Nuclear power generation.

[restorer]

Sorry, but McCain is a loon - the kind of person where I automatically will look at the opposite of what he thinks about a subject.

Until everyone stops thinking Chernobyl, Nukes wont stand a chance.

I don't think about Chernobyl. I think about TMI, I think about Hanford, Wahshington, I think about Skull Valley, Utah, I think about Moab, Utah, I think about Rocky Flats, Colorado.

Can I ask a personal question, do you think the toxic stuff you dump down your sewer isn't a problem??????

What is this toxic stuff you refer to?

Three Mile Island

The full details of the accident were not discovered until much later. In the end, the reactor was brought under control. Although approximately 25,000 people lived within five miles of the island at the time of the accident,[2] no identifiable injuries due to radiation occurred, and a government report concluded that "the projected number of excess fatal cancers due to the accident... is approximately one". But the accident had serious economic and public relations consequences,

I won't get in a pissing match, so do some searches on the web for the Rathrum aquifer. Our lowly trains are harmless?? If you have ever dumped waste oil, or antifreeze, or an old tire into a waste system, you are as guilty as anyone else. When you changed the belts on your car and drained the freon out of the air conditioning to make it easier, did you use a recovery unit? Point your finger in the mirror. I have done some of those things, but I don't do them now, and I certainly won't standby while industry does it.

I own a three thousand dollar solvent recovery system, not because I have to, but because I think it's the right thing to do, can you say the same thing?

I have a nephew that lives in Portland, Oregon. He's Eco conscious to the point he doesn't own a car and uses my old racing bike for transportation. He is now concerned that he won't have a home when the pollution reaches the Columbia. Can't blame him. He is a cook and makes sure everything from the restaurant that can be recycled is recycled.

I use less than $40 per month in electricity and would like it to be less, because I don't like the way my local electricity is generated.

I'm not a torch carrying radical environmentalist. I just believe we need to be honest about what we do and what we are strapping on the backs of our off-spring for a very few creature comforts.

Simply put, my family for 50 years celebrated Memorial Day with flags, "sparklers" and good friendship. We had a picnic and cooked hamburgers and hotdogs (home made sausauge) on a wood fired stove in my Granddad's back yard. He built the stove, cooked the beans, carrots, cabbage, potatoes grown by family on their farms and of course had fresh corn and watermelon. It was special when my Uncle brought pinion charcoal and bask cured ham for a special smoked treat. It all came for the land and the pine nuts were great when freshly roasted. I even remember some sage hen, and Western flyway duck.

So now I look back and ask, What is my legacy?"

 

[jjbaer]

Folks..take your pick from the following: 1) conservation 2) more coal power plants or 3) more nuke plants..............ain't too many choices in the next 20 years.........until fusion gets here in 20 years or so, short of aliens visiting us and giving us a claen, unlimited power source, one or more than one of the above is going to happen........learn to live with it.....

 

[restorer]

Folks..take your pick from the following: 1) conservation 2) more coal power plants or 3) more nuke plants..............ain't too many choices in the next 20 years.........until fusion gets here in 20 years or so, short of aliens visiting us and giving us a claen, unlimited power source, one or more than one of the above is going to happen........learn to live with it.....

Wind looks very good, passive hydro is a commer, and TURNING OFF YOUR WASTED USE, looks best. I do not have an incandescent light bulb in my house or shop, can you say the same? What did you save today??????? The best conservation starts with not using the power.

 

[webbie]

We can send rockets to other solar systems, but not harness tidal and wave power?
Wind and solar are here now.....wind is totally competitive and has pretty good potential for a decent percentage of our electric.

Solar is still a few cents more per KWH, but give that a florescent bulb saves about 3/4 of energy, what is the big deal about paying a few cents more per KWH for clean juice. We can do that and still have a similar lifestyle. Back to the SUV point...we don't all need to drive around in 3 ton vehicles (but some do), and for the rest it is absolutely no skin off our backs to drive around in something with better mileage, a hybrid, etc.

We could easily save 20-25% off our entire energy use with just current conservation techniques. With minor lifestyle changes (still the same standard or living, but smaller houses, cars, etc.), we could save 50%. Or, we could poison the planet for 10,000 years.

Which one will we choose?

Right now there is a big fight going on once again between the US and Germany and other industrial countries regarding emissions and energy use. They are trying to bring us to the table (G8) to work together on caps and such things. The current administration is declining once again to even attempt to play well with others. Looks like their minds are already made up on which way they will solve our energy needs.

 

[begreen]

Cast has it exactly right, though long term I would add - #4 innovation. Right now the lack of real energy conservation in this country is immoral. This is the single best and fastest solution we have a hand and it doesn't require new technology. What is does require is vision, leadership and commitment. All virtues that currently seem to be lacking in DC.

In WA state, we are starting to think of how we can solve future energy issues by greater independence. Several PUDs are stepping up to the plate with some good ideas. Snohomish PUD has received permitting for seven potential locations for tidal generation. At a recent energy conferences, there have begun talks of using plugin hybrids to solve part of the energy storage issue with solar and wind power.

