Poll - are you still for nuke power?

[StihlHead]

Nope, not even close. No conventionally powered aircraft carrier remains in the active inventory.

Yah, I was gonna say... Anyone can post to Wiki...

The Kitty Hawk (known as the Sh*tty Kitty) was the last conventional carrier and was decommissioned in 2008.

 

[StihlHead]

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.

Chernobyl will likely be habitable about 18,000 years before that. I bet people will move there when the human population hits 10 billion around 2100 though. I am sure starving North Africans would happily move there today if they were allowed to. And it is far more habitable than the surface of Mars.

 

[Ashful]

The first ten ships on that list are Aircraft Carriers, and they are all nuclear powered. All the rest are smaller amphibious warfare support ships that are generally capable of operating helicopters and Harriers (VTOL fixed wing aircraft), as well as small craft in & out of a well deck. I guess Wikipedia can call them anything it wants to, but the Navy doesn't refer to those amphibs as Aircraft Carriers. Look up LHD and you'll see what they are. Look up CVN and you'll see what an Aircraft Carrier is.

Good to know. Those "smaller amphibious warfare support ships" you refuse to call carriers have a larger flight deck than almost every Essex carrier built during WW2! I guess the 825-foot "big E" ain't so big by today's standards.

 

[fossil]

It's not that I "refuse to call them carriers", it's that ships are classified by their primary missions, and the primary missions (and capabilities) of Aircraft Carriers are completely different than those of the Amphibious Warfare support ships. All of our surface combatants (Frigates, Destroyers, Cruisers) carry helicopters...would you call them Aircraft Carriers too?

 

[btuser]

Well, within 1000 yds yes, we saw lots of them in eastern WA. How do you think bats and birds like flying through this?
View attachment 110965 View attachment 110963

Or trying to land in this?
View attachment 110964

FWIW, the major cause of bird deaths are tall buildings and cats, not large wind generators.

I'm not anti wind or anti solar, but my opinion has been tempered through some close hand observation. I was all gun ho and anti-nimby before I got up closer than a drive by.

They are LOUD, and you can feel it. I don't buy the reports of sickness from pressure etc (never know) but when they're whippin they make a racket. I was no closer than 300' and could definitively hear it from much farther. Something to think about. I don't think they're ugly, I think they're cool, but people complaining about the noise have a valid point.

Birds make a lot of racket too. Damn birds.

 

[begreen]

Out where I saw them the main thing hearing their noise was prairie dogs.

 

[Ashful]

I always wondered why no one has ever considered installing nuke plants offshore. Either on the water, or under the water. Sure... there's some serious environmental challenges, but there's also infinite cooling capacity, and an ability to contain airborne drift.

I'm sure there are good reasons...

 

[save$]

Have you been within 100 yards of a 1MW wind turbine?

I'll take the nuke plant. The poor baby birds and bats!

We have wind farms in Maine, More on the way :http://www.kjonline.com/business/39...oute-16-in-Somerset-Piscataquis-counties.html but there is a lot of opposition to them. Enough wind coming from the "environmentalist" to run a wind farm by itself! I have been to the big wind farm on Kirby Mountain. I took lots of pictures and found those windmills not to be a deterrent. Aim your camera a little left or right and they are out of your view. I drove right up to the top of the range where the turbines were. They were gently turning, I couldn't hear anything from them. These guys that don't want wind farms are the same bunch that don't want cell towers. Some of them will lay in the way of the construction, or tie themselves to trees etc. All they really need to do is put some pot on the end of a stick and lure them out of the way.

 

[jharkin]

Interesting discussions... Ive learned a lot about Fukushima that I didnt realize.

Back agian to the points about wind & solar. Don't get me wrong, I really like wind and solar. I'd be all for it if we could do it all with wind and solar, and dump the FF and stop bothering with nukes, but Im still just not convinced.

Why not? Spain sometimes gets a third of their power from windmills. Last time I was there.. I liked the look of all the ridges with windmills on them.

