Comments on: Sunflowerâ€™s partner eyes nuclear

By: Kev

Kev — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 02:46:29 +0000

“”"Colorado might consider a clean nuclear plant int their state if they can’t get Kansas to build a dirty coal plant for them. Interesting.”"”

I agree. I guess they think Kansas is good nuff to build a polluting filthy coal plant in but the big luxurious nuke plant goes to Colorado! Maybe that is because they know that they cannot shove a dirty coal plant down the throats of folks in Colorado. This is just another example of corporate Republican America. A bunch of liars, thieves and sleazeballs!

By: BlueJay

BlueJay — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 01:58:29 +0000

“Why not just let the lights go out. No solution other than living in the freaking dark is good enough for some folks.?

Ya know this is funny.

I don’t remember ever hearing of any brownouts or blackouts in Kansas or Colorado. This true EVEN when the Wolf Creek reactor was offline.

This nuclear plant suffers the same deficiency as the coal plant. Neither are demostrably needed.

By: bth

bth — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:46:00 +0000

Nathan - quick question. As I recall you are familiar with the ‘microsphere’ technology for nukes. Does that require water for cooling?

By: bth

bth — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:44:58 +0000

regular - that just might not be such a bad idea.

By: Nathaniel

Nathaniel — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:42:28 +0000

Ah yes typical liberal government problems…

Regulate something to the point of absurdity so that it costs too much and then complain about the cost of doing it.

By: Regular

Regular — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:24:21 +0000

Let the French build the nuke plants, they need the contracts…

By: bth

bth — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:16:21 +0000

A relatively low-cost subsidy might be for the government to provide the fuel via the mechanism I propose above. Since we already have all of the material stored as waste the cost would be much less than if we had to go out and get it.

By: Maggotpunk

Maggotpunk — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:10:13 +0000

I’m all for nuclear, as long as the energy companies pay for it and don’t expect taxpayer subsidies. But that’ll never happen. One reason “fiscal conservative” McCain won’t sign onto Lieberman’s climate bill is because there aren’t billions of subsidies for nuclear power. No doubt Tri-State Generation is looking for those big corporate welfare checks.

By: Phantom

Phantom — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:10:14 +0000

Guess if Kansas isn’t willing to build a coal plant for Colorado and Oklahoma businesses, we’re just anti-business.

By: ghotiphaze

ghotiphaze — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:01:22 +0000

remember, to cause cooling you have to heat the air. Run your refrigerator with the door open and the temperature of the room gets unbearably hot QUICK. That energy has to come from somewhere (2nd thermodynamics) to run the coolers, supposedly from the energy generated from the coal/nuc. Running the closed loop system like that doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Evap is economically feasible only because the ambient temp is free.

Did kinda hunt for water usage on nuke vs coal. They seem to be nearly a push. And waste appears to be a push, too, as coal ash concentrates the radioactive traces in coal.

By: bth

bth — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:53:15 +0000

fish - I think they have some new air-cooling methods available. Also, with co-gen technologies we might be able to actually use some of that heat.

By: ghotiphaze

ghotiphaze — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:48:02 +0000

bth, usage may not be near zero. Cooling is accomplished by evaporation. Maybe designs have changed over the years–I can forsee using a vast reservoir underground and just circulate the water for cooling. Since this wouldn’t be near as efficient as evap, it’d have to be one monster reservoir, though

By: ksfarmgrrl

ksfarmgrrl — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:28:26 +0000

So.. that is why Colorado is less opposed to nuke than coal? Build the water sucking coal plant in Kansas, but if it’s nukes, and it uses less water, they dont mind building it in Colorado.

Exactly HOW MANY bites at the water apple will Kansas give to Colorado?

By: bth

bth — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:24:50 +0000

ksfg - I would expect a well-designed nuke to use less water than coal. In fact, it would seem that they should be able to close the loops and make the water useage nearly zero.

By: ksfarmgrrl

ksfarmgrrl — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:15:46 +0000

I guess this is what happens when you have an AG who cares about things OTHER than abortion? He has time to try and collect from Colorado and Nebraska. NEITHER of which have paid Kansas what they owe for water they held behind their state lines.

Maybe THIS is why they are willing to build a nuke and not coal? Do nukes take less water?

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CO_ARKANSAS_RIVER_KSOL-?SITE=KSSAL&SECTION=STATE&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

By: ksfarmgrrl

ksfarmgrrl — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:09:32 +0000

“Because them building a nuclear plant in colorful Colorado is just slightly less likely to fly than their unwanted Holcomb coal plant.”

Good. Let their wingnuts tie up the entire Colorado legislative session doing nothing but twisting arms on behalf of big coal. Or big nukes, or something.

Let’s see THEM waste all that money and time serving special interests. And lets see the Kansas legislature get busy on the real problems in the state.

By: littlejohn

littlejohn — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:03:37 +0000

Why not just let the lights go out. No solution other than living in the freaking dark is good enough for some folks.

By: bth

bth — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 13:45:45 +0000

BlueJay - that is a definite concern. While I believe the technology is sound I do have a real ‘low-bidder syndrome’ concern.

By: BlueJay

BlueJay — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 13:16:05 +0000

Best to be careful in going with more nuclear plants.

DO remember who would be building them.

The lowest bid contractor with the cheapest illegal labor.

Not a comfortable thought.

By: Phantom

Phantom — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 13:11:55 +0000

Colorado might consider a clean nuclear plant int their state if they can’t get Kansas to build a dirty coal plant for them. Interesting.

By: ghotiphaze

ghotiphaze — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 13:10:33 +0000

I’ve never been convinced on nuclear–as long as it’s fission. Now if they ever get fusion going…

By: Kev

Kev — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 12:55:34 +0000

Why not build it in Kansas? Nuclear is the way to go!

By: bth

bth — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 12:26:41 +0000

IF everything is done correctly I could support a nuclear facility. I’d still want to see conservation and efficiency done first; however, as Senator Morris points out we also have the issue of the older dirtier coal-fired plants to consider. Perhaps it is time to begin to phase them out in favor of nuclear.

When I look at nuclear I’d like to see more focus on ‘recycling’ nuclear material. Take the de-commissioned warheads and back-mix their high-level material with depleted uranium to degrade it fo fuel-grade. We could put together a ‘no-net-mew-nuclear-waste’ system.

By: BlueJay

BlueJay — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 12:12:28 +0000

Does Sunflower just enjoy being REALLY unpopular?

Because them building a nuclear plant in colorful Colorado is just slighly less likely to fly than their unwanted Holcomb coal plant.

They don’t seem to get it. Conservation, clean energy, new ideas. This is what the people want.

Oh. I guess Sunflower can’t make any money on that.

Oh well.