View Poll Results: Are You Interested In More Nuclear Power?

Voters
126. You may not vote on this poll
  • Hell no! Remember Chernobyl?

    21 16.67%
  • Don't know.

    3 2.38%
  • Maybe. What do the scientists say?

    29 23.02%
  • Absolutely! Every other idea is even worse.

    79 62.70%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 36 of 39 FirstFirst ... 263435363738 ... LastLast
Results 351 to 360 of 382

Thread: Would You Tolerate Nuclear Power For Energy Independence?

  1. #351
    Sage
    EagleAye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Last Seen
    03-28-13 @ 09:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,697

    Re: Would You Tolerate Nuclear Power For Energy Independence?

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    You are only taking in EVs as a replacement for gasoline. You are leaving out hydrogen and bio-fuels. EVs are dependent upon battery technologies which have yet to reach a practical usage level.

    EVs are a future technology, not truly an existing one. I do not know the current state of nuclear batteries, if it is developed enough, then we might be able to produce practical use EVs now.
    I see great promise in algeal bio-fuel. It could be very handy in providing fuel for long haul trucks and commercial airlines. They need to get the cost down, but I expect that will happen as they expand operations. For commuter vehicles, EVs are indeed practical. The Nissan Leaf, for instance, has a 100 mile range. Easily enough to get to work and back with a stop for groceries and a nip at the pub. Fuel it up at home while you sleep, and you're fully charged for the next day. And this costs 70% less for 100 miles over a conventional ICE car. That's plenty practical.

    Hydrogen has lots of problems. The fuel cells are currently ridiculously expensive, making EV batteries look positively thrifty. The best way to get hydrogen is from natural gas, but then that begs the point, why not just burn the natural gas and avoid an extra step? Storing hydrogen is also very difficult and expensive. The molecules are so small they can seep through most containers. Stopping that requires very expensive containers and then you still need to crack it out of NG or water. This is an energy expensive process. You need electricity for this. Why not just use the electricity directly?
    Check out my Blog http://momusnews.wordpress.com/
    Sherry's Photography site: http://www.sheywicklundphotos.com/

  2. #352
    User
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 11:56 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6

    Re: Would You Tolerate Nuclear Power For Energy Independence?

    The question, while raising the important issue of nuclear power, is a non-starter because it is not possible to become energy independent. We currently consume about 20% of the world's daily produced oil, more than any other nation. While it is true that we've experienced a recent bump in domestic production, our oil production has steadily declined after peaking in 1970. Many people aren't aware of the fact that the US was the "Saudi Arabia" of the world in terms of oil production for a century, until we peaked in the '70s. Since then, our oil production has declined, obviously not because demand has declined, but because supply has declined. The oil that was there is gone, so we're scrapping to find it elsewhere domestically, finding that despite our rapid extraction technologies, we've been unable to match the production levels afforded by the sheer volume of crude once available.

    The U.S. consumes more energy in the form of oil than any other source. So even if we were to convert all electricity production to nuclear, we'd still have our #1 consumption source to deal with. Because of the recent production bump, we now produce 55% of our consumed oil domestically. That's a positive gain, but only a bump in a 40+ year trend of decline. If, however unlikely, we were able to boost our production almost two-fold, and thus become oil-independent, it would only afford us a few years before we saw a sharp decline in domestic oil production because the ability to extract oil faster might mean higher production in the short term, but it spells lower reserves in the long run, as they are spent faster.

    The idea that oil is everlasting is romantic, but, as every petroleum engineer knows, a farce. Just as U.S. supplies peaked in the '70s and dozens of countries have experienced recent declines, world production will peak at some point, by some measures as early as 2015. That will mean declining supply, rising prices, and havok on economies across the world.

    Source: Home - Energy Explained, Your Guide To Understanding Energy - Energy Information Administration

  3. #353
    Sage
    EagleAye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Last Seen
    03-28-13 @ 09:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,697

    Re: Would You Tolerate Nuclear Power For Energy Independence?

