So How Do You Regard Nuclear Power Now?

[takao]

Originally Posted by firestarter

All we can decide is whether we build them ourselves. We have a very real fuel crisis that manifests itself in war and terrorism, and will only get worse.

really ?
i live in a country which isn't at war .. and hasn't since quite a few years.. and by years i mean decades
and the nuclear power plant we built was stopped before getting turned on by a popular vote (since then we have a constitutional law forbidding to build nuclear power plants...)

wow look at how i am suffering from the terrible consequences

[Apple OC]

Originally Posted by takao

really ?
i live in a country which isn't at war .. and hasn't since quite a few years.. and by years i mean decades
and the nuclear power plant we built was stopped before getting turned on by a popular vote (since then we have a constitutional law forbidding to build nuclear power plants...)

wow look at how i am suffering from the terrible consequences

Maybe your energy needs are not as high?

307,006,550 USA Population

127,560,000 Japan Population

8,364,095 Austria Population

[Peterkro]

Originally Posted by takao

really ?
i live in a country which isn't at war .. and hasn't since quite a few years.. and by years i mean decades
and the nuclear power plant we built was stopped before getting turned on by a popular vote (since then we have a constitutional law forbidding to build nuclear power plants...)

wow look at how i am suffering from the terrible consequences

I grew up in a country where even a right wing government won't entertain the idea of nuclear power,where one of it's major allies (the U.S.) are not allowed to bring naval vessels into territorial waters because they will not reveal if nuclear weapons/propulsion are involved.Which has just suffered a major earthquake and as far as I know is the only country that is a nuclear free zone.To New Zealanders this policy is totally sacrosanct.Guess what they are doing fine.

(by the way 70% of electricity production is from renewables)

[firestarter]

Originally Posted by R.Perez

Well here is a solution to your "problem" at least.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...nergy-at-night

The biggest limiting factor is cost, but when you factor in the cost of the environmental impact, it becomes cheap in comparison.

Thanks, that's an interesting technology!

Originally Posted by takao

really ?
i live in a country which isn't at war .. and hasn't since quite a few years.. and by years i mean decades
and the nuclear power plant we built was stopped before getting turned on by a popular vote (since then we have a constitutional law forbidding to build nuclear power plants...)

wow look at how i am suffering from the terrible consequences

I wouldn't be so smug if I was you. Looks like Austria uses over 60% imported oil and gas for electricity manufacture... that Persian Gulf political turmoil must be pretty exciting for you guys, yes? Probably costly too.

You're also reliant on those nice people in Russia to keep their natural gas pipelines open, aren't you... being land-locked and all.

Originally Posted by Peterkro

I grew up in a country where even a right wing government won't entertain the idea of nuclear power,where one of it's major allies (the U.S.) are not allowed to bring naval vessels into territorial waters because they will not reveal if nuclear weapons/propulsion are involved.Which has just suffered a major earthquake and as far as I know is the only country that is a nuclear free zone.To New Zealanders this policy is totally sacrosanct.Guess what they are doing fine.

Is that also a country with a tiny population and an abundance of hydro and geothermal sources? (Not really comparable to Japan or most of Western Europe).

A country where the power system is so good, they managed to cut off all power to their largest city for a month and a half?

[Rodimus Prime]

Originally Posted by R.Perez

Did I say at any point time that we should rely on just wind? or solar, or tidal for that matter? A combination of all three is in order here. On top of that re-thinking infrastructure so that at least some of the power can be generated from the home or building itself is in order. i.e. putting solar panels on all new construction. This would reduce the amount of energy needed from centralized sources. Also shifting towards smarter energy consumption would help as well, i.e. using geo-thermal to generate heat instead of oil or electricity and mandating more efficient lightbulbs and appliances.

I might like to point out that CFL have other problems like mercury that is in them and dealing with the desposal. On top of that some people are really badly effect by the flickering of the lights because yes they do flicker at I believe 120hz. Most people not an issue but to some it causes some major head aches. Lovely flaw of AC power to those things.

Now if we can get LED down in cost and get be able to get them to work at that warm color that most of us use in our CFL and incondences we would be great but those are a long way off at being cheap and bright enough.


For energy wind is not considered a back bone power supply due to it not reliable enough. Solar can be consider good backbone due to it is reliable and we can store the heat energy to power us threw the night.

I think we need to pull from a lot of different sources like put solar arrays on the roofs of houses, wind farms if possible but those have limitations.

Right now Wind is about break even in terms of cost for most of the US. (not in Texas it is a money loser here) Solar is production is about 3 times what they can make selling it per MW. (information from someone I personally know in the industry and he is in those spots and is finding and building it. High enough to see all sides of it and has been in the power industry over 30 years and alternative for a very long time as well.)