The example of Wind providing 1/4 of Spain's power, and of the occasional mostly solar days in Germany has been mentioned. Thats all well and great, but can it really scale to the entire world? Or put another way, would the western world be able to keep that up if we hadn't already outsourced a large amount of our energy consumption to the east via moving manufacturing?

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.

This is key, as the growth of China, India, "Chindia" or the BRIC countries has major energy implications.
- These countries are huge and growing like crazy, so even with only a fraction of our per capita consumption that are straining the available resource base like never before
- They all have large and growing middle classes that DO want to consume like Americans
- By moving 80% of our manufacturing to these locations we have also artificially reduced the western world energy consumption even lower than it truly is. In other words would Spain be all wind if they had to make their own stuff???

As some folks know my job takes me to both India and China on a yearly basis, so I have a keen interest and view of how these countries are developing. I'm writing this from a hotel room in Pudong Shanghai as a matter of fact. When I flew in on Sunday I could see a line of wind turbines on the shore from the airplane. I also see solar water heaters on the roof of many apartment blocks and PV sprouting up all over the city. You might be surprised how much attention is paid to efficiency here as well - everywhere I go in hotels, offices, etc they try to turn off everything that's not in use, have installed high efficiency lighting, etc.

That's all great but doesn't negate the fact that China's consumption of Coal, oil, gas, nuclear is all growing exponentially. Wind is no magic solution here.




http://mazamascience.com/OilExport/




Its also easy to look around in the US and see people still merrily driving and think the situation with oil is just dandy. But go to India and ask the locals what they think of prices, or watch the petrol riots and you will have a different view....

 

[webbie]

All true, Jh, but even if China is the #1 user of coal and/or energy, it uses MUCH less per capita, and that's the only fair way to look at things world wide. Borders and nations have nothing to do with global energy problems in the Big Picture...

We are in the infancy of solar, wind, tidal and other renewable systems. Yet, as you mention, there are some pretty amazing numbers being reached already. We have not really attacked the problem in a global or even national level - mostly because of politics. That means Oil Money, Global Warming and Pollution Deniers, etc.

What if we did?

I say it will happen, but could have happened much quicker if we (the world and the USA) invested more. Like all these other long term problems, it will not happen in 10, 20 or 30 years. But in 50+ years I suspect the total energy picture will look much different and in 100+ they will probably look back and wonder why we didn't fix things quicker.

 

[btuser]

Per capita income is not a fair way to compare. We are more productive per capita than China. Its not like all of America is lazy and selfish.

Just the liberals.

 

[webbie]

No, not per capita income - per capita energy use. China's is about 1/4 of ours per person, yet as you say, they are using a lot making stuff for us. Subtract that and they could be using 1/5 or less of the energy per person than we are.

Point is that we, Canada and even Europe have to stop setting the standards for waste and abuse of energy.

 

[btuser]

No, not per capita income - per capita energy use. China's is about 1/4 of ours per person, yet as you say, they are using a lot making stuff for us. Subtract that and they could be using 1/5 or less of the energy per person than we are.

Point is that we, Canada and even Europe have to stop setting the standards for waste and abuse of energy.

I don't buy it. China workers are nowhere near as productive as American workers. They just work for less money. That's not the same as work per energy unit.

 

[webbie]

I don't buy it. China workers are nowhere near as productive as American workers. They just work for less money. That's not the same as work per energy unit.

Am I being unclear?

I'm not talking about money! I am talking about the piece of energy pie that each person uses, which is the crux of the entire energy picture! People in TX, for instance, use 3X as much energy as people in Rhode Island, etc.

Let me try again. If we are going to be fair and say each person has the right to use as much energy (on average) as another, then China is doing much better at it. This is what I am referring to...the only thing above I take issue with is saying "China uses more coal than we do", etc. when China is people, and their people (per head) use much less than we do - 1/2 to 1/3 as much in fact, and much of that is used to make stuff for us and others!

