Alert: Blackouts May Be Imposed on Heartland America This Summer
The power grid of heartland America could be at risk over the next several months.
Federal energy officials announced that parts of the central U.S. might have to impose rotating blackouts on the hottest days of the summer, according to
Reuters.
Extreme weather is already causing more challenges for power grids across America. With heat and droughts, officials are concerned.
https://www.westernjournal.com/alert-bla...WKN82hbci8
We're slowly becoming a third world country..
But ya know, orange man bad, mean tweets blah blah blah..
(06-05-2022, 12:08 PM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]We're slowly becoming a third world country..
But ya know, orange man bad, mean tweets blah blah blah..
It's not all that slow really.
We need more nuclear power plants.
Can we please refrain from bringing a racial undertone to these types of issues. Personally, I see no color. As such, we should refer to these as "Darkouts"
(06-05-2022, 01:30 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]Can we please refrain from bringing a racial undertone to these types of issues. Personally, I see no color. As such, we should refer to these as "Darkouts"
You clearly need some wite out here.
(06-05-2022, 01:30 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]Can we please refrain from bringing a racial undertone to these types of issues. Personally, I see no color. As such, we should refer to these as "Darkouts"
I guess 'rolling brownouts' won't work either.
(06-05-2022, 12:20 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]We need more nuclear power plants.
They need to be in the mix, that's for certain. Put them in a remote enough location, say, in the middle of Nevada or New Mexico somewhere, and then just live with the large transmission losses that are going to occur to get the power to the immediate grids. The energy will still be cheaper than any coal/oil/nat gas strategy out there, and MUCH more reliable than solar/wind. States that are too urbanized to feel comfortable with nukes can import power from adjoining power companies/conglomerates that are more rural. It's sad that this is even on the table as a 'strategy' tho. When I worked for the electric utility here in Jax, a blackout as a load balancing strategy was the worst thing that could possibly happen; dispatchers got demoted as a result of not being able to prevent a blackout
(06-06-2022, 01:46 AM)NewJagsCity Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2022, 12:20 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]We need more nuclear power plants.
They need to be in the mix, that's for certain. Put them in a remote enough location, say, in the middle of Nevada or New Mexico somewhere, and then just live with the large transmission losses that are going to occur to get the power to the immediate grids. The energy will still be cheaper than any coal/oil/nat gas strategy out there, and MUCH more reliable than solar/wind. States that are too urbanized to feel comfortable with nukes can import power from adjoining power companies/conglomerates that are more rural. It's sad that this is even on the table as a 'strategy' tho. When I worked for the electric utility here in Jax, a blackout as a load balancing strategy was the worst thing that could possibly happen; dispatchers got demoted as a result of not being able to prevent a blackout
The problem is the vast majority of people do not understand nuclear power.
It's just steam people. Yes, there are rods that superheat the water to create steam - it's not fission going on in the freaking plant... it's just radioactive pellets in tubes that get super hot and makes water boil.
Very simple, very easy - and no melt downs will ever happen again.
(06-06-2022, 09:18 AM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ] (06-06-2022, 01:46 AM)NewJagsCity Wrote: [ -> ]They need to be in the mix, that's for certain. Put them in a remote enough location, say, in the middle of Nevada or New Mexico somewhere, and then just live with the large transmission losses that are going to occur to get the power to the immediate grids. The energy will still be cheaper than any coal/oil/nat gas strategy out there, and MUCH more reliable than solar/wind. States that are too urbanized to feel comfortable with nukes can import power from adjoining power companies/conglomerates that are more rural. It's sad that this is even on the table as a 'strategy' tho. When I worked for the electric utility here in Jax, a blackout as a load balancing strategy was the worst thing that could possibly happen; dispatchers got demoted as a result of not being able to prevent a blackout
The problem is the vast majority of people do not understand nuclear power.
It's just steam people. Yes, there are rods that superheat the water to create steam - it's not fission going on in the freaking plant... it's just radioactive pellets in tubes that get super hot and makes water boil.
Very simple, very easy - and no melt downs will ever happen again.
Yeah, I used to find it funny back in the 90's that friends would ask me how I could possibly support nuclear power when all those radioactive electrons would be entering the house and frying us all slowly. I would then make some offhand comment about how that brick sized mobile phone they owned wasn't real good for the cranial cells. At which point, they usually replied 'Huh?' and then went on discussing the latest 90210 episode. At that point, I decided to get smarter friends.
One error in the above; fission does occur in the core, via the fuel rods, to release energy, which boils the water and creates the steam which powers the turbines which induces the current which is stepped up in voltage to as high as 500kV (here in the USA) and then stepped down to a friendly 120/208V at your place of work or residence. Otherwise, you are spot on.
(06-06-2022, 09:18 AM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ] (06-06-2022, 01:46 AM)NewJagsCity Wrote: [ -> ]They need to be in the mix, that's for certain. Put them in a remote enough location, say, in the middle of Nevada or New Mexico somewhere, and then just live with the large transmission losses that are going to occur to get the power to the immediate grids. The energy will still be cheaper than any coal/oil/nat gas strategy out there, and MUCH more reliable than solar/wind. States that are too urbanized to feel comfortable with nukes can import power from adjoining power companies/conglomerates that are more rural. It's sad that this is even on the table as a 'strategy' tho. When I worked for the electric utility here in Jax, a blackout as a load balancing strategy was the worst thing that could possibly happen; dispatchers got demoted as a result of not being able to prevent a blackout
The problem is the vast majority of people do not understand nuclear power.
It's just steam people. Yes, there are rods that superheat the water to create steam - it's not fission going on in the freaking plant... it's just radioactive pellets in tubes that get super hot and makes water boil.
Very simple, very easy - and no melt downs will ever happen again.
You've got some of the terms of art wrong but it is correct to say that nuclear power is safe. Both Chernobyl and Fukushima were older designs that allowed some of the water touching the fuel rods to be at atmospheric pressure. Massive amounts of radiation were released, people died, and permanent exclusion zones were created after those incident. Meanwhile, here, Three Mile Island was a pressurized water system. When the plant had its emergency shut down, only hydrogen was released, the radiation was minimal, no one died, and no permanent exclusion zone was needed. Any new reactor built would be even safer than three mile island.
The problem with the Chernobyl RBMK-1000 reactors was a positive void coefficient and graphite tipped control rods.