[Gelfin]

Originally Posted by R.Perez

One word.

Battery.

This word isn't really compatible with your argument that the reason we must eschew nuclear energy is that mining the necessary minerals destroys the environment.

[takao]

Originally Posted by firestarter

I wouldn't be so smug if I was you. Looks like Austria uses over 60% imported oil and gas for electricity manufacture... that Persian Gulf political turmoil must be pretty exciting for you guys, yes? Probably costly too.

You're also reliant on those nice people in Russia to keep their natural gas pipelines open, aren't you... being land-locked and all.

you know what actually is costly ? the US policies in regard to Iran: it actually prevented developing the south iranian gas fields for use for european earth gas users since the US embargoes any company doing business with iran in excess of 10 million dollar ... and because of the US preventing alternative sources we are depending on Russia which had been a consistent supplier for more than half a century

nice distraction from your own argument ... where is the terror and war in which austria is involved because of the lack of nuclear energy ?
i would rather claim that nuclear power plants, construction of such powerplants, nuclear fuel production etc. bring forward a lot more international conflict

[iJohnHenry]

Originally Posted by takao

... and because of the US preventing alternative sources we are depending on Russia which had been a consistent supplier for more than half a century

A deal for the Berlin Wall?

[Peterkro]

Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime

For energy wind is not considered a back bone power supply due to it not reliable enough. Solar can be consider good backbone due to it is reliable and we can store the heat energy to power us threw the night.

Wind would be fine as a back bone source if the geographical spread was big enough (it's always windy in one area or another) and in spite of people saying energy storage is a problem in fact it's not.(see for instance the Ffestiniog Power Station in north Wales which has been operating since the early sixties)(it can come online in 90 seconds if necessary)

[Rodimus Prime]

Originally Posted by R.Perez

One word.

Battery.

You know not a good solution and batteries go bad.

That being said I might as well give a better answer to Night than batteries. That is we can store the heat energy from the sun to make it threw the night and already do it. Most large solar arrayes used for power reflect the light onto a centeral point and make a heat engine that boils water and turns it to steam that goes threw a turbine to provided power.

Now that energy can be stored and I believe we do it by heating up salt to a liquid form and used that to move the heat to boil the water into steam. We store the liquid salt over night.
Now I will say that solar is no were close to as effience as coal or gas power planets and their theorical max is by far lower.

[Rodimus Prime]

Originally Posted by Peterkro

Wind would be fine as a back bone source if the geographical spread was big enough (it's always windy in one area or another) and in spite of people saying energy storage is a problem in fact it's not.(see for instance the Ffestiniog Power Station in north Wales which has been operating since the early sixties)

wind is not considered fine. We can only count on about 30% of it at any one time. Biggest plus they provide us is that it reduces the stress on our other systems. They allow other power planets to run at lower points and not burn as much fuel.
30% is not considered a good back bone.

Energy storage is yes a problem. We can store some but it is not cost effective.

[Peterkro]

Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime

wind is not considered fine. We can only count on about 30% of it at any one time. Biggest plus they provide us is that it reduces the stress on our other systems. They allow other power planets to run at lower points and not burn as much fuel.
30% is not considered a good back bone.

Energy storage is yes a problem. We can store some but it is not cost effective.

Yes at present, the U.S. for instance could provide reliable wind sources easily all it requires is investment,do you know how much investment would be needed to go nuclear,bloody huge,30% of a huge spread of windfarms would be fine.Plus there are other alternative sources that can make the system more robust,what's needed is a long term fix not short term profits.

[iJohnHenry]

You all seem to be ignoring the elephant in the room.

The spiralling demand for still more energy.

Someone mentioned California, and their inordinate requirement for 'more power' <ugh, ugh ... thank you Tim>.

How about we stop with the over-population, and working everyone 24-7?

Farmers used to get up with the Sun, and went to bed when it set.

If there is a lost tribe still somewhere that is flourishing, I hope that they never get "discovered".

[jav6454]

Nuclear Power? I already have one such plant and reactor in my backyard....

[Peterkro]

Originally Posted by iJohnHenry

You all seem to be ignoring the elephant in the room.

The spiralling demand for still more energy.

Someone mentioned California, and their inordinate requirement for 'more power' <ugh, ugh ... thank you Tim>.

How about we stop with the over-population, and working everyone 24-7?

Farmers used to get up with the Sun, and went to bed when it set.

If there is a lost tribe still somewhere that is flourishing, I hope that they never get "discovered".

