wapa should go nucl...
 
Notifications
Clear all

wapa should go nuclear

Page 1 / 2
 
stt007
(@stt007)
Advanced Member

well this should be an interesting thread. france gets 80% of its power from nuclear energy. It is the cheapest, cleanest form of energy production. With lower wapa prices nowhere in sight....in fact, the opposite, why not build a small nuclear plant (at the Hovensa site?) to replace the antique power generation systems we have today? I am assuming there are no technical barriers in doing so, only political ones generated by alot of misinformation and political correctness. Nuclear plant technology and safety is so superior to what it once was. The biggest issue I see might be hurricanes but maybe that can be mitigated with today's technology? we do have nuclear plants on the east cost of the US after all.

We need to be working outside the box to solve the problems caused by wapa in the territory. And, we need to change the direction of the economic trend on the islands. ok, let the feathers fly!

I am not a nuclear engineer but I play one on TV, AND I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night.

Quote
Topic starter Posted : February 2, 2013 8:59 pm
AandA2VI
(@AandA2VI)
Trusted Member

IDK man, nuclear power or actually the spent rods scare the S out of me. I would pay double what we pay now in leu of nuclear energy. Maybe I don't know enough about it, haven't really looked into it but it just seems awful, not to mention if something happened on this tiny island I cant imagine the disaster. I think investing in solar, wind and ocean power would be safer and cleaner. I saw this a few months back on nat geo. http://inhabitat.com/underwater-power-generating-ocean-turbines/

Pretty amazing but the health of the ocean also weighs on my mind in to putting anything underwater.

ReplyQuote
Posted : February 2, 2013 9:55 pm
Alana33
(@alana33)
Expert

Yes, USVI should definitely go nuclear since our local Government and WAPA can be trusted to run, maintain and keep us safe at all times.
Ha ha! This was a joke right?

If anyone is concerned about the health of our oceans, read this: http://www.care2.com/causes/waiter-why-does-my-fish-taste-like-plastic.html

ReplyQuote
Posted : February 2, 2013 10:06 pm
Rowdy802
(@Rowdy802)
Trusted Member

... As a former Industrial Radiographer, there is no need to fear nuclear power... One of the suppliers here is a nuclear plant and I pay just over 7 cents per kilowatt where I am at right now...

Don't for one minute think that those fossil fuel plants are that safe.. all the soot they emit etc...

Radiation is safe, very safe... That nice microwave oven in your kitchen is one powerful radiation machine!

Nuclear power is safer and cleaner power even with the issue of spent fuel rods... and nowadays most of those get recycled...

ReplyQuote
Posted : February 2, 2013 11:40 pm
LiquidFluoride
(@LiquidFluoride)
Trusted Member

IDK man, nuclear power or actually the spent rods scare the S out of me. I would pay double what we pay now in leu of nuclear energy.

why does it scare you?

It shouldn't... most radiation hype is just that. hype... Fukushima was nothing, no one died, no one got radiation poisoning, yet if you watch TV it was literally a possible end of the world scenario...

What if radiation was actually good for us and we have been lied to all this time?

Here's a great book on this subject by a Doc. that researched it:
http://www.amazon.com/Underexposed-What-Radiation-Actually-Good/dp/0930073355

This man toured the United States for years eating plutonium on stage, here is one of his very informative presentations:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejCQrOTE-XA

Galen Winsor is a nuclear physicist of renown who worked at, and helped design, nuclear power plants says radiaton is not what we have been told

ReplyQuote
Posted : February 3, 2013 2:23 am
badbee
(@badbee)
Advanced Member

It was said last election year by a senatorial candidate that worked on nuclear subs throughout his carear, that a Decommisioned Nuclear sub stationed at the Hovensa terminal would be capable of meeting the energy needs of St. Croix with ease

ReplyQuote
Posted : February 3, 2013 3:10 am
divinggirl
(@divinggirl)
Trusted Member

I think the nuclear sub is a great idea. The biggest issue I see (besides appropriate management) is hurricanes. If we used a submarine it could just go away for a storm. We are used to losing WAPA during/after storms so it would be the same if the sub took off.
I know this is simplifying it but I think it should be looked into.

