Google Search Options

Troia Vakfı -

Troia Vakfı -

Posted using ShareThis

Sürdürülebilir Gelecek İçin Çözümler

Sürdürülebilir Gelecek İçin Çözümler



Sürdürülebilir Gelecek İçin Çözümler
09.04.2010

160 yılı aşkın süredir 190 ülkeye yayılan operasyonlarımızla sizlere, yenilikçi teknolojilerimiz, çevreci portföyümüz ve kapsamlı uzmanlık deneyimimizle daha iyi rekabet edebilmenizi sağlayacak hizmetler sunuyoruz.
Bu hizmetleri sunarken en önemli önceliğimiz sürdürülebilirlik. Sürekli değişen ekonomik ve ekolojik yenilenme karşısında sunduğumuz ürün ve çözümlerle ihtiyaçlarınıza yanıt vermeye çalışırken bunun sürdürülebilir olmasına dikkat ediyoruz. Enerjiyi verimli kullanan, dayanıklı ürün ve çözümlerimizle dünya ekonomisine daha fazla katkı sağlamayı hedefliyoruz.
İşte bu nedenlerledir ki; dünyanın karşı karşıya olduğu zorluklara her zaman hazırlıklıyız. Siemens olarak, gelecekte de dünyanın daha sürdürülebilir bir yer olması için yoğun bir şekilde çalışmaya devam edeceğiz. Tabii ki her zaman olduğu gibi yine sizlerle birlikte.
Answers for sustainability.

Ayrıntılı bilgi içinhttp://www.siemens.com.tr/surdurulebilirlik

YGS soru ve cevapları saat 15:00'de açıklandı

YGS soru ve cevapları saat 15:00'de açıklandı

Yükseköğretime Giriş Sınavı başladı. İlk kez yapılan sınava 1 milyon 512 bin 450 aday katılıyor

Tek oturum olarak gerçekleştirilecek sınavda 4 test uygulanıyor. Üniversite adaylarına 160 soru yöneltildi ve sınavı tamamlamaları için 160 dakika süre verildi.

YGS sona erdi.

ÖSYM'den edinilen bilgiye göre, bugün yapılacak Yükseköğretime Geçiş Sınavı'nın (YGS) soru ve cevapları saat 15.00'te ''http://ygs2010-sorular.osym.gov.tr'' internet adresinde açıklandı.

share

New York takes another swing at Indian Point

by Dan Yurman on 04/04/2010 11:12
Categories: Nuclear Power
Tags: entergy, indian point

The State of New York denied a water quality permit to Entergy’s Indian Point nuclear power station saying it’s once through cooling system kills too many fish.

You knew it was coming. In January the State of New Jersey issued a draft water quality permit to the Oyster Creek nuclear plant demanding that Exelon (NYSE:EXC), its owner, replace the once through cooling system with a $600-800 million cooling tower to protect fish in Barnegat Bay. Now in a copy cat move, the State of New York on April 2 denied a water quality permit under the Clean Water Act to Entergy”s (NYSE:ETR)Indian Point nuclear plants located on the Hudson River about 35 miles north of New York City. The action isn’t final as Entergy has 30 days to request a public hearing on the issue.

According to local news media in the lower Hudson region, the 23-page letter was sent late Friday April 2. It reportedly says the permit is denied because the plant harms shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon, an endangered species, when they are pulled against intake screens for the cooling system which uses 2.5 billion gallons a day. The water is returned to the Hudson 20-to-30 degrees warmer.

The denial of the permit is a potential roadblock to relicensing the two reactors at the Indian Point plant. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requires all state environmental permits to be in place, and the plant in compliance, before it will extend the licenses for the two reactors for another 20 years. The plant licenses expire in 2013 and 2015.

In its letter, the New York state Department of Environmental Conservation wrote that because Indian Point is causing “fish mortality,” the plant is “not in compliance.”

This is exactly the type of fulcrum for political leverage that environmental groups likeRiverkeeper have been seeking for years. Their objective, which now appears to be reaching its intended conclusion, is to impose regulatory burdens on the plant that make it too expensive to operate forcing Entergy to shut it down rather than pass along the costs to stockholders.

The political environment in New York is so hostile to the power station that there is no certainty even if Entergy agreed to build the cooling towers that the state Public Utility Commission would allow the firm to recover the costs from rate payers. Last month the state’s utility regulatory agency rejected a financial plan submitted by Entergy to spin-off six nuclear reactors into a new merchant corporation. The staff wrote in a letter to the commission the plan had too much debt and was not in the public interest.

