Splat <- Telling it like it is.

[DJSapp]

I'd feel better with a Nuke plant 4 miles from my house than the existing Natural Gas facility.

Nuke power is fine, we just need a secure temp dumping ground until technology improves enough until we can properly dispose of it (space, planet core, whatever). Modern wind turbines (3rd generation) are frickin awesome. One new 6 MW wind turbine could crank out as much energy as 56 of the second generation wind turbines in the Altamont Pass (source ) i.e. the 5400 old turbines there could be replaced with 97 6 MW turbines. The 3rd gen wind turbines are taller, larger, slower, and overall safer for birds (easier to see) and the environment. Thelonious can sleep easy now.

An even better start would be to mass produce solar panels (photovoltaic) and put them on the roofs of everything, everywhere. Waaahhh Wahhh, not efficient, too cloudy here, there are billions of square feet of roof space out there that is doing NOTHING. Our power transmission grid is capable of sorting it out when one region is cloudy. The only reason it isn't doing anything is that nobody is producing solar panels efficiently enough to bring the price down. It's a simple economy of scale issue.

[summit]

Splat, Hanford was part of a secret weapons R&D and production program for the military. Great example of what happens with no oversight. It was not a commercial powerplant.

Char, I've also heard that wind power in sufficient quantity significantly changes regional climate. It makes sense but I haven't seen definitive research. Don't get in the finite fuel argument with me again. I thouroughly proved my argument in the last thread. there's 200-3000 years of fuel out there.

DJSapp, I agree re the solar issue, expensive, innefficient, (aslo what they don't tell you is that they use some REALLY nasty chemicals in production).

I do think wind has merit, but I don't think it's going to be providing large percentages of our power because you need huge areas with reliable wind patterns that people don't mind having the landscape destroyed.

It's easy to accuse others of NIMBY when there's nothing similar in your backyard, Summit. FYI - Fermi 2 is closer to my home than Davis-Besse.

I used to be on a campus with a nuclear reactor. I lived a 5 minute walk away! I used to go into that nuclear reactor several times a week for research. The Callaway power reactors were very close as well. I've toured them more than once.

Oops. You lose 10 points for assuming.

So for the zillionth time, from experience, I'd be perfectly fine with a reactor in my backyard.

It's easy to call someone ignorant when you know far more than others on the subject, Summit. I don't pretend to know about nuclear safeguards, but I do know that the material is heavily safeguarded for a reason.

So you are saying that I know what I am talking about and you do not, but you still think you are still right and I'm wrong.


No. I called you ignroant because you display the classic fear reaction of someone who only understands that "radiation is a scary thing that kills you and you can't see it and it won't go away and it can't be safe" because that is what Greenpeace told you to think.

Summit, it's easy to defend nuclear power when all your argument focuses on is unproven technology, safety records, and safety features, instead of the "what-ifs," of which there literally thousands of possibilities when it comes to nuclear material.

Nuclear reactors are not unproven technology, it's 60 years old.

Breeder reactors are not unproven technology. That's 50 year old technoloy. Fuel reprocessing is 60 year old technology. We just don't use these technologies in this country because Greenpeace et al scared everyone out of it. Japan, France, and many other countries reprocess their fuel to reduce waste and cost.

RTG's (thermocouples poowered by radiation) are 40 year old technology and we have been using them to power weather stations, lighthouses, and sattelites for that long. RTGs led us to needed safety improvements.

This is about calculated risks, it is NOT about any "what-if" you can think of no matter how remote.

What if an airplane engine falls off and crashes into your house tomorrow? I guess we better get rid of airplanes. What if a car crashes into your house? Better build a concrete wall.

Wait... that would be dumb.

However nuclear plants do take remote scenarios into account.

Then again, what's killed more people in the US, falling airplane parts or nuclear reactors? Oh wait... nuclear power hasn't killed anyone. You ski right? Risky!!!!!!!!