ReplyQuote
Posted : February 3, 2013 3:51 am
badbee
(@badbee)
Advanced Member

What makes me angry is the fact of all of these trenches being dug for fiber optic connectivity for higher Broadband speeds in the hopes of luring companies here to use the technology, but meanwhile not realizing the cost's of operating one server here 24/7 at Wapa's 52 cent a kw rate vs 13 cents in CA. This is like a a bridge to nowhere Dejongh needs to resign along with Hugo Hodge.

ReplyQuote
Posted : February 3, 2013 4:11 am
terry
(@terry)
Expert

I wish it would come to be, but it never will!

ReplyQuote
Posted : February 3, 2013 7:52 am
busht
(@busht)
Advanced Member

Nuclear would be great. Instead of keeping the Old Beasts running, WAPA's resources could be refocused to serious upgrades and maintenance of the transmission system, like putting all powerlines underground. Hurricane outages would become history. Anyone with military links here that could get us a sub cheap? Any PR people?

For renewables, storing the energy they produce is a big issue. Here's one solution that we're perfectly suited for. Good luck with the technical terms. Basically, it's a big bag deep off the seawall, that holds pressurized air. The pressure at depth means that the bag can be cheap. This one would need a grant and/or a bill.

Lake or ocean storage

Deep water in lakes and the ocean can provide pressure without requiring high-pressure vessels or drilling into salt caverns or aquifers.[27] The air goes into inexpensive, flexible containers such as plastic bags below in deep lakes or off sea coasts with steep drop-offs. Obstacles include the limited number of suitable locations and the need for high-pressure pipelines between the surface and the containers. Since the containers would be very inexpensive, the need for great pressure (and great depth) may not be as important. A key benefit of systems built on this concept is that charge and discharge pressures are a constant function of depth. Carnot inefficiencies can thereby be reduced in the power plant. Carnot efficiency can be increased by using multiple charge and discharge stages and using inexpensive heat sources and sinks such as cold water from rivers or hot water from solar ponds. Ideally, the system must be very clever—for example, by cooling air before pumping on summer days. It must be engineered to avoid inefficiency, such as wasteful pressure changes caused by inadequate piping diameter.[28]

A nearly isobaric solution is possible if the compressed gas is used to drive a hydroelectric system. However, this solution requires large pressure tanks located on land (as well as the underwater air bags). Also, hydrogen gas is the preferred fluid, since other gases suffer from substantial hydrostatic pressures at even relatively modest depths (such as 500 meters).

The University of Nottingham is one centre of research on seabed–anchored energy bags. E.ON, one of Europe's leading power and gas companies, has provided €1.4 million (£1.1 million) in funding to develop undersea air storage bags.[29] [30] Hydrostor in Canada is developing a commercial system of underwater storage "accumulators" for compressed air energy storage, starting at the 1 to 4 MW scale.[31]

Wiki Air

One of my favorites is Waste-To-Energy. Two problems, one solution. Alpine, with one big plant, wasn't the answer. A few small plants scattered around, just as the bin sites are now, would be perfect. Redundancy, lower transportation costs, and distributing the load helps the grid all the time, for everyday use and for emergencies. That's one big problem - anyone know when WAPA was last able to let the main system take a break to get fixed? Upgraded? That old generating system is the government's longest-working employee. Time for it to retire and make way for technology that's better-suited for us, so that our energy becomes more local, not dependent on outside sources.

ReplyQuote
Posted : February 3, 2013 12:55 pm
noOne
(@noOne)
Trusted Member

Pebble bed reactor

The core generates less power as its temperature rises, and therefore cannot have a criticality excursion when the machinery fails. It is power-limited or inherently self controlling due to Doppler broadening. At such low power densities, the reactor can be designed to lose more heat through its walls than it would generate. In order to generate much power it has to be cooled, and then the energy is extracted from the coolant.

What that means is that it can't "melt down."

