- Joined
- Jan 21, 2009
- Messages
- 65,981
- Reaction score
- 23,408
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
nuclear is cheaper than solar....
Nuclear can not be done on a point of usage or micro level. Solar can.
nuclear is cheaper than solar....
Architecture 2030 and Better Buildings Initiative are a start but so far they have been ignoring the common man and his house. All they are doing now is talking up the large commercial properties becoming energy efficient and giving incentives for them.No that's not correct. When the home envelope is correctly designed, it leaks zero energy. That means it does not lose heat in cold climates or absorb heat in hot climates. Night lighting should be LEDs averaging 1.5 watts per each. Battery storage is adequate. For nighttime air circulation, it is possible that a one horsepower generator might be added to drive a 3/4 horsepower motor. It is overkill to want to use a multi million horsepower central source, always cranked up, always on, even when demand is reduced. Nothing is more backward than to think Centralized Distribution Network for power. That is the problem. Although it has built a wonderful country, the realities of CO2 and Global Warming must turn our direction to true efficiency not demand overkill. Solar and wind are only efficient locally and I do mean locally on citizen occupied homes. I will repeat something I have said often. When energy becomes LOCAL, two entities are cut out of the dollar profit loop. That is the Utility directly affected and that Utilities partner that it collects and distributes tax money to, the Tax collecting entity, whether it be local, state, or, Federal. That is the bottleneck in solar implementation. When you cut somebody out of the money loop, they are likely to talk bad about you and not help you. Pretty simple.
Nuclear can not be done on a point of usage or micro level. Solar can.
I did not consider Global Warming and Greenhouse to be ideological wants, but a realistic alternative to mitigate same because they are National and International problems. As regrds the batteries, I specifically stated nickel/iron batteries that use up their electrolyte not their metallic plates. The start up price is high and that is why it must be a National program creating new industries Nationally, that'd be jobs at local levels, much like Roosevelt's CCC and WPA. I do not see "Nukes" meeting these needs..
agree, with the added comment that the average home owner will probably be unable to operate a solar system so I damn sure don't want him to have a small nuke in his yard....
the GRID, I don't get it.....surely the electric companies know that the bigger the grid the bigger the failure of that grid....when someone forgets to trim a tree in Idaho and it starts a major forest fire as well as shutting down several states, there is a design failure or 6 that needs to be addressed. Grids work well in that they collect power from many and distribute to many, but they need to be more regional.Well, you should clean your Photovoltaic panels occasionally. Batteries need electrolyte occasionally and that is like your car battery, just pour a little in. Solar Reflex Heaters need to be installed during cold seasons or reversed for summer, depending on the aesthetic design. Solar is really low tech at the single house level. You just have to make sure the sun keeps coming up. The words sustainable fit well. A lot different than a nuke. Now, that is complicated and I have great admiration for knowledgeable operators.. I just don't like the business and it will always be a Big Money business because it is about the Centralized Collection of Monies. That is what the Nuclear Utility does. Just plug it in to the Grid.
I support the Keystone pipeline, getting more natural gas and drilling more of our oil as well as more nuclear power. I think we should go for the most cost effective method that results in energy independence (or at least has us getting more energy from Canada and virtually none from the Middle East).
soon the terrorists will have local nuke plants to attack....the Saudi's are going to build them and sell power to their neighbors...As much as I agree with you, I'd include solar, geothermal, and wind..
bottom line
better education, then we can progress
Also, this does not address the terrorist threat...yes....give these criminals time, and they will figure out how to destroy nuclear power plants and millions of us....I'd say that this is very serious.
They are NOT really criminal, even as their actions are.
We must, as it were, pop their balloon.
Killing OBL was not the answer.
soon the terrorists will have local nuke plants to attack....the Saudi's are going to build them and sell power to their neighbors...
NO, step 1 is learning how to waste less of it.....The Rocky Mountain Institute calculates that vampire loads (wall warts, etc.) account for about 18 coal fired power plants....Absolutely! There is no logical or any other reason for us to still have coal plants. Wind is to unreliable and will never be a primary source of electrical power. Solar may have a brighter future than wind as a primary source but we are a long ways from it. Both Solar and Wind still rely upon storage during darkness for solar and low/no wind times for Wind. These batteries are themselves a hazard in bot creation and storage when they fail. Geo-thermal also is limited, but like solar, should be exploited to the maximum extent possible.