    Quote Originally Posted by ihallhou View Post
    The question, while raising the important issue of nuclear power, is a non-starter because it is not possible to become energy independent. We currently consume about 20% of the world's daily produced oil, more than any other nation. While it is true that we've experienced a recent bump in domestic production, our oil production has steadily declined after peaking in 1970. Many people aren't aware of the fact that the US was the "Saudi Arabia" of the world in terms of oil production for a century, until we peaked in the '70s. Since then, our oil production has declined, obviously not because demand has declined, but because supply has declined. The oil that was there is gone, so we're scrapping to find it elsewhere domestically, finding that despite our rapid extraction technologies, we've been unable to match the production levels afforded by the sheer volume of crude once available.

    The U.S. consumes more energy in the form of oil than any other source. So even if we were to convert all electricity production to nuclear, we'd still have our #1 consumption source to deal with. Because of the recent production bump, we now produce 55% of our consumed oil domestically. That's a positive gain, but only a bump in a 40+ year trend of decline. If, however unlikely, we were able to boost our production almost two-fold, and thus become oil-independent, it would only afford us a few years before we saw a sharp decline in domestic oil production because the ability to extract oil faster might mean higher production in the short term, but it spells lower reserves in the long run, as they are spent faster.

    The idea that oil is everlasting is romantic, but, as every petroleum engineer knows, a farce. Just as U.S. supplies peaked in the '70s and dozens of countries have experienced recent declines, world production will peak at some point, by some measures as early as 2015. That will mean declining supply, rising prices, and havok on economies across the world.

    Source: Home - Energy Explained, Your Guide To Understanding Energy - Energy Information Administration
    I think energy independence is possible. The means to do so requires cutting out our great thirst of oil for transportation. This can be accomplished by the production of electric vehicles (EVs). 71% of our oil use is in transportation. Most of that is consumed in personal cars. Replace these with EVs, and later as the tech develops, long haul trucks (or perhaps NG versions), and you've got the problem licked. Domestic supply would be enough to support us.
    Check out my Blog http://momusnews.wordpress.com/
    Sherry's Photography site: http://www.sheywicklundphotos.com/

  4. #354
    Sage
    Quag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Earth
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,061

    Re: Would You Tolerate Nuclear Power For Energy Independence?

    Quote Originally Posted by EagleAye View Post
    I think energy independence is possible. The means to do so requires cutting out our great thirst of oil for transportation. This can be accomplished by the production of electric vehicles (EVs). 71% of our oil use is in transportation. Most of that is consumed in personal cars. Replace these with EVs, and later as the tech develops, long haul trucks (or perhaps NG versions), and you've got the problem licked. Domestic supply would be enough to support us.
    Perhaps one day for now we are not even close to having EV's replace IC engines. A more feasible/immediately possible solution is biodesiel. For some reason Americans seem to be reluctant to use diesel engines. Of course it would also have an impact on food prices(everything has advantages/disadvantages), but unlike gasahol it is a viable alternative.
    A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
    Winston Churchill



    A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.
    Winston Churchill

  5. #355
    Sage
    EagleAye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Last Seen
    03-28-13 @ 09:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,697

    Re: Would You Tolerate Nuclear Power For Energy Independence?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quag View Post
    Perhaps one day for now we are not even close to having EV's replace IC engines. A more feasible/immediately possible solution is biodesiel. For some reason Americans seem to be reluctant to use diesel engines. Of course it would also have an impact on food prices(everything has advantages/disadvantages), but unlike gasahol it is a viable alternative.
    Even if EVs outclassed ICEs in every regard now (they don't, yet), it would still take a long time. If we consider that we average two cars for every person (don't know if this is true), that would mean 600 million cars would need to be replaced. And not everybody is in a position to change their car that easily. And this change should happen voluntarily. But EVs require different operation, and some people aren't so willing to change their habits. With all this in mind, changing over to EVs or even hybrids will take a long time. Decades, probably. But then again, the journey of 1000 miles begins with one step.