(broken image removed)

 

[Ashful]

(broken image removed)

Where the hell do those Canuck's get off using more oil than us?!?

 

[StihlHead]

I always wondered why no one has ever considered installing nuke plants offshore. Either on the water, or under the water. Sure... there's some serious environmental challenges, but there's also infinite cooling capacity, and an ability to contain airborne drift.

I'm sure there are good reasons...

Are we talking about aircraft carriers again?

Subs have actually been used to power Hawaii after storms took out the power supply there. They are portable electrical power plants.

Ocean environments are tough to deal with. Also in the US at least we build nukes in reinforced concrete and steel containment buildings. And airborne drift would be less of an issue compared to potential waterborne drift.

 

[Huntindog1]

Well Guys I would say China isnt yet there as they havent modernized all of the huge Country they are. But they are modernizing at a speedy rate so look out.

Well till they finish there own little industrial boom that the USA went thru many moons ago. Then we will look at the numbers and it wont be pretty.

Wait till every chinese family and their kids have xboxes , flat screens, an iphone, computers, air conditioning, a freezer , a hot tub, a swimming pool in the back yard, everyone in the family has a SUV, a Pontoon boat , jet skis, whoop butt riding mower, leaf vacuum system, surround sound system.

One reason oil is so expensive I think is the consumption of these other countries have gone up so much the supply and demand has changed thus higher prices.

 

[StihlHead]

I say it will happen, but could have happened much quicker if we (the world and the USA) invested more. Like all these other long term problems, it will not happen in 10, 20 or 30 years. But in 50+ years I suspect the total energy picture will look much different and in 100+ they will probably look back and wonder why we didn't fix things quicker.

That will likely never happen, as it has not happened now and has never happened before. It is never a balanced world when it comes to humans, politics, war, global equality, and fixing things. I am reminded of a lecture in my Poly Sci class taught by a professor at the College of War at the NPGS in Monterey, CA. He was talking about why it is futile to try to solve world hunger, but it applies equally as well to world energy. Basically it comes down to the fact that while we can technologically 'solve' world hunger (and world energy), it is politically impossible. Why? Examples are endless of trying to get food to famine areas of North Africa. Once the food arrives on the scene, everyone there instantly wants a piece of the pie, like in Somalia now, or in Ethiopia then. Locals go on strike for higher wages whenever CARE shows up. Pirates and gangs steal food and trade it for weapons. The price of trucks and equipment goes up, usually double or triple overnight. In the end the people starving do not get the majority of the food, no matter how hard we try. The political layers are endless.

In 100 years I seriously doubt that we will have anything any more resolved than we have now. Likely the population will be 10 billion and we will be even more dependent on energy than we are now. Fossil fuel and other critical resources (like phosphates) will be more depleted and the effects of global warming will have had a lot more time to unfold. None of us will be around then, and I certainly do not want to be. We will peak in global energy production at some point. We cannot expand forever, much as many want to think otherwise. We will also peak in global food production as well as critical resources like fresh water, arable land, fertilizer elements, rare earth elements, ocean fisheries, etc. etc. Historically when resources become limited, it has always led to famine or war.

 

[btuser]

Am I being unclear?

I'm not talking about money! I am talking about the piece of energy pie that each person uses, which is the crux of the entire energy picture! People in TX, for instance, use 3X as much energy as people in Rhode Island, etc.

Well Kudos for China and their efficient use of human machines. $1.50/hr makes sure you don't have a lot of extra cash to spend on energy consumption. My point is the average American worker is more productive with the same amount of energy:

2010 World Bank GDP per unit of energy used: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.GDP.PUSE.KO.PP.KD

USA - 6
China- 3.8

The United States, in spite of all of our spoiled,whiny, lazy people consistently ranks as some of the most productive workers in the world.