Cost of cooling towers

Entergy said in a series of statements to the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal that new cooling towers, which would support a closed loop system, would cost $1 billion and take the plant out of operation for as long as 42 weeks. Permit approvals could take years before the the first shovel of dirt was moved to build them.

In New Jersey Exelon officials made no bones about their response to the cooling tower issue. A spokesman for the firm said at a public hearing it would close the plant taking its 600+ MW of carbon emission free power permanently offline. By comparison, according to the Energy Information Administration, the two reactors at Indian Point provide three times this amount of electricity at 2,045 MW with a capacity factor of 97%. If Entergy chose to close the plants rather than build the cooling towers, the electricity supplied to the New York city region would also have to come from fossil sources.

Is this really about fish?

According to the Wall Street Journal, Alex Matthiessen, (right) president of Riverkeeper, said the power generated from Indian Point “is replaceable,” but he did not say from what sources. In a more telling comment to the New York Times, he said, “For all we know, this is it – the beginning of the end.”

Entergy spokesperson Jim Steets told a lower Hudson newspaper, “We disagree with the findings.” He declined to say anything further except that the letter has been turned over to the firm’s lawyers for review.

At the heart of the disputes in New Jersey and New York is the question of what constitutes “best available technology” for preventing fish kills with once through cooling systems. Cost effectiveness is a critical component of the finding required by the Clean Water Act. In New Jersey, until this year, prior efforts to impose cooling towers on Oyster Creek have been found to be financially onerous. However, the new administration of Gov Chris Chistie has other things on its mind like a mind boggling budget deficit. The cooling tower issue for Oyster Creek has been put on a back burner.

This is not the case in New York. There State Attorney GeneralAndrew Cuomo, (right) a leading candidate for governor, hasfiled multiple contentions with the NRC opposing the renewal of the operating licenses for the two reactors. The difference in New York is that the focused political ambitions of a top state official are driving the attacks on continued operation of the plant.

Cuomo knows he needs the “green” vote to win the election. His efforts to put roadblocks in the path to license renewal for Indian Point are designed to win those votes. Neither the green groups nor Cuomo seem to have given any thought to the cost of the replacement power imposed on rate payers or the fact that it will come from fossil sources.

Entergy may yet prevail either as a result of a public hearing or in court, citing evidence that improved fish screens are far more cost effective than a $1 billion set of cooling towers. The Clean Water Act was never intended to be a bludgeon to be used in defense of sturgeon. In the meantime, the NRC licensing process still has a way to go. Stay tuned.

# # #

Idaho Samizdat ~ http://djysrv.blogspot.com

 

Idaho Samizdat is a blog about the political and economic aspects of nuclear energy and nonproliferation issues.  It covers the nuclear energy industry globally.  Additionally, the blog has regional coverage on uranium mining in the western U.S. and Canada  Link to original post

0 0 votes

Share

If Nuclear Is As Superior As Its Supporters Claim, Why Won't "Wall Street" Provide All The Necessary Capital?

by Rod Adams on 04/03/2010 04:01   3 comments , 574 views
Categories: Nuclear Power, Energy Investing
Tags: wall street, three mile island

A couple of my favorite colleagues - Ted Rockwell and Jerry Cuttler - have published an updated version of the Nuclear Energy Facts Report. That report is a concise resource that should be kept close at hand for anyone who wants to break through the complexity of nuclear energy and all associated issues that are the topics of frequent discussion and debate.

A person identifying himself as Arnold Sabastian posted the following comment about the report.

Ted and Jerry are great supporters of nuclear energy and people in the know know that. But, Ted’s “April Nuclear Energy Facts Report” contains a variety of comparative data – all cooked up to show the advantage of nuclear power. If nuclear energy needs this kind of brain washing, it is not worth having.
In the U.S., the taxpayers have developed, supported and allowed the industry to exploit it for profit. The industry as a whole (after receiving over a $150 billion in subsidies so far) wants to be eternal leaches on the public and that is why nuclear energy is having problems. Then we had diversions like the Three Mile Island incident. This was a big shocker rather than a great disaster. But, it was caused by the industry’s practice of hiring minimally qualified people to run a sophisticated technology. They still do.
If the industry can develop private capital showing the crazy statistics you have presented, then I will take my hat off to nuclear industry. If that happens, nuclear power industry will be a great success in the U.S.

As many of you might agree, such a comment demands a response, not only because it is inaccurate, but also because it attacks the technical competence and dedication of hundreds of thousands of high trained and educated nuclear professionals. Here is the comment that I posted in response.