ReplyQuote
Posted : February 3, 2013 1:50 pm
loucypher
(@loucypher)
Advanced Member

I doubt this would ever happen because of the potential environmental impact. The water needed to cool the reactor would be discharged into the caribbean sea at temperatures that might kill reefs and other aquatic life. The entire ecosystem could be destroyed and there goes tourism. Upgrading to something from this century is the answer. Their generating equipment is a Ford Model T. Besides, would you really trust WAPA with a 100 megaton nuclear bomb on STX?;)

ReplyQuote
Posted : February 3, 2013 3:55 pm
loungestx
(@loungestx)
Advanced Member

It would probably be cheaper faster and safer to connect to the grid.

ReplyQuote
Posted : February 3, 2013 4:43 pm
Rowdy802
(@Rowdy802)
Trusted Member

I doubt this would ever happen because of the potential environmental impact. The water needed to cool the reactor would be discharged into the Caribbean sea at temperatures that might kill reefs and other aquatic life. The entire ecosystem could be destroyed and there goes tourism. 😉

... Your wink leads to me believe that your are kidding but, just in case someone here gets confused, the water inside the reactor stays inside and never ever gets dumped... If for any reason it has to be removed, it is handled just like radioactive waste...

I can understand some people might be afraid of radiation thanks to the nuclear bombs... Fact is, life is full of radiation. We get it from the sun every day, the cell phone, the sidewalk, cinder blocks and concrete wall, radioactive fallout from all those nuclear explosions (yes, we are still getting fallout from Hiroshima), and even when you are sitting inside that airplane up in the sky you are getting "bombarded" with it, just to name a few...

Medicine wouldn't be where it is today without it!

ReplyQuote
Posted : February 3, 2013 4:54 pm
Future Islander
(@Future_Islander)
Advanced Member

Sorry, but loucypher is right.

Although the cooling water, directly contained in the nuclear plant, is never released, the heat is transferred to an outside medium (usually water). In NJ we have the oldest operating nuclear plant in the country (Oyster Creek). The excess heat, from the reactor, is transferred to Barnegat Bay, thus warming the immediate area of the bay. In winter, should the plant shut down, thousands of fish die because of the sudden decrease in water temperature.

ReplyQuote
Posted : February 3, 2013 5:36 pm
loucypher
(@loucypher)
Advanced Member

I doubt this would ever happen because of the potential environmental impact. The water needed to cool the reactor would be discharged into the Caribbean sea at temperatures that might kill reefs and other aquatic life. The entire ecosystem could be destroyed and there goes tourism. 😉

... Your wink leads to me believe that your are kidding but, just in case someone here gets confused, the water inside the reactor stays inside and never ever gets dumped... If for any reason it has to be removed, it is handled just like radioactive waste...

I can understand some people might be afraid of radiation thanks to the nuclear bombs... Fact is, life is full of radiation. We get it from the sun every day, the cell phone, the sidewalk, cinder blocks and concrete wall, radioactive fallout from all those nuclear explosions (yes, we are still getting fallout from Hiroshima), and even when you are sitting inside that airplane up in the sky you are getting "bombarded" with it, just to name a few...

Medicine wouldn't be where it is today without it!

Sorry. Not kidding. And where do you think they're going to get the funding for such a project? Increasing your electric bill? And correct me if I'm wrong. The reason nuclear plants are next to rivers and large bodies of water is because why? The water is used for cooling or was all the controversy over nukes in the 70's and 80's was BS?
P.S. Open your cell phone and let us know if you find any enriched uranium 235 releasing toxic level rads into your head.

ReplyQuote
Posted : February 3, 2013 5:51 pm
terry
(@terry)
Expert

Our nuclear plant here in AZ is in the desert! Not a problem. It is the old type. the new one are much more efficent and safer.
The tree huggers will never let it happen on STX or if they can help it, nowhere else.

ReplyQuote
Posted : February 3, 2013 8:53 pm
Rowdy802
(@Rowdy802)
Trusted Member

OOOOOooookey... I am not even going to answer to that and stop posting here... I was only trying to bring the fact that radiation is not that bad... that it is part of our lives... Anyway... Bye...

