We probably achieved the equivalent of all the nations reactors in the past few years just through more efficient appliances.
I would be against them if we had a viable alternative. We don't, sure lot's "in the works hopeful to become" but nothing ready to roll out on any kind of scale that would make a difference.
I am pretty sure our hand will be forced if the economy picks up again & China & India start to consume like North Americans. I just don't think that fossil can keep up to 2-3 billion people trying to live like we do. Even if fossil could keep up pretty sure we would wreck the joint burning that much hydrocarbon to generate power, provide transportation etc.
Excellent point, lets consider the size of China & India and that part of the world compared to our population in the USA. When they start to consume like we do. The world is gonna a be a whole different place. 1.2 billion for India and 1.3 billion for China with India expected to pass china in 2025. The energy demand for soon to be fully modernized populations like that are mind boggling.
2.9 billion: The combined population of four neighboring countries: China, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Together, they account for 41 percent of the world's population.
Chernobel was bad. Poor reactor design with a positive coefficient of reactivity, so when power goes up it causes a further exponential increase in power. Think of this as turbo charging your acceleration of power. Very bad design. They were also "playing" with the plant, running drills about how much of a power spike would happen when the turbine tripped off line. It simply got away from them and blew up.
Fukushima, IMO was a pure accident, with MANY contributing factors that have and are still rearing their ugly heads.
My navy training probably has me biased, but IMO any training or experience gleaned from military or defense related industry tends to be far superior to what can be accomplished by the private sector when the allmighty dollar is the bottom line.
The rbmk reactors fatal flaw was a positive void coefficient (yes, I'm quoting Wikipedia) of 4.7. After Chernobyl they were reconfigured for .7 to be a lot safer. If you read the timeline of what happened it will convince you of the safety of nuclear power.
Thanks for the link. I've seen two documenaries and read a dozen articles. The part I was quoting was the void coefficient. In my non-expert opinion they f'd up worse than a chimpanzee fire drill.Wiki is actually not as good for the details of the Chernobyl reactor tests and events. Look at this site for better info:
(broken link removed to http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Safety-and-Security/Safety-of-Plants/Appendices/Chernobyl-Accident---Appendix-1--Sequence-of-Events/#.UizkUVHn_IV)
I've seen two documenaries and read a dozen articles. The part I was quoting was the void coefficient. Any way you slice it they f'd up worse than a chimpanzee fire drill.
There's a thriving tourist trade. I'm trying convince my wife we don't need another trip to Disneyland this year.Well, yes. I am just pointing out a better and rather complete account of the whole ugly mess.
As for fire drills, many of them paid the ultimate price for their mistakes and left a legacy for eternity regarding nuclear power.
Don't agree DB. There are multiple viable low carbon scenarios with nuclear and without. Wind can provide near 'baseload' power if you overbuild (nearly 100%), average over a large area, and are willing to shed excess. Put in some demand shedding and the baseload concept is not needed. The question in whether 2X cost of wind is more expensive than new nukes. Right now looks like 2X onshore wind is cheaper than new nukes, but 2X offshore is more. Jury is out.
There's a thriving tourist trade. I'm trying convince my wife we don't need another trip to Disneyland this year.
While wind is now the largest single growing sector for energy production in the US and currently accounts for 43% of all new electric generation plants in the US, even at this current rapid growth rate it is only expected to double by 2020. Currently wind accounts for 4% of total electrical generation in the US (as of 2012). So in 2020 we get to 8%. Also politics are getting in the way and slowing wind down. Look at the large wind farm that is being planned in the Columbia River gorge. It is all tied up in the courts now. Off-shore wind will be even more difficult. And you still need a power supply for non-windy days, or storage, and batteries are just not there in size, scale and cost yet. The larger the grid and father you are from users, the more electricity you lose in line losses (up to 50%).
Have you been within 100 yards of a 1MW wind turbine?Thanks to Chernobyl there is now a part of the earth that is inhabitable for 20000 years. We can't afford to have more of these.
Good point, with one correction. Only the Nimitz class carriers are Nuclear. All the rest of the carriers in our fleet are conventional power. The new Gerald Ford class carriers will be nuclear, but none of them are on the water... yet.It's already here. Those aircraft carriers over near Syria ready to fight, all nuclear...
Waste schmaste, this planet is vast.
Don't we have rockets? Space is vast, and the sun is hot.I suspect most of us will be singing a different tune when the Japanese radiation fills our fish stock and air (milk, crops, etc.)...
The folks in the industry don't seem to think of the waste problem like you do.....luckily, I guess!
Good point, with one correction. Only the Nimitz class carriers are Nuclear. All the rest of the carriers in our fleet are conventional power. The new Gerald Ford class carriers will be nuclear, but none of them are on the water... yet.
Wikipedia can't be wrong!Nope, not even close. No conventionally powered aircraft carrier remains in the active inventory. Kitty Hawk (CV 63) was the last one, decommissioned in May 2009. Every US carrier commissioned since 1975 (Nimitz) is nuclear powered, 10 of which are currently active in the fleet. (Trust me, I spent 30+ years in a Navy uniform, and was, in fact, Chief Engineer of Kitty Hawk 1992 - 1995, then I did a tour in the Aircraft Carrier Program Office in the Pentagon.)
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.