You fail to take into account the fact that a coal plant built is much more likely to increase your risk of death by cancer than a nuclear plant.

You calculate your risks and you mitigate them. You score an absolute direct hit with full speed/fuel on a nuclear power reactor with most airplanes and get zero release and have the reactor running again in a year. I've read the studies about nuclear weapon attacks on nuclear reactors. Even in the Russians hit within 500m of a reactor, release is unlikely. If you understood the proven technology, safeguards, and FAIL-SAFE-DESIGNS, you'd understand the risks which are exceedingly low. You have a higher chance of being in an airplane crash.

Choosing power generation options based on their safety record is not like choosing a backcountry skier by the amount of days. We'd choose coal by the amount of days. Nuclear power has the best safety record in the USA and it is a proven safety record.

[char]

Don't get in the finite fuel argument with me again. I thouroughly proved my argument in the last thread. there's 200-3000 years of fuel out there.

So, it is a finite resource, thank you. I dont' want to have another discussion on this, but a link to a source would be great.

We should always be on the lookout for something better and we shouldn't put all of our eggs in one basket, but nuclear energy is a pretty darn good EXISTING basket to put a lot of our eggs in for a long time until we can develop something better.

From the other thread: We agree on this point.

Even in the Russians hit within 500m of a reactor, release is unlikely.

Bwa! And if a nuke goes off next to a nuclear power plant who really cares anyways? It's not like it will be habitable anytime soon.


Other than that, I'm sure most here would appreciate it if you toned down the rhetoricand generally superior attitude you have and have a decent tone, but whatever.

[13]

Sigh. My points were lost on ya, Summit.

That's what I get for trying to keep my arguments concise instead of long-winded.

You're right, I'm wrong.

[splat]

I like the home solar option myself. Life cycles on solar panels are at 20 years and are being improved upon. Wind as a supplement.
If I could, I'd go off the grid in a heartbeat. As for gas, that's a bitch....

[summit]

13, if you fear the unknown, I reccomend calling one of those plants and asking for a tour. They'll probably give you one.

So, it is a finite resource, thank you. I dont' want to have another discussion on this, but a link to a source would be great.


From the other thread: We agree on this point.

Bwa! And if a nuke goes off next to a nuclear power plant who really cares anyways? It's not like it will be habitable anytime soon.

The source? The source is the article you brought up to make all your points. If you need to, go reread the thread. ;-)

Nobody every disagreed that it wasn't a finite resource ont his planet, but how finite.

The bomb example was to give an idea of the survivability. I agree that if nucelar weapons start flying, we are all in a heap of deep.

... and now I must go take a final.

[Lone Star]

... and now I must go take a final.

Hopefully the 50 point question isn't "What catches more flies: honey or vinegar?"

[HyRUPz]

My idea - BETTER MOUSETRAP THEORY. We have made it to the moon, we invented microwaves ... let's think out of the box. See what is not yet invented or applied.

Such as:
Better muffler/converter, and I mean 0% emissions
More efficient vehicles; get ALL car manufactures on the same page (seeing early adopter shift already)
Solar tech spend (will drive tech development, we're slow to adapt better technologies cause as Americans we like our gross overconsumption function to be stable: see fat kid in middle school, doesn't want to miss his BigMac)
Serious lifestyle changes, across the Globe (i.e. hold irresponsible nations accountable for the world's destruction)

At the end of the day it's about real change, better choices as consumers; we drive the market, not Bush, not Corporations - the consumer does, lazy fux

Has anyone ever heard of planetary management movement called GAIA?http://www.gaianet.fsbusiness.co.uk/gaiatheory.html

[LegoSkier]

Shit! - I just thought it was cool to see splat on TV...

