Current User: Guest · Login
Nuclear Power
Posted: Sep 26 2007, 04:57 PM
I think it is time to get some nuclear power plants built and on line.
I think what "we" used to be afraid of is no longer to be feared -- and the nonuse of nuclear is worse.
I heard on KGO radio from Bill Wattenburg that 30 years of nuclear waste for a family of four will fit in a shoe box, a rather small amount I think. He also says that the burning of coal (which is how most of electricity is now generated -- [think about that when you leave your computer monitor running]) releases more radiation into the atmosphere than any and all of the nuclear power plants as uranium and other minerals are in coal. Coal is supposed to be very dirty -- while burning and even the waste after burning.
Nuclear could produce a lot of electrical power, and allow us to not burn coal or natural gas.
Some people say why not solar or wind. Wattenburg reports that solar or wind will only be a tiny amount of the massive power that the modern word needs to operate, and solar is very expensive.
I think that Nuclear power is our best choice for fairly clean abundant power for today's world.
-----------
Here is a blurb from a web site of Wattenburg’s -- pushback.com:
If you think that nuclear energy is dangerous and causes radioactive pollution, guess again.
For instance, our power plants burn billions of tons of coal each year, and since this coal contains radioactive uranium and thorium, burning coal actually puts 2,000 tons of radioactivity into our atmosphere each and every single year!
According to Bill Wattenburg, the Kyoto conference’s goals of reducing carbon-dioxide (CO©¸) emissions can be met by closing down 2–4 coal-fired power plants (out of the hundreds in the US) and replacing them with nuclear power plants, while at the same time reducing total radioactive emissions. Given a typical coal-fired plant, producing 1000 megawatts, it burns 2.3 million tons of coal per year, produces 200,000 thousand tons of fly ash a year, 7.5 million tons of CO©¸ per year, 200,000 tons of sulfur oxide, 25,000 tons of nitrous oxide, and 1000 tons of carbon-monoxide (CO).
This post has been edited by stone on Sep 26 2007, 04:58 PM
I think what "we" used to be afraid of is no longer to be feared -- and the nonuse of nuclear is worse.
I heard on KGO radio from Bill Wattenburg that 30 years of nuclear waste for a family of four will fit in a shoe box, a rather small amount I think. He also says that the burning of coal (which is how most of electricity is now generated -- [think about that when you leave your computer monitor running]) releases more radiation into the atmosphere than any and all of the nuclear power plants as uranium and other minerals are in coal. Coal is supposed to be very dirty -- while burning and even the waste after burning.
Nuclear could produce a lot of electrical power, and allow us to not burn coal or natural gas.
Some people say why not solar or wind. Wattenburg reports that solar or wind will only be a tiny amount of the massive power that the modern word needs to operate, and solar is very expensive.
I think that Nuclear power is our best choice for fairly clean abundant power for today's world.
-----------
Here is a blurb from a web site of Wattenburg’s -- pushback.com:
If you think that nuclear energy is dangerous and causes radioactive pollution, guess again.
For instance, our power plants burn billions of tons of coal each year, and since this coal contains radioactive uranium and thorium, burning coal actually puts 2,000 tons of radioactivity into our atmosphere each and every single year!
According to Bill Wattenburg, the Kyoto conference’s goals of reducing carbon-dioxide (CO©¸) emissions can be met by closing down 2–4 coal-fired power plants (out of the hundreds in the US) and replacing them with nuclear power plants, while at the same time reducing total radioactive emissions. Given a typical coal-fired plant, producing 1000 megawatts, it burns 2.3 million tons of coal per year, produces 200,000 thousand tons of fly ash a year, 7.5 million tons of CO©¸ per year, 200,000 tons of sulfur oxide, 25,000 tons of nitrous oxide, and 1000 tons of carbon-monoxide (CO).
This post has been edited by stone on Sep 26 2007, 04:58 PM
Posted: Sep 27 2007, 11:37 PM
I haven't done enough reading on nuclear energy to have too strong of an opinion about it, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't another side to the story about needing to close only 2 to 4 coal plants to get under Kyoto and coal actually being more radioactive than any nuclear energy used today. I'd like to believe that, but it just sounds too good and simple to be true.
Solar is expensive now, but with further innovation, the cost of producing solar energy should come down significantly. Supposedly, solar power is the next potential "Dot-com" industry of Silicon Valley. Here are my crossed fingers that the tech capital of the world has at least one more transformational charge left in it.
Maybe nuclear energy should get revisited, but I think it'd be a mistake to see it as the answer because I think we need more than one answer. Even if the waste products could be handled without issue and the potential operating risks mitigated, nuclear power is still an energy strategy based on everyone being plugged into the same kinds of fragile grids that are prone to implode under a perfect storm like it did several times across wide swaths of the east coast in the past couple of years.