The idea is for electricity to become the gasoline of the future in this state. This can work where there are abundant hydroelectric resources. Lots of plugin hybrids means thousands of traveling battery packs, most of which will sit idle in parking lots all day and garages all night. If the parking lots were equipped to allow these cars to feed the grid during the day and store charges at night, they may have the potential to be a partial solution to the storage issue. It's future science now, but it's interesting to note that by 2010 there are 65 models of plugin hybrids planned for market. By that year, next generation, thin film solar panels will be in full production. These panels will be thin enough and at a price that makes them effective for car roofs. Visualize a large corporate parking lot and that is a lot of power. Think it can't happen? In the Pac NW, the Prius is the number one selling car at Toyota dealers this year. That's above the Camry, the best selling car in the country. The market is ready for change.

This is just a partial solution. It would require significant infrastructure and maybe it won't happen. But it is this kind of thinking that will create jobs, change and hope in the future. We need a lot more of it.

(broken link removed to http://www.crosscut.com/business-technology/2905/)

 

[TMonter]

The United States needs to overcome its fear of nuclear power and embrace the technology as a way to wean itself from fossil fuels, Sen. John McCain told an audience in Manchester yesterday.

Nuclear power “is safe. The technology is here,” McCain said, speaking to a crowd of about 200 at a breakfast hosted by The New Hampshire Federation of Republican Women. “It’s a NIMBY (not in my backyard) problem, and a waste-disposal problem. It is not a technological problem.”

McCain pointed to France, which draws more than three-quarters of its power from nuclear plants, and Russia, which has plans to build 40 new plants, as examples. “We’ve got to get over it, get over Three Mile Island,” he said, referring to the 1979 accident at a Pennsylvania nuclear power plant.

and…

“I firmly believe that nuclear power is a key technology for addressing climate change. As we develop strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we simply cannot ignore this emission-free technology. While there are other sources of low- or zero-emission power sources, they simply do not have the power density to match that of nuclear power plants.”

“The idea that nuclear power should play no role in our energy mix is an unsustainable and, frankly, irresponsible position, particularly given the urgency and magnitude of the threat posed by global warming. … I strongly believe nuclear energy can and should play and even greater role … for the very simple reason that we must support sustainable, zero-emission alternatives such as nuclear if we are serious about addressing the problem of global warming.”

McCain is a politician not a engineer.

I've done work for several nuke plants on STG upgrades back when I worked for Siemens and nukes are not cheaper than coal to either operate or build, even on a lifecycle cost.

If you do a little research into what it costs to break down and dispose of a nuke plant, often it costs 3-4 times the original price of the plant.

Nuke plants do not last longer than coal plants when both are properly maintained.

Unless someone comes up with a viable way to store and transport waste long term, Nuclear simply isn't a viable option from a cost perspective.

Also do you want to subsidize with you tax dollars the cost to insure nuke plants? That further adds to the cost of the electricity, the difference being that it's hidden.

Think 12 or 16 cents per kWh is expensive? Try 25+ if you de-load all of the hidden costs for nukes.

 

[jjbaer]

We can send rockets to other solar systems, but not harness tidal and wave power?
Wind and solar are here now.....wind is totally competitive and has pretty good potential for a decent percentage of our electric.

Solar is still a few cents more per KWH, but give that a florescent bulb saves about 3/4 of energy, what is the big deal about paying a few cents more per KWH for clean juice. We can do that and still have a similar lifestyle. Back to the SUV point...we don't all need to drive around in 3 ton vehicles (but some do), and for the rest it is absolutely no skin off our backs to drive around in something with better mileage, a hybrid, etc.

We could easily save 20-25% off our entire energy use with just current conservation techniques. With minor lifestyle changes (still the same standard or living, but smaller houses, cars, etc.), we could save 50%. Or, we could poison the planet for 10,000 years.

Which one will we choose?

Right now there is a big fight going on once again between the US and Germany and other industrial countries regarding emissions and energy use. They are trying to bring us to the table (G8) to work together on caps and such things. The current administration is declining once again to even attempt to play well with others. Looks like their minds are already made up on which way they will solve our energy needs.

We can harness anything Craig...but much of it is so dilute that until, for example, solar cell prices drop, etc, it just isn't that viable yet...... I agree that the quickest way to beat this (which by the way, also costs zero) is conservation...

 

[Oregon Fire]

Well, I have learned something from this thread...

Ignorance and fear usually hang out together...

jeff

 

[jjbaer]

Well, I have learned something from this thread...