    And I do like bio-diesel too, provided that it's something like algae-fuel. I don't care for ethanol. That was a poor idea that's too energy intensive for the amount of return. On the other hand, algae fuel has been successfully tested in airliners. And there's a Navy carrier battlegroup operating now that uses algae fuel after successful testing. The price is still high, but is expected to come down in price, even below current oil costs, to produce. Diesel cars running on American-made algae fuel would totally work for me, and effectively show OPEC the door.
    Check out my Blog http://momusnews.wordpress.com/
    Sherry's Photography site: http://www.sheywicklundphotos.com/

  6. #356
    Sage
    Quag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Earth
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,061

    Re: Would You Tolerate Nuclear Power For Energy Independence?

    Quote Originally Posted by EagleAye View Post
    Even if EVs outclassed ICEs in every regard now (they don't, yet), it would still take a long time. If we consider that we average two cars for every person (don't know if this is true), that would mean 600 million cars would need to be replaced. And not everybody is in a position to change their car that easily. And this change should happen voluntarily. But EVs require different operation, and some people aren't so willing to change their habits. With all this in mind, changing over to EVs or even hybrids will take a long time. Decades, probably. But then again, the journey of 1000 miles begins with one step.

    And I do like bio-diesel too, provided that it's something like algae-fuel. I don't care for ethanol. That was a poor idea that's too energy intensive for the amount of return. On the other hand, algae fuel has been successfully tested in airliners. And there's a Navy carrier battlegroup operating now that uses algae fuel after successful testing. The price is still high, but is expected to come down in price, even below current oil costs, to produce. Diesel cars running on American-made algae fuel would totally work for me, and effectively show OPEC the door.
    Ethanol is not a diesel fuel it is more like a low grade gasoline Biodiesel is diesel, inherently more efficient from the start, Ev's are very very very far away from becomign practible and hybrids are a complete waste untill the battery tech gets there, and when it does they still are as pure Ev's will be so much better.
    Biggest problem with hybrids is they have a very limited lifespan compared with IC cars. Once the battery is gone no one is gonna pay the 5-8k$ to fix a car that is between 5-10 years old.
    A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
    Winston Churchill



    A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.
    Winston Churchill

  7. #357
    Sage
    EagleAye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Last Seen
    03-28-13 @ 09:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,697

    Re: Would You Tolerate Nuclear Power For Energy Independence?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quag View Post
    Ethanol is not a diesel fuel it is more like a low grade gasoline Biodiesel is diesel, inherently more efficient from the start, Ev's are very very very far away from becomign practible and hybrids are a complete waste untill the battery tech gets there, and when it does they still are as pure Ev's will be so much better.
    Biggest problem with hybrids is they have a very limited lifespan compared with IC cars. Once the battery is gone no one is gonna pay the 5-8k$ to fix a car that is between 5-10 years old.
    Au Contraire! EVs are perfectly practical when used appropriately. For short range driving (commuting, groceries, in-city errands), EVs are not only practical, they're better. ICEs are better for long range driving. So it's not uncommon for a family to have two or more cars. One can be an EV which is used for the most common driving needs like getting to work. Vacations or camping trips would be where the ICE (SUV?) would be the car of choice. An EV should be considered like a screwdriver. Just because it's a lousy hammer, doesn't mean it has no practical use.
    Check out my Blog http://momusnews.wordpress.com/
    Sherry's Photography site: http://www.sheywicklundphotos.com/

  8. #358
    Farts in Elevators
    OscarB63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    09-06-14 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,526

    Re: Would You Tolerate Nuclear Power For Energy Independence?

    Quote Originally Posted by EagleAye View Post
    Au Contraire! EVs are perfectly practical when used appropriately. For short range driving (commuting, groceries, in-city errands), EVs are not only practical, they're better. ICEs are better for long range driving. So it's not uncommon for a family to have two or more cars. One can be an EV which is used for the most common driving needs like getting to work. Vacations or camping trips would be where the ICE (SUV?) would be the car of choice. An EV should be considered like a screwdriver. Just because it's a lousy hammer, doesn't mean it has no practical use.
    the problem with current EVs is the upfront cost. most working class folks simply can't afford them
    The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

    An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

  9. #359
    Sage
    Quag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Earth
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,061

    Re: Would You Tolerate Nuclear Power For Energy Independence?

