Pro nuke or No nuke?

Reply

  #1  
Old 06-17-08, 03:27 PM
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,341
Pro nuke or No nuke?

Honda's announcement that they are producing hydrogen cars for sale in claifornia is good news EXCEPT - they will only produce a couple of hundred over the next couple of years. Mostly because there is no infrastructure.

I've read a couple of studies that suggest the US electrical grid could not provide the energy required to produce even a small fraction of the hydrogen demand if hydrogen cars become popular.

Nuclear power has also been suggested as an option for providing clean, safe energy both for electrical power and for the energy needed to produce hydrogen.

Are you pro or anti nuke and why?
 
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 06-17-08, 05:51 PM
the_tow_guy's Avatar
Group Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: SW Fla USA
Posts: 11,575
Pro. It's the only realistically viable alternative for reasonably priced, abundant power. I hate to say anything good about the French, but they have the right idea:

As of 2004, France's nuclear power plants produced 99.8% of their power and France is the world's largest net exporter of electric power, exporting 18% of its total production (about 100 TWh) to Italy, the Netherlands, Britain, and Germany, and its electricity cost is among the lowest in Europe.
[Source: Wikipedia]

The California hydrogen power-car problem is the same one that would occur if suddenly 10 million California drivers swapped their Hummers for electric cars that they would need to plug in to recharge - still have to have a massively large production of electrical power to meet the demands of either electric car recharging or producing hydrogen. While sometime in the future it may be possible to harness enough wind, solar, water, and geothermal energy to meet demands, that technology is decades down the road; nuclear energy is here now.
 
  #3  
Old 06-17-08, 06:27 PM
chandler's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 39,968
PRO!! How could we as a country with the brightest brains, and best infrastructure, ever discount nuclear energy as a PRIMARY source of our electricity needs?!!
You've heard it said, more people were killed at Chappaquiddick, than were killed at Three Mile Island.
Knee jerk reactions to the un-understood will be our largest nemesis.
 
  #4  
Old 06-17-08, 08:17 PM
Member
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,019
Actually, pro nuke.

Continue researching the grid systems. You'll discover that most are decrepit; rely on antiquated equipment, and that somewhere in America, two million people experience either brownouts or blackouts every day. Mandated and suggestive conservation measures are signatures of failing generation capacity and delivery infrastructure inadequacy for today's population.

The starry-eyed ones tend to believe that increased population levels can be served without addressing either generation capacity or delivery systems. Some falsely contend that Nature (solar, wind, geothermal) will rescue them, even though the idea lacks credibility. A few believe that the laws of physics are either unproven or that they don't apply.

Every parent understands that a new arrival is another mouth to feed, and that resources are not unlimited. At the current rate of consumption every increase in population will require more conservation and greater capacity. Solar, wind, and geothermal, will only fulfill a small portion of the increased need. At some magnificent point increasing capacity will become impracticable or impossible. I doubt that the conversation will be pragmatic, but at least the problem won't be ignored.

By burning fossil fuels and gases, power generation in America contributes more to greenhouse gas emissions than any other source. New technology born in Massachusetts; currently being tested in Canada, will make coal a cleaner fuel, but clean coal still surpasses nuclear in greenhouse gas emissions. The USA has two hundred plus years worth of coal, and thousands of years in Uranium. Coal has more potential medicinal value than uranium. When natural gas supplies subside, and the big three (solar, wind, geothermal) can't keep up with demand, the coal choice becomes medicine, fuel, or both. Yeah, planned human obsolescence, what a great choice.

Ultimately uranium will win, but there will be human costs. Nuclear generation requires water. That's less water for people, plants, and animals; thus less people.... Construction of nuclear power plants will displace some people. Construction of nuclear waste storage facilities will displace more people. Construction and revitalization of delivery grid systems will displace even more people.

Got to go,
I have a sudden urge to impregnate. Save me a welfare check, and put another solar panel on the Barbie.
 
  #5  
Old 06-18-08, 12:51 AM
Docduck's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Western PA
Posts: 1,453
Was watching Glenn Beck on CNN other day...and i agree with him that unless America always wants to have some source of energy costing us tons of money...we need to build more nuclear power plants..it would not only solve some of the gas situations..(if people went with alternative energy cars) but would also put more energy on the market to drive competition which would lower energy prices

in PA they are thinking about deregulating electric prices...so away we go with those prices soon
 
  #6  
Old 06-18-08, 06:57 PM
Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Wet side of Washington state.
Posts: 18,399
Put me down as pro nuke for all the reasons already expressed.

The current thinking of so many people in the electric power generation industry that conservation is the answer to the question is just plain nuts.
 
  #7  
Old 06-18-08, 08:21 PM
Integrator97's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: NW Arkansas
Posts: 570
Pro Nuke, but also pro alternative energy. If we would just put money and research into it. It is better than nuclear, because it is even cleaner (no waste to worry about later) and safer (blowing up a windmill doesn't scare me, and wouldn't put a big dent in capacity).

Windmills and solar is the way to go.