Another concern is to develop a technology that's cheap and portable enough for the rest of the world to easily adopt. Take cell phone service vs. land lines for example. Several years ago, it wasn't uncommon to get better cell phone service in a developing nation than in areas of the industrialized world because much of the third world never had land lines. Land lines were too expensive to build and maintain. When the right technology came along, adoption was all that much more brisk because there was no legacy technology to fight.
Solar is expensive now, but with further innovation, the cost of producing solar energy should come down significantly. Supposedly, solar power is the next potential "Dot-com" industry of Silicon Valley. Here are my crossed fingers that the tech capital of the world has at least one more transformational charge left in it.
Maybe nuclear energy should get revisited, but I think it'd be a mistake to see it as the answer because I think we need more than one answer. Even if the waste products could be handled without issue and the potential operating risks mitigated, nuclear power is still an energy strategy based on everyone being plugged into the same kinds of fragile grids that are prone to implode under a perfect storm like it did several times across wide swaths of the east coast in the past couple of years.
Another concern is to develop a technology that's cheap and portable enough for the rest of the world to easily adopt. Take cell phone service vs. land lines for example. Several years ago, it wasn't uncommon to get better cell phone service in a developing nation than in areas of the industrialized world because much of the third world never had land lines. Land lines were too expensive to build and maintain. When the right technology came along, adoption was all that much more brisk because there was no legacy technology to fight.
Posted: Sep 30 2007, 02:20 PM
Solar energy production is a viable form of energy production. We have installed Solar voltaic panels on our roof and are generating our own energy needs, plus selling back energy to PG&E.
There are rebates available to make this process less costly. And since the value of your home is increased, and your cost of electric power is greatly decreased, the savings can be and are great.
There is a monthly service charge for solar processing, around $8.01 to $8.30. Since our system was turned on last December, we have only paid $32.01 above the monthly service charge for our electricity consumption.
Solar energy is a very positive way to "go green".
Mikayla Pratt
There are rebates available to make this process less costly. And since the value of your home is increased, and your cost of electric power is greatly decreased, the savings can be and are great.
There is a monthly service charge for solar processing, around $8.01 to $8.30. Since our system was turned on last December, we have only paid $32.01 above the monthly service charge for our electricity consumption.
Solar energy is a very positive way to "go green".
Mikayla Pratt
Posted: Oct 3 2007, 12:01 PM
I am not sure that solar is really a viable form of energy production -- at least at this time.
I am refering to total costs -- keep in mind that a rebate is simply someone else paying for the panels, the rebate is not lowering the cost.
Solar is good, don't get me wrong, and I hope technology gets it to where it needs to get for wide scale use. A modern economy needs massive sources of energy to function. Also, as oil is now used for a lot of energy production we are linked to strongly to the Middle East. If we used less of oil and natural gas for electricity we could use the oil and especially the natural gas for trucks and autos.
I would be interested to see where the energy comes from in the manufacture and delivery of solar electrical generating equipment -- I suspect that the manufacturing plants are on the regular grid -- and for sure the materials and goods are transported into and out of the plants using diesel or gas trucks. Again, I think Nuclear is the best (short term or maybe long term) solution.
Here is a cost breakdown of energy costs that I got from the referenced web site:
http://www.solarbuzz.com/
Guideline electricity generation costs today (cents/kWh)
Combined cycle gas turbine
3-5
Wind
4-7
Remote diesel generation
20-40
Solar PV central station
20-30
Solar PV distributed
20-50
I am refering to total costs -- keep in mind that a rebate is simply someone else paying for the panels, the rebate is not lowering the cost.
Solar is good, don't get me wrong, and I hope technology gets it to where it needs to get for wide scale use. A modern economy needs massive sources of energy to function. Also, as oil is now used for a lot of energy production we are linked to strongly to the Middle East. If we used less of oil and natural gas for electricity we could use the oil and especially the natural gas for trucks and autos.
I would be interested to see where the energy comes from in the manufacture and delivery of solar electrical generating equipment -- I suspect that the manufacturing plants are on the regular grid -- and for sure the materials and goods are transported into and out of the plants using diesel or gas trucks. Again, I think Nuclear is the best (short term or maybe long term) solution.
Here is a cost breakdown of energy costs that I got from the referenced web site:
http://www.solarbuzz.com/
Guideline electricity generation costs today (cents/kWh)
Combined cycle gas turbine
3-5
Wind
4-7
Remote diesel generation
20-40
Solar PV central station
20-30
Solar PV distributed
20-50
Posted: Oct 5 2007, 02:11 PM
I don't know that much about nuclear power either but I know that places like France have been using it for years, and it's not as scary as it sounds. It has its advantages. We definitely need something that's greener and less of an occupational hazard than coal mining. I agree that we need more than one form of alternative energy. Wasn't there talk about using animal manure for energy?