Having said that, my opinion on this is its not so much what is generating your power as how it is generated. I all for distributed generation where there are lots of smaller generating facilities - down to the house level - than a few giant gigawatt plants here and there.
Power should be like the internet. With every user a potential producer also. Advances in catalysts, materials, and new processes will enable clean, safe, efficent implimentations of nuclear, coal, gas, solar, wind, etc...but where and how its generated should be adaptable to the environment. Maybe the rancher has a dozen turbines on a ridge that power his place and feed the grid. Maybe the casino hotel generates power using biodeisel (happening now at the El Dorado in Reno). Maybe the apartment complex has a roof of PV tiles. The problem is a.) zoning needs to be changed. How can you be an early adopter if your fancy HOA dosen't allow it. and b.) Energy companies need to change from producers to manufacturers/vendors of equipment.

[splat]

Thanks, Lego. I don't mind this thread morphing to a discussion on energy, though.

I find it very disturbing that the gov't funds a place like NREL (national renewable energy laboratory) on one hand, then gives incentives to utilities that spend more money to defeat demand side management implementations that actually work. It's like giving tax incentives to oil companies to sell less oil. It don't work. Unless, you're one of the giant corporations benefitting from all the bullshit.

[HyRUPz]

Accountabilty, Awareness and Communication = Progress

Thanks for letting me express my novice ideas.

"One determined person can make a significant difference; a small group of determined people can change the course of history." S. Johnson

[Grange]

Don't get in the finite fuel argument with me again. I thouroughly proved my argument in the last thread. there's 200-3000 years of fuel out there.

My question would be how do we get this fuel? Is it through mining? If so then there is another environmental concern which is best left for another discussion. Of coarse coal plants have the same issue as well. I'm not against nuclear power, but I don't want us to think that is a permanent answer to fossel fuel.

Wind does not kill enough birds to stop its use. The wind turbine farm in Altamont Pass, CA has killed approximately 22,000 birds over its 20 year lifetime.

22,000 birds over 7000 turbines is just over 3 birds / turbine, and 0.157… birds/turbine/year.

In comparison the Exxon Valdez disaster killed an estimated 250,000 birds, including 250 bald eagles.

Many more birds are killed annually in collisions with vehicles (60 million).

None of this takes into account the birds that would have been killed by the pollution generated by coal. Coal mining is a huge water polluter - been to West Virginia lately? There are no fish left in many streams for some birds to eat.

Overall, wind is a far cleaner and less damaging (no source is 100% without waste) source of electricity than coal, nuclear or hydro.

Bird strikes are not the only concerns with wind power. I believe Summit brought up another one, which is the amount of land it takes for wind turbines. Noise and aesthetics are two more.

Answer to zoo's power needs may be right under their nose
Tuesday, May 3, 2005 Posted: 12:03 PM EDT (1603 GMT)

Mali, an 8-year-old Asian elephant, is a potential power source for the Rosamond Gifford Zoo...

I am working with a power company on this type of power generation. They proposed several small manure digestor power generation facilities which would generate around 0.75 MW per generator. The conern with this is the potential emissions, but it still has a lot of potential in my mind.

[splat]

I am working with a power company on this type of power generation. They proposed several small manure digestor power generation facilities which would generate around 0.75 MW per generator. The conern with this is the potential emissions, but it still has a lot of potential in my mind.

There's a biomass plant operating in the desert in SoCal off the feedlot manure from the Central Valley. I'm sure you're familar. CalPine set up a couple using the stalks of various plants like wheat chaff that are normally burned off in the fields, taking advantage of EPA air regs for the Valley as well. Company I used to work for ran the San Francisco steam plant, had 13 nukes, numerous coal fire plants, did methane recovery from old garbage dumps, and a number of other generation options.

[char]

Shit! - I just thought it was cool to see splat on TV...

Having said that, my opinion on this is its not so much what is generating your power as how it is generated. I all for distributed generation where there are lots of smaller generating facilities - down to the house level - than a few giant gigawatt plants here and there.
Power should be like the internet. With every user a potential producer also. Advances in catalysts, materials, and new processes will enable clean, safe, efficent implimentations of nuclear, coal, gas, solar, wind, etc...but where and how its generated should be adaptable to the environment. Maybe the rancher has a dozen turbines on a ridge that power his place and feed the grid. Maybe the casino hotel generates power using biodeisel (happening now at the El Dorado in Reno). Maybe the apartment complex has a roof of PV tiles. The problem is a.) zoning needs to be changed. How can you be an early adopter if your fancy HOA dosen't allow it. and b.) Energy companies need to change from producers to manufacturers/vendors of equipment.