ReplyQuote
Posted : February 3, 2013 9:00 pm
stt007
(@stt007)
Advanced Member

I heard there is one spotted owl fish swimming off Hovensa and Lucifer doesn't want it to die when the water temp goes from 72 to 73 degrees. It is better that human beings running businesses should go under from exorbitant Wapa charges and everyone pay through the nose for power than we hurt that one itty bitty fish. Gotta love these proponents of the human race subverting itself for the sake of the superior fish race. I'm a tree hugger vegetarian who is saddened everytime I see the tears from a broccoli plant when I eat it. We are so mean to these living plants. And I can't be mean to fish by eating them either. I don't know what to do except starve and die. I am in such a quandary. May Wapa live long and proper along with "Horace the lonely spotted owl fish". Coming soon to a movie theatre near you.

ReplyQuote
Topic starter Posted : February 3, 2013 9:07 pm
loucypher
(@loucypher)
Advanced Member

I heard there is one spotted owl fish swimming off Hovensa and Lucifer doesn't want it to die when the water temp goes from 72 to 73 degrees. It is better that human beings running businesses should go under from exorbitant Wapa charges and everyone pay through the nose for power than we hurt that one itty bitty fish. Gotta love these proponents of the human race subverting itself for the sake of the superior fish race. I'm a tree hugger vegetarian who is saddened everytime I see the tears from a broccoli plant when I eat it. We are so mean to these living plants. And I can't be mean to fish by eating them either. I don't know what to do except starve and die. I am in such a quandary. May Wapa live long and proper along with "Horace the lonely spotted owl fish". Coming soon to a movie theatre near you.

Maybe you can sit on ice cream blindfolded and tell us what flavor it is. Don't hurt your self trying to figure that one out. Wanna be condescending? I'm up for it. Ignorance is bliss isn't it.

ReplyQuote
Posted : February 3, 2013 10:57 pm
Yearasta
(@Yearasta)
Trusted Member
vicanuck
(@vicanuck)
Expert

I heard on NPR this morning that the US government is moving forward with the manufacturing and licensing of small nuclear reactors.

http://www.npr.org/2013/02/04/170482802/are-mini-reactors-the-future-of-nuclear-power

I have no problem with nuclear energy whatsoever.

Having WAPA manage it is another issue entirely.

ReplyQuote
Posted : February 4, 2013 12:15 pm
stt007
(@stt007)
Advanced Member

It is easy to criticize Wapa, and from the outside looking in they appear dysfunctional, but we must look at a couple of facts. They are dealing with a very poor infrastructure , e.g. defective cable installed after Marilyn. We pay the price for gradual replacement of that bad cable everyday. Also antiquated power generation systems and equipment. Could Wapa have done things better or differently? Of course. Were they not allowed to invest in upgrades they wanted to but the government wouldn't let them? i dont know but I would guess yes. Defending Wapa is a lonely job..... and I'm not really trying to do that here. Just trying to look at both sides. Piling on is an easy thing to do.

ReplyQuote
Topic starter Posted : February 4, 2013 1:00 pm
terry
(@terry)
Expert

Dieigo (? Captain Morgan ) new generator will produce power at approx. $.09 per kw. The people who are installing it tried to talk to WAPA about a system for them and was told NOT INTERESTED!

ReplyQuote
Posted : February 4, 2013 3:25 pm
Alana33
(@alana33)
Expert

Years ago when we had the opportunity to have WAPA purchased by Southern Energy, our illustrious Senators TURNED THEM DOWN.
They didn't want any outsiders coming in to tell them how to run ting!

I don't trust our Government leaders or WAPA leadership (ha! I use that word tongue in cheek) to properly run, maintain or oversee anything. Look at the messes they have already created, our poor infrastructure and services. We pay thru the nose to live here and
get very little for our taxes dollars except to have our money misused, misspent, mismanaged, misappropriated, wasted, and stolen.

It shall only get worse without regular audits from the soon to be disbanded Office of the Inspector General.

ReplyQuote
Posted : February 4, 2013 3:40 pm
Page 1 / 2
Close Menu