    Quote Originally Posted by EagleAye View Post
    Au Contraire! EVs are perfectly practical when used appropriately. For short range driving (commuting, groceries, in-city errands), EVs are not only practical, they're better. ICEs are better for long range driving. So it's not uncommon for a family to have two or more cars. One can be an EV which is used for the most common driving needs like getting to work. Vacations or camping trips would be where the ICE (SUV?) would be the car of choice. An EV should be considered like a screwdriver. Just because it's a lousy hammer, doesn't mean it has no practical use.
    I am thinking along the lines of transports Ie trucks, EV's arent there yet. But even when talking of 2 car families the cost of EV's combined with their lack of versatility make them kinda pointless ATM. If you live in a major city and never venture outside it an EV can be practicle but then public transport will do the same for much less cost (IC engines cost wise are also better still, perhaps in future will be different but not yet)
    I am one of the 2 car families you talk of. 1 car gets tons of mileage the other almost none. We looked at hybrids/EVs for the low milage vehicule but it made no sense it would cost way too much and we would lose the ability to ever use it for longer hauls if need be. You need to do A LOT of mileage to have an EV come anywhere near breaking even to an IC engine but then they dont have the range/easy refill (a charge even on quick charge is glacial compared to filling a tank with gas) Plus resale value/cost of having to replace the batteries made it pointless. The low mileage vehicule will probably last 15 years barring accidents (based on our previous vehicular use) No way we could keep an EV that long the batteries just wont last and the cost of replacement is way to high.

    Like I said maybe one day they will become practicle but for now they are special use vehicules, that can only fill a very small % of the need.
    A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
    Winston Churchill



    A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.
    Winston Churchill

  10. #360
    Sage
    EagleAye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Last Seen
    03-28-13 @ 09:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,697

    Re: Would You Tolerate Nuclear Power For Energy Independence?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quag View Post
    I am thinking along the lines of transports Ie trucks, EV's arent there yet. But even when talking of 2 car families the cost of EV's combined with their lack of versatility make them kinda pointless ATM. If you live in a major city and never venture outside it an EV can be practicle but then public transport will do the same for much less cost (IC engines cost wise are also better still, perhaps in future will be different but not yet)
    I am one of the 2 car families you talk of. 1 car gets tons of mileage the other almost none. We looked at hybrids/EVs for the low milage vehicule but it made no sense it would cost way too much and we would lose the ability to ever use it for longer hauls if need be. You need to do A LOT of mileage to have an EV come anywhere near breaking even to an IC engine but then they dont have the range/easy refill (a charge even on quick charge is glacial compared to filling a tank with gas) Plus resale value/cost of having to replace the batteries made it pointless. The low mileage vehicule will probably last 15 years barring accidents (based on our previous vehicular use) No way we could keep an EV that long the batteries just wont last and the cost of replacement is way to high.

    Like I said maybe one day they will become practicle but for now they are special use vehicules, that can only fill a very small % of the need.
    Certainly, the price is a bit steep for Americans who are seriously budget-conscious. I don't own an EV and couldn't possibly afford one right now. Then again, I've never owned a new car in my life. But I can see a market for them. EVs aren't only a budget car, but a new technological and economic paradigm. People who can afford an EV and do so are contributing to national energy security. Not all of us are in a position to contribute in this manner, and no one should feel bad if we can't. Those who are early adopters, whatever their reasons are, are making it possible for the costs (initial and battery replacement) to come down. That means that those of us who cannot afford now will be able to, later. The technology of the Audi A6 ICE means it's initial price is far too high for me, and maintenance costs would flat out kill me. That doesn't mean it's an impractical car or a bad car. It's a great car for those that can afford it for reasons of their own. The technology of the A6 will one day trickle down to be common enough and affordable enough for me to own it. And that's only because enough people, well off enough, bought the technology and made it worth mass manufacturing.
    Check out my Blog http://momusnews.wordpress.com/
    Sherry's Photography site: http://www.sheywicklundphotos.com/

Page 36 of 39 FirstFirst ... 263435363738 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •