Asia, Europe, and in the USA. Pat's clients include the Australian > Government, Google, NASA, NIST, and the metric associations of Canada, the > UK, and the USA. See http://www.metricationmatters.com > <http://www.metricationmatters.com/>for > more metrication information, contact Pat at > [email protected] or to get the free '*Metrication > matters*' newsletter go to: http://www.metricationmatters.com/newsletter to > subscribe. > > On 2010/02/19, at 11:08 , Stanislav Jakuba wrote: > > This is about the growth of the annual bills for electricity. Electricity > rate has about doubled for me in the last few years. I though we were > supposed to experience lower rates enabled by harvesting renewable ("free") > energies. > > As we all know, the U.S. has been investing in the sources of "free" > electricity, mainly from the wind and direct solar technologies, the > latter meaning the photovoltaic and thermal "power" plants. We also know > that the investments have been heavily subsidized by the state and federal > governments, i.e. taxpayers who also paid for the gov't offices and > overseers. And financed also by the clean-energy-promoting groups that > collect money from various additional sources such as the extra > payments utilities were legislated to add to our monthly bills. > > You may have noticed that your utility bill GREW with the availability of > the FREE energy, not declined. Maybe it grew as much as mine which about > doubled in just 8 years. See the attached Excel graph. The rate on the graph > is simply the billed amount divided by the consumption, and it is shown in > both $/kW·h and $/GJ. As such, the rate includes the delivery and "other" > charges, among the latter ones being the aforementioned additional fee > titled on my bill as the *Combined Public Benefits Charge.* > > In light of this, would you like to support buying more electricity from > these FREE-energy sources? I would not. My billed rate almost doubled as > said when the proportion of electricity delivered by the two sources grew > from 0.30 % to 0.85 % of the total U.S. electricity generation. The growth > of the 0.55 % in some 7 years cost us dearly - see the graph. Imagine what > the monthly bill will be when that portion reaches over 10 %! (Fortunately, > it is unlikely to do so; seehttp://energy.sigmaxi.org/?p=743 .) > > Some think that it is okay to impoverish poor people further by producing > expensive electricity just BECAUSE it is CLEAN (low on CO2). Beware that > none of the wind and direct-solar plants will ever save more CO2 than their > manufacture, erection, maintenance and dismantling generated, not to mention > the cost of manufacture and installation of the wiring to the remote > locations. And add to it the cost of the extra controls utilities must > install. > > Is there a "clean" alternative? The average nuclear plant returns its > carbon debt in 6 years and last many times longer than the renewable > competition. Their output grew also in last years. The growth was achieved > by routine improvements in the existing 3- and 4-decades old plants at > essentially zero rate change. Those improvements, negligible in cost, > resulted in the increase of electricity production TWICE as great as the > increase from installing all the additional wind and solar plants. > > For reference, here are the average annual outputs for 2007 (as finalized > in 2009): > Electricity - all sources 437 GW > Electricity - wind and solar only 3.7 GW > Percentage of total electricity 0.85 % > Percentage of total U.S. energy 0.11 % > Electricity - nuclear plants only 92 GW > Percentage of total electricity 21 % > Annual growth in electricity consumption ~50 GW (compare with the 3.7 GW > above). > > To adhere to the spirit of my membership in the U.S.Metric Association, the > annual output is in watts. > Stan Jakuba > PS: A pleasing coincidence: I just heard on the radio that Pres. Obama is > reverting his stance on nuclear energy and will "allow" building new nuclear > plants in the U.S. > > <zzz.xls> > > >