Check out my blog
One Man's Opinion
www.my.opera.com/integrator/blog
 
  #8  
Old 06-18-08, 09:08 PM
Speedwrench's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,698
nuke power should be used to help end our dependence on foreign oil, the high price of fuel will drive research and development for new energy sources but new sources must have the ability to cary lots of energy for a small space/or weight.

life begins when the kids leave home and the dog dies.
 
  #9  
Old 06-18-08, 09:17 PM
Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 977
All this talk about new sources of energy is great
-BUT- I think the oil co. will fight you until the last drop of oil
is taken out of this earth.
What do you think............................................................................

PS: I am pro nuke & supplied a lot of material for the nuke plants in MI.
We were testing large banks of air powered louvers-final hook-up to
master control-switch was thrown--NOTHING--I got really stupid
& blurted out " JC shades of 3 Mile Isle "
I was told to leave immed. or I would be found inside the radiation vault.................
Some jerk had turned a manual valve to OFF............
 

Last edited by j HOWARD; 06-18-08 at 09:46 PM.
  #10  
Old 06-19-08, 04:50 AM
chandler's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 39,968
Oh, yeah, solar and wind will win me over, too. No need to renew them. No need to dispose of their waste. And we have the technology TODAY. Fossil fuel entities will bow up on you, though. We need to learn to put fossil fuel back where it came from, dinosaurs, as well as their marketing, investing, speculating. I know we will always have a need for gas and diesel, but taking that need from fueling our electric companies, etc will help in the overall dependence.
 
  #11  
Old 06-19-08, 08:41 AM
Beachboy's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Northeast Kansas
Posts: 735
Originally Posted by furd View Post
The current thinking of so many people in the electric power generation industry that conservation is the answer to the question is just plain nuts.
I'm a retired power plant engineer from the largest electric utility in Kansas. We are a mix of nuke, coal, gas, & oil, and "playing around" with wind. The professionals in our industry know that conservation is NOT the cure-all, but its what the public wants to hear. The public does not want to hear their electricity provider talking up the need for new (and increasingly unpopular) powerplants. So in order to keep the general public from mutiny, the PR arms of utility companies go along with the conservation and wind energy ploys. Yes, there is no doubt that conservation will help, but you can only conserve to a degree, and when your population continues to increase, so must your energy production. The environmentalists have never been able to provide a satisfactory answer to me as to how to power my A/C system on a hot, muggy night when the wind is not blowing and the nuke and coal powerplants have all been outlawed. Much of the current anti-coal fervor is fed by the natural gas interests, who want to sway the pubic into demanding only natural gas generation due to its cleanliness. No mention is ever made of the cost per KWH for natural gas generated power, and NG production hit its peak years ago and is dwindling, so it is not the "fuel of the future". Just my .02 cents worth from an old mechanical engineer. Oh yeah, I'm solidly pro-nuclear too!
 
  #12  
Old 06-19-08, 09:11 AM
Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Wet side of Washington state.
Posts: 18,399
Beachboy, I totally agree. At the beginning of my career (over thirty years ago) I worked for one of the largest public utilities in the country. Ours was 99% hydroelectric and I was working in the steam plants. I'm retired now and live in an area served by a Public Utility District that generates about 5% of their own power and buys the rest. The utility is governed by a three-member board of elected commissioners and each of them are on record favoring conservation as the preferred source of "new" energy. They are currently investigating tidal action generation along with wind and solar. Publically, it seems that they cannot understand the conservation cannot light a single lamp and yet the load on the system continues to grow with both residential and commercial / industrial usage.

There have been very few new plants built in the Pacific northwest over the last thirty years and most of them have been gas turbine peaking plants. Sooner rather than later my area is going to find that they can no longer buy excess power from "somewhere else" and they will be forced to build some new plants. Most of the large-scale hydro is already maxed out but the common people just don't have a clue.
 
  #13  
Old 06-19-08, 10:25 AM
Integrator97's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: NW Arkansas
Posts: 570
While we cannot depend solely on wind and solar, without some kind of storage, which is unlikely, we should be looking at them as a major future source.

Like solar & wind, conservation is or should be a major piece of the puzzle. Everyday we turn out new products, build more buildings, add more people, that require more energy. Conservation is a key to holding back the increased needs, not just reducing dependancy. Conservation is necessary just to sustain growth when you're already near capacity.
 
  #14  
Old 06-19-08, 07:25 PM
Member
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,019
Solar, wind, and conservation fantasies will give way when (not if) population doubles. A substantial population increase will force proper perspective. As a small portion of a diverse mix, solar, wind, and conservation, live on.

On its own conservation stumbles somewhere before the first population doubling and halving of recourses. It dies with the second doubling and quartering. No need for statisticians or actuaries, the outcome is predicable.

Currently solar and wind account for less than one-percent of total US generation. Doubling demand to 8,000,000 gigawatt hours, or beyond, while increasing solar and wind contributions a single percentage point will be a neat trick.

Generation is a single side of the coin. Flip it, and delivery inadequacies await solutions.
 
  #15  
Old 06-19-08, 08:04 PM
Integrator97's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: NW Arkansas
Posts: 570
huh? .
 
Reply

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Display Modes