Arnold: You have expressed a view about the financial viability of nuclear energy and cast aspersions on the training and motivation of hundreds of thousands of engineers, technicians, scientists, and accountants who have spent their professional lives learning to make beneficial use of materials like uranium, plutonium and thorium. As one of those "eternal leaches" for whom you have so little respect, I would like to offer you some thoughts.

I got excited about the potential for producing power from tiny quantities of uranium when I was quite young. My dad, a career utility engineer, showed me the difference between burning oil or coal and fissioning uranium without any smoke coming out of the stack. I decided to enter into the field by joining the Navy; my guidance counselor told me if I wanted to learn about nuclear energy, that was the best place to do it. I entered the US Naval Academy with the class of 1981 in the summer of 1977.

After college, technical training and two tours on submarines and a master's program between those two tours, I arrived at a point in 1991 where I felt compelled to spend a lot of time in a library. I needed to figure out why a significant portion of the world had turned away from the technology that made it possible for my sub to operate independently for months at a time without outside oxygen or a combustion product waste dump.

I had difficulty figuring out why anyone would willingly purchase a power plant that needed millions of gallons of fuel over its life when they could build an atomic engine that could produce the same amount of energy and run for decades on a few hundred pounds of material. I ran the numbers and ended up founding a company to design and build atomic engines.

Fast forward to today. People like Amory Lovins, Jim Riccio, and Joe Romm claim that nuclear is just too expensive to matter and point to the decisions made by "Wall Street" financiers. Setting aside for a moment the poor judgement that those individuals have exhibited for at least the past decade, I want to offer you some additional reasons why they might not want to finance large new nuclear power stations.

From the outside looking in, the reluctance to put up the capital for nuclear power plants may seem to be based on a fear of unpredictable project delays, regulatory changes that require construction tear down/rebuild in the middle of the process, memories of an operator error at a new plant that turned a billion dollar asset into a billion dollar liability, or memories of Shoreham, a plant that cost more than $5 billion to complete and license, but which got sold off for a buck without ever operating. (Long Island residents are still paying off that loan and breathing the emissions from the diesel generators and waste to energy plants that are providing the power that Shoreham should have supplied.)

I want to offer you a different, and potentially more sinister reason. In the financial world, nuclear energy faces the challenges mentioned above, but it is also unpopular because it is NOT a fast way to turn money borrowed from the lifetime savings of millions of pensioners into the immense returns favored by the "private equity" funds. Nuclear plants are long term investments that pay dividends in the form of clean, emission-free, nearly zero marginal cost electricity for many decades. They cannot be flipped or traded on unregulated exchanges.

Nuclear energy also poses a serious threat to the continued viability of hundreds of billions of dollars worth of already existing investments and debts.

The fossil fuel industry, including all of the discovery, extraction, transportation, and refining components that make it possible to operate a gas fired power plant in Maryland on a large quantity of reliably supplied molecules of fuel originally formed millions of years ago under swamps off the coast of Dubai and transported across the ocean in liquid form, is built on the notion that energy is scarce, but necessary. The scarcity keeps the prices well above the marginal cost of production - after all of the capital equipment is in place - and the necessary part ensures that there is a large, reliable market.

Now introduce a disruptive technology, one that can supply an entire city with electricity or push large ships across the ocean by breaking apart a few pounds of a relatively easy to find metal that the United States has in abundance, all while not producing any waste products at all that need to be dumped into the atmosphere.

If it was "easy" to build new nuclear plants, why would anyone invest in new fossil fuel capital equipment? In fact, if it was easy to build new nuclear plants, how would the people who already owe hundreds of billions on capital equipment and mineral rights pay off their multi-decade loans? If you attend black tie dinners in NYC with friends who are on the hook for those billions, would you want to tell them that you just enabled their competitor's construction process to become easier?

That is a topic worthy of some serious investigation. (BTW - I came by my thoughts after dozens of presentations to several different types of potential investors.)

Best regards,

Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast
Founder, Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.
(former Engineer Officer, USS Von Steuben, SSBN 632)

Sosyal Ağ Dünyasında E-Posta’nın Yeri

Sosyal Ağ Dünyasında E-Posta’nın Yeri

Sosyal Ağ Dünyasında E-Posta’nın Yeri

by Selim Şumlu

Sosyal ağların altın çağını yaşadığı günümüzde, e-posta eski önemini kaybediyor olabilir mi? Dünyanın en popüler e-posta servisi Windows Live Hotmail’i geliştiren ekip, bu konuda bir araştırma yaptı. ABD’de; AOL, Gmail, Hotmail ve Yahoo! Mail kullanan 2000 kişi üzerinde yapılan araştırma, iletişim için sosyal ağların sıklıkla kullanıldığı günümüzde e-posta alışkanlarının ne yöne kaydığını belirlemeyi amaçlıyor.