NO! WE MUST HAVE NUCLEAR!!!

[char]

13, if you fear the unknown, I reccomend calling one of those plants and asking for a tour. They'll probably give you one.



The source? The source is the article you brought up to make all your points. If you need to, go reread the thread. ;-)

Nobody every disagreed that it wasn't a finite resource ont his planet, but how finite.

The bomb example was to give an idea of the survivability. I agree that if nucelar weapons start flying, we are all in a heap of deep.

... and now I must go take a final.

Ok.....thanks?

[LaramieSkiBum]

Summit, it's easy to defend nuclear power when all your argument focuses on is unproven technology, safety records, and safety features, instead of the "what-ifs," of which there literally thousands of possibilities when it comes to nuclear material.

Your vehement, one-sided defense of the nuclear option scares and dissapoints me. You're a smart kid, you know better than that.

Caution, I'm beating the horse to death:

Wow...see this is the problem with the American view point...say the word nuclear and everyone gets a huge case of paranoia.

Why don't you research UK, Germany(18), France (58), Japan (54), and for that matter the U.S. (110) and the entire world (450 reactors) about the "unproven technology, safety records, and safety features"?

Not to sound harsh about Chernobyl victims, but single chemical plant acidents have numbered just as many casualties and long term cancer effects. Not saying that it should be taken lightly, but with less stigmatism. We have had for many many years the technology, safety systems, and protocols that can prevent this from happening again. Systems that are now avilable are lightyears ahead of what the russians had when they shut down Chernobyl in 2000, 15 years AFTER the accident.

As was said above, I would take a nuclear plant in my backyard before any refinery or chemical plant - new designs are very safe. If you took 450 refineries and looked at their saftey record compaired to nuke plants, you would be mortified. Actually, the University of Wyoming operated a reactor in a room in the engineering building, which is where i spend the bulk of my time.

My question would be how do we get this fuel? Is it through mining? If so then there is another environmental concern which is best left for another discussion. Of coarse coal plants have the same issue as well. I'm not against nuclear power, but I don't want us to think that is a permanent answer to fossel fuel.

I recently attended a seminar on nuke power at BYU.

If the US would implement the type of plan the French have, we already have 100 YEARS of power in our "spent" nuclear waste. The US refuses to reprocess:

1) It's US policy to leave the waste as unprocessed for fear of it being used for weapons (theory being if we keep it bulky and nasty no one will touch it, and of course plutonium is created with the reprocessing)

2) Lack of facility (closed in the 70's)and of course it's expensive

As for transporting this waste - you guys should search the 'net and see if you can come with some videos or something. Those shipping containers are amazing. They run them 70 miles an hour into concrete walls, then purposely set them on fire for hours at a time, just to try and get one to leak...

One thing that needs to happen pronto reguardless of whether or not we build more nuke plants, is the storage issue.


edit:
Here are some numbers for electric vs hybrid vs internal combusion
http://www.rqriley.com/ev-tech.htm

[Idris]

edit:
Here are some numbers for electric vs hybrid vs internal combusion
http://www.rqriley.com/ev-tech.htm

Nice artical

Strange they've left out some of the numbers for lithium iron and lithium polimer (sp?)...[url+http://www.evuk.co.uk/]here[/url]are a few more figures on electric cars.

Very strange that the car they would like to create at the end of the artical, already exists....Citroen brought out the AX diesel in the mid 80's wich would do 85mpg!.....Volkswagen in the late 90's came out with the Lupo TDI, that gives 94mpg! or less than 3 liters per 100km.