2007-09-19 00:53:33 · 5 answers · asked by paulbrimmeier 1 in Environment ➔ Green Living
Go to www.uspto.gov and enter patent number 5,430,333.
There you will see pollution free electric power able to be built to be more than 1000 times that of our largest Nuclear Reactor!
Plant Vogtle, our last Nuclear Reactor makes only 930 megawatts.
The first generation “baby” power plants from this new technology makes 1000 megawatts.
Vogtle cost $10 billion, 30 years ago.
These new power plants cost $2.5 billion in today’s money.
Vogtle is about to be retired, as are all our other Nuclear plants.
All the fueled power plants only have about a 30 life span.
The power plant design you will see at patent office site live well 100 years.
They burn NO fuel what so ever!
It costs more to demolish a Nuclear plant than to build one new!
The spent Nuclear fuel has a 25,000 year storage problem with no solution yet, and a tremendous cost that defies accurate estimation due to the very long time frame.
Nuclear power has been estimated to cost more $50.00 per kilowatt hour when the demolition and storage costs are applied.
Guess who gets to foot that bill, the tax payer!
Being fuel-less the design you see at the patent office has a cost of about 3 cents per kilowatt hour.
Coal fired power plants make 8 lbs of air pollution to run 100 watt light bulb for an hour.
There are NO cost estimations for the clean up of all that pollution.
We keep seeing in the news about coal miners dieing in cave-ins.
With the high cost of electric power being hidden for so long by our politicians using their abysmally poor judgment to allow this to happen in the first place. Then compounding the problem with their constant lying about it to all of us, and the problem now coming to light despite their best efforts to lie and hide it. We are now stuck with the costs of their abysmally poor judgment after their being “paid” by big power to lie to us about the scope of this problem for decades.
Call all your elected official state, local, and federal. Tell them you want the pollution free electric power you saw at the patent office web site! Tell them to get off their assets and get moving on making pollution free and cheaper electric power happen ASAP!
Or swallow their lies so more until our nation is so polluted our children die younger than ever before. Cancer is running rampant everywhere, it comes from all the pollution our elected officials are allowing to be spewed into “our” environment every day. It time to put pollution into it’s proper place, “THE PAST”!
We now have the technology, we can build it, it’s 100% clean, and the electric power is cheaper than ANY fueled power plant.
2007-09-19 09:56:20 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yes, the corn burning furnace IS cheaper in the long run than natural gas. It is called a pelletized fuel furnace, and produces less pollution than a natural gas furnace. Corn is cheap, especially field corn which is used as feed for livestock. The other advantage is that you, if need be could grow your own corn, whereas you would be dependent on the gas company for fuel should you go with a gas fired furnace.
Gas prices (Including natural gas) are high, and the gas company can ALWAYS raise the prices even higher, making their C.E.O's and stock holders a fortune at your expense. Besides, a pelletized fuel furnace doesn't have to burn just corn. Hemp seeds, which are used as an ingredient in bird foods can also be used without much problem.
Once the furnace is fired, a hopper, or automatic feed system dumps a small amount of pelletized fuel into the furnace in small amounts, keeping the heat steady. The burn can also be controlled by a set of dampers (Doors which can be opened or closed in increments) which limit the amount of oxygen available to the fuel, and thus control how much heat is put out.
Congratulations on thinking of an alternative fuel furnace, and thanks for thinking of the environment. Best of luck!!!
2007-09-19 09:17:30 · answer #2 · answered by Darqblade 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
That depends on how high the price of corn goes, given the increasing demand for ethanol.
It also depends upon how close you live to a reliable source of corn suitable for your furnace.
2007-09-20 12:51:41 · answer #3 · answered by Sim - plicimus 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Here is an article that compares the costs.
http://www.bbe.umn.edu/extens/energy/cornburners.html
Using their numbers burning corn would be cheaper if you can get it for less than $3 a bushel.
2007-09-19 08:08:12 · answer #4 · answered by meg 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
it all depends on what corn is going for at the time it is a traded commodity and the price varies
2007-09-21 01:47:38 · answer #5 · answered by crazy_devil_dan 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