Ignorance and fear usually hang out together...

jeff

Jeff....please elaborate........as an engineer, I don't fear any mechanical or electrical process but I do know that some processes are better than others.......and I know that both coal and nuclear both have "tails" (shortcomings)....coal has a CO2, particulate and nasty chemical output "tail" and nuclear has a nasty "half life" and disposal "tail" that we're going to saddle the next 300 generations with taking care of.........let's face it......short of conservation (which, BTW, could solve this problem overnight) neither coal nor nuclear are ideal....and that's what I think we're hearing/seeing from people on this site.......however, to characterize it as "fear and ignorance" hanging out on the same forum is, I think, another form of ignorance.......I worked in a coal power plant as a power plant Mechanical Engineer and visited our company's nuclear plant and I can tell you from first hand experience, coal aint' the answer nor is nuclear............short-term maybe but too much crap goes into the atmosphere with coal and nuke power has disposal problems.....

The answer lies, I believe, in: 1) conservation (costs virtually nothing to implement and it can be implemented immediately...overnight), 2) massive push into more renewable energy sources like solar for home use (imagine solar shingle technology that will allow most homes to provide a good deal of their power requirements, thus negating the need for additional power plants) and 3) an equally massive push on fusion. Innovation, of course, plays key roles in all three of these but building endless power plants using coal and nuclear technology without first implementing massive (mandatory) conservation techniques, is not the answer.....and this, my friend, ain't a by-product of "ignorance and fear" hanging out together at the local coal pile or depleted uranium storage facility...........LOL.....

 

[begreen]

Missing from the options is geothermal power. We're all sitting on a hot rock. In some places, it's pretty close to the surface. I'd rather see the billions proposed for nuclear going into geothermal first. It's 24/7 energy and clean. Currently in our state we're only using geothermal for spas. Oregon is moving further ahead. CA has some notable GT power plants. But there is a lot of close to the surface geothermal heat in the west that is going untapped. Instead we have coal plants are sprouting up like mushrooms. Where's the sense in that?

 

[babalu87]

Missing from the options is geothermal power. We're all sitting on a hot rock. In some places, it's pretty close to the surface. I'd rather see the billions proposed for nuclear going into geothermal first. It's 24/7 energy and clean. Currently in our state we're only using geothermal for spas. Oregon is moving further ahead. CA has some notable GT power plants. But there is a lot of close to the surface geothermal heat in the west that is going untapped. Instead we have coal plants are sprouting up like mushrooms. Where's the sense in that?

What happens when a huge number of homes in the same area tap into geothermal? The Earth is cooling (under the surface) at a certain rate, what are the consequences of increasing that rate?
Sinkhole? I like the idea of Geo-thermal and we considered it when we built our house 10 years ago but it was cost prohibitive, looking back we should have taken the hit. Of course if there were tax benefits/refunds for installing those systems maybe we would have considered it. All was fine and dandy in 1997 though..............

Short of conservation maybe we are just on a road to nowhere?
If I could afford to cover my roof with PV tiles and put up a windmill it would be done already........... or maybe I could just scare the sh!t out of everyone with a movie. Then when I get caught with my pants around my ankles using over 12 times the gas/electricity of the average Joe I can spin it and say I am buying carbon credits and putting up solar tiles and a windmill..................

 

[jjbaer]

Friggin joke
The guy had a decent enough message but anyone with a shred of common sense knows what he is talking about when he says "green"

ROFL Fat credits
My neighbor is at his limit with poophead credits

Babs,

By "the guy" do you mean Gore?

 

[jjbaer]

The guy had a decent enough message but anyone with a shred of common sense knows what he is talking about when he says "green" Are you asking the hypocrite Gore?
Yes.

Babs,

Gore didn't have any good ideas otherwise he'd be doing them himself....and he wasn't..........also, as we both know, "carbon credits" when bought from others are bu*l sh*t....they only increase the total amount of carbon...it works like this: currently there is "X" amount of carbon being released. Along comes "Mr poophead" with his "carbon credits" crap.....all that means is that some rich fat cat can pollute more than he is now while buying "credits" from someone who won't be reducing their carbon footprint with or without carbon credits being bought/sold. So...the overall net effect is that the rich guy pollutes more and the other person (whom they're buying credits from) doesn't change their lifestyle one iota and the overall net effect is greatly increased carbon being released.......and that, my friend, typifies "Mr Carbon Credits" lifestyle....he's unable to separate fact from fiction, truth from lies............oh...and I forgot...all while telling us that WE consume too much energy.......LMFAO....ROTFF...........

 

[begreen]

What happens when a huge number of homes in the same area tap into geothermal? The Earth is cooling (under the surface) at a certain rate, what are the consequences of increasing that rate?

The geothermal plants I'm refering to are on the industrial level, big steam plants generating megawatts. All of Iceland is currently run by geothermal electricity. Clean and available power.

 

[webbie]

Closing another thread cause Cast and Bab do not know how to discuss things.

Tell you what, I will PAY for Al Gore and Clinton dolls to be delivered to those two, and then they can stick pins in 'em.

The only "truth" I can imagine is that these folks are either jealous or obsessed, and neither is good for the soul. If you don't like somebody - ignore 'em!

But the more you mention the names, the more it is clear that you are perhaps intrigued.