• Kişisel e-posta hesaplarına bağlılık sürüyor. Ankete tabi tutulan kişilere, arkadaşları ve aileleriyle iletişimlerini sürdürmek için sadece bir iletişim yöntemi seçmeleri gerekirse hangisini seçecekleri soruldu. E-posta, SMS, anlık mesajlaşma ve sosyal ağ seçenekleri arasından, çoğu kişi diğer iletişim yöntemlerine kıyasla e-postayı tercih etti.
• Belgeleri yönetmek ve paylaşmak, iş ilişkileri kurmak, online etkinlikleri takip etmek, sosyal ağ uyarılarını almak ve yanıtlamak, arkadaşlar ve ailelerle iletişim kurmak için günümüzün tercihi hâlâ e-posta. Gelen kutuları; iş arama, dosya arşivleme, yapılacaklar listesi ve sosyal merkez olarak kullanılabiliyor.
• E-posta, online fotoğraf albümü görevi de görüyor. Sadece Hotmail’de, ayda 1,5 milyon fotoğraf gönderilip alınıyor ve fotoğraf paylaşmanın en popüler yolu hâlâ e-posta.
• Pek çok kişi, online depolama amacıyla da sadece e-postayı kullanıyor. Şu anda Hotmail sunucularında 15 milyar Microsoft Office belgesi bulunuyor ve Hotmail’in depolama kapasitesinin %95’ini mesajlar değil, dosya ekleri kaplıyor.

Günümüzde e-posta kullanımının en popüler 10 nedeni

1. Online alışveriş
2. Hesap bilgileri, ekstre ve faturaları almak
3. Bültenlere ve promosyon haberlerine abone olmak
4. Günlük kişisel iletişim
5. Ciddi bir kişisel meseleyi tartışmak
6. Resim, belge vb. göndermek
7. Sosyal ağlardan gelen uyarıları almak
8. Arkadaşlar veya aileyle birlikte düzenlenecek etkinlikleri organize etmek
9. Etkinlik ve aktivitelerle ilgili haberleri almak
10. İş ilanları almak

E-postanın artık bire bir yazışma platformu olmaktan çıkmış olması dikkat çekici. Daha çok, tek taraflı duyuru mesajlarını toplamak için kullanıldığı anlaşılıyor.

E-posta kullanım sıklığı

Yukarıdan aşağıya…

• Kullanıcı başına ortalama e-posta hesabı (tüm e-posta sağlayıcılarında)
• İkinci bir e-posta hesabı olan kişi oranı
• Bir haftada alınan ortalama mesaj
• Birincil e-postasını günde birkaç kez kontrol eden kişi oranı
• İkincil e-postasını günde birkaç kez kontrol eden kişi oranı

Genel olarak e-postanın sıklıkla kullanıldığı anlaşılıyor.

İnsanlar nasıl iletişim kuruyor?

İletişimin ciddiyeti arttıkça e-postaya doğru bir eğilim olduğu gözleniyor.

• Yeşil: Çoğunlukla e-posta
• Kırmızı: Çoğunlukla sosyal ağ
• Sarı: İkisi de

İletişim türü (yukarıdan aşağıya)…

• Arkadaşlarla iletişim kurma
• Akrabalarla iletişim kurma
• Bir şirketle iletişim kurma
• Profesyonel iletişim kurma
• Ciddi bir konuyla ilgili iletişim kurma
• Günlük bir konuyla ilgili iletişim kurma
• Sosyal bir etkinlikle ilgili bir grupla iletişim kurma
• Bir toplantıyla ilgili bir grupla iletişim kurma
• Önemli bir etkinliği duyurma

Sosyal ağ ve e-posta kişilerinin ne kadarı çakışıyor?

Ortalamalara bakılırsa kesişim oranı %50’nin altında. Yani sosyal ağlarda arkadaş olarak eklediğiniz kişilerin çoğunluğu e-posta ile iletişim kurduğunuz kişiler değil (Bunun tersi de geçerli). Dolayısıyla, sosyal ağların ve e-postanın farklı kişilerle iletişim kurmak için kullanıldığı anlaşılıyor.