Let me try again. If we are going to be fair and say each person has the right to use as much energy (on average) as another, then China is doing much better at it. This is what I am referring to...the only thing above I take issue with is saying "China uses more coal than we do", etc. when China is people, and their people (per head) use much less than we do - 1/2 to 1/3 as much in fact, and much of that is used to make stuff for us and others!

Fair? Like we all get an allowance, or buy/trade our daily energy allotment for good/services? Besides, why should my family get less energy because we chose to have less children, therefore decreasing our future energy use? China's got a lot of people, so what? It's a cesspool. But I can see the rationale for a market economy where energy is used for money. People will waste a lot less, and recycling would pay. We can all see how far our daily ration can get us. Vegetarians will make out, and no more bottled water. But it would slow down/stop the economy so I suggest instead of energy we make it about time.

I think I just solved the health care issue!

 

[fossil]

Are we talking about aircraft carriers again?

Subs have actually been used to power Hawaii after storms took out the power supply there...

Nope, never happened. " Plans to use the nuclear submarine Indianapolis to provide power for Kauai were dropped after three portable generators arrived from California."
http://www.nytimes.com/1982/11/30/us/power-still-out-in-parts-of-kauai.html

 

[StihlHead]

Fair? Like we all get an allowance, or buy/trade our daily energy allotment for good/services? Besides, why should my family get less energy because we chose to have less children, therefore decreasing our future energy use? China's got a lot of people, so what? It's a cesspool. But I can see the rationale for a market economy where energy is used for money. People will waste a lot less, and recycling would pay. We can all see how far our daily ration can get us. Vegetarians will make out, and no more bottled water. But it would slow down/stop the economy so I suggest instead of energy we make it about time.

Loud applause...

When it rains in China, it rains dirt.

 

[StihlHead]

Nope, never happened. " Plans to use the nuclear submarine Indianapolis to provide power for Kauai were dropped after three portable generators arrived from California."
http://www.nytimes.com/1982/11/30/us/power-still-out-in-parts-of-kauai.html

I wonder if that is true or not. I was loaned out to Electric Boat for a while when I was at GD's Electronics Div. in the 1980/90s and most there *knew* it had happened. The story was that it was hooked up for 4 days and provided power, as I recall. Several ex-swabbies that were on that sub later said that they actually did hook up to the grid. Military information is/was not always what you read in the paper or online, as I found working at GD and later supporting the NSA when I was at Intergraph. Like, Area 51 actually did and still does exist...

 

[StihlHead]

Something not so good is happening on the way to no nukes and going green in Germany. The cost of electricity is going up sharply:

http://www.spiegel.de/international...-transition-to-renewable-energy-a-920288.html

 

[woodgeek]

Something not so good is happening on the way to no nukes and going green in Germany. The cost of electricity is going up sharply:

http://www.spiegel.de/international...-transition-to-renewable-energy-a-920288.html

Sounds sensational (and not the good kind). Energy charges have gone up a 1-2 eurocents/kWh recently, and electric rates are 2x what they were 13 years ago (not clear corrected for inflation or not). Is this the beginning of the end? Many utilities (that did not plan ahead) want you to think so.

 

[billjustbill]

A response would require reading about the situation in Japan now and where it's likely to go from here.

Take a look at this link. The info is only weeks old and shows how much danger Japan is in just trying to deal with 1,300 spent fuel rods.... Each rod weighs 2/3's of a ton, must be kept cool, and with every one that has to be removed there is a disaster just waiting to happen....

Can you imagine what 400 tons of additional melted fuel, at and passed the bottom of the most damaged reactors, is doing? The heat is affecting the ground and some of the damaged reactors are sinking. The radioactivity from all that melted fuel is progressing toward the 40 million population of Tokyo and its drinking water.... What city can remain a city when there is no drinking water?

The original radioactive debris is projected to begin washing up on our shores of the West Coast in 2014.....

http://rt.com/news/fukushima-apocalypse-fuel-removal-598/

Sleep well,