I hope you're not including me in that as I've posted several times on the very subject.I'm not a Malthusian but I agree that human population is something we need to look at,every child a wanted child and cared for child for instance.Why do westerners use so much energy?Because they are not in touch with their environment,airconditioning in cars and homes?wtf for there are technologies hundreds of years old that can deal with that.To me it appears a lot of people work harder and harder for less and less.Bah humans in general are eejits.

[R.Perez]

Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime

You know not a good solution and batteries go bad.

That being said I might as well give a better answer to Night than batteries. That is we can store the heat energy from the sun to make it threw the night and already do it. Most large solar arrayes used for power reflect the light onto a centeral point and make a heat engine that boils water and turns it to steam that goes threw a turbine to provided power.

Now that energy can be stored and I believe we do it by heating up salt to a liquid form and used that to move the heat to boil the water into steam. We store the liquid salt over night.
Now I will say that solar is no were close to as effience as coal or gas power planets and their theorical max is by far lower.

Stop harping on that post and ignoring my other one. I was just making a point that the poster with his obnoxious argument about "night" was ignoring. I already posted a very viable technology that could solve this problem. Look a few posts up and you'll find it. next time, read the whole thread

[Liquorpuki]

Originally Posted by R.Perez

We don't need nuclear, or coal or oil for that matter.

A large (think 100milesx100miles) solar array in death valley for example, could power the entire Continental US.

No it couldn't. That would require grid energy storage technology that currently hasn't been invented yet.

Look up base load generation. There are only a few sources of generation that fall under this category. Nuclear and coal are among them. Most renewables are not.

[R.Perez]

Originally Posted by Liquorpuki

No it couldn't. That would require grid energy storage technology that currently hasn't been invented yet.

Look up base load generation. There are only a few sources of generation that fall under this category. Nuclear and coal are among them. Most renewables are not.

I love when people don't read threads....

this was already posted, way to go...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...nergy-at-night

[vincenz]

Opinions should be the same. Nuclear is clean and efficient, but has potential dangers. Shouldn't take a meltdown to remind anyone of that.

[iJohnHenry]

Originally Posted by Peterkro

Bah humans in general are eejits.

Some, but otherwise I cannot fault your abuse of English.

Except for you and me ...... and I'm not totally sure about you.

[Rt&Dzine]

Originally Posted by flopticalcube

Not really. Chernobyl has an estimated death toll of 4000. Let's multiply that by 10 for arguments sake. More people are killed each year in the US alone by car accidents. Nuclear power is still a fairly minor risk.

Huh? I agreed with you that there are more car accident deaths. But just as I said Chernobyl is an estimated death toll. My point is many deaths from a nuclear accident aren't known. I personally know someone who died from the effects of Chernobyl who wasn't included in the estimation. I'm sure there are many, many more.

[R.Perez]

Originally Posted by vincenz

Opinions should be the same. Nuclear is clean and efficient, but has potential dangers. Shouldn't take a meltdown to remind anyone of that.

efficient yes, clean NO.

[iJohnHenry]

Originally Posted by Rt&Dzine

I'm sure there are many, many more.

Acceptable collateral damage for Big Business.

I'm sure none of the big-wigs had any problems.

[Huntn]

Originally Posted by SandboxGeneral

It's the cleanest and usually the safest type of electricity available that can produce energy on a large scale.

When there are no accidents it is a good source of power except for the incredibly toxic waste. Murphy's Law says there must be accidents and unforeseen events.

There are inherent risks with nuclear power and there is the waste issue yet to be solved. But likewise, there are risks for other types of power, whether it's gas, oil, coal or even hydroelectric. Choose your poison.

Speaking of poison- ten thousand barrels of radioactive waste with a half life of 1000 years... Who gets to keep that in their backyard? I'd say launch it into space, but then have visions of a rocket malfunction requiring explosive detonation.

Granted in the history of nuke power, there has only been one worse case scenarios, but that one was a doozy. Sure they say it can never happen but when a coal fired plant blows up it does not contaminate 4000 square miles. This makes nuclear power both wonderful and terrifying at the same time, because we all know accidents must happen. The question is how long and how big will the worst of those accidents be? Personally I'd look for other green not yellow solutions.



I've read in Russia, there are areas with posted signs that say something to the effect of "Roll Up Your Windows and Drive as Fast as You can for the Next 50 miles"... Read about Chernobyl here.

[FX120]

Originally Posted by R.Perez

I love when people don't read threads....

this was already posted, way to go...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...nergy-at-night

Molten salt is an interesting concept, but of course it requires you to more than double the size of your array for an equivalent "24" hour average power output. Molten salt storage also doesn't scale very well into large arrays.

And you're still back to relying on gas, coal, oil, or nuclear to fill in when the sun isn't shining.