We are poised on the edge of collapse with our current systems. Our existing Nuke plants are all getting old and need replacing with newer, safer technologies. With the looming EPA policies on coal, we face losing a major portion of our electrical grid in less than a year as existing coal plants, themselves old, cannot meet the new guidelines and will forced to close. We don't have new plants built or reserve capacity to make up for the loss.
We need to massively increase our electrical power production. This would be a first step towards energy independence. But only a first step because our electrical generation is not a major consumer of imported energy in the form of oil.
Steps towards energy independence that we need to embrace.
Step 1 -- Increase electrical power generation and efficiency of distribution
Step 2 -- As power levels rise, force the conversion of cargo rail towards pure electric systems instead of Diesel-Electric which is currently the backbone. Build a system of high-speed direct lines from major ports/producer areas and a hub system to transfer to low-speed electric rail for further distribution. This would allow the shift of a large amount of cargo from Air and Semi's to the more efficient and non-carbon fossil fuel based systems currently in use.
Step 3 -- Refocus Hybrid and other alternative fuels towards Trucks, Tractors and other means of distributing goods. Distribution of products, either by rail, truck or air and the production, especially in agriculture, are the actual major consumer of imported oil/energy, not automobiles.
Step 4 -- Mass transportation in urban and suburban areas. We are the worst for mas-transit of any industrialized nation with high population areas. In many cities, what mass-transit that exists is focused upon the poor and non-productive portions of our society. Mass-transit needs to be focused and planned to move workers from home to work first. Only when it achieves the ability to move 75% or more of that segment of the population should it be focused towards other areas. When we achieve that level of convenience and availability for the workers, based primarily on electric driven means, will we see great reductions in the use of personal automobiles.
To achieve this, we must increase and improve the use of non-fossil fuel (coal and natural gas) electrical power generation. For the foreseeable future, Nuclear is the only means available to meet our needs without resorting to fossil-fuels. With an increase of use of nuclear, we can progress to making it cheaper, safer and more recyclable.
Once the fission fusion reactors come on line we will have a new era of power.
Once the fission fusion reactors come on line we will have a new era of power.
electrical power....we will still have an oil problem.
They said that 50 years ago. They still be working on it.
Fusion is not as close as they say.....read the Wikipedia article with a pessimistic view, and you will see that there are still lots of problems to overcome....EVs can knock that problem out. They're nibbling at the edges right while people get used to the idea. If all goes well, EVs will be taking big bites out of the problem.
If the ITER Fusion project goes well, then we might see production fusion in 20 years. Since large, complicated projects rarely follow the schedule, I'll be happy if we see production fusion in 25 years. So all that means we cannot rely upon it now. We have to find other solutions to hold us over until then.
Fusion is not as close as they say.....read the Wikipedia article with a pessimistic view, and you will see that there are still lots of problems to overcome....
radioactive tritium constantly being vented.....the difficulty of storing tritium.....coming up with a way to test the materials used to construct the reactor before actually using them.....end of life issues for the reactor itself (radioactive and cannot be hauled away).....
20-25 years is within my expected lifespan, and I probably won't see it happen. Perhaps the rest of you are a lot younger?
make sure your doctor is a lot younger than you, sucks to outlive one and have to go through all that adjustment period again....one that I quit seeing was older, very fat, smoked, had high blood pressure, and he told me that I should exercise because my good cholesterol was a bit low. All the other lab work always looks good....20 - 25 years is a might optimistic. I think it is inevitable that we will get fusion into production. It's the "when" that's arguable. I'm not as old as you, but I'm at the age where I should seriously think about finding a doctor to keep as a friend and send him Christmas cards every year. I suppose it's conceit to presume fusion will go into production within my remaining lifespan. I think it's "hope" more than anything. It will solve a lot of problems, and I'd like to see a more settled world before I expire. Probably silly of me to expect that. We'll always have reasons to cause ourselves trouble, but hopefully energy will not be one of them.
There needs to be a poll option for "Nuclear power is awesome whats wrong with you idiots."
Nuclear powers death rate per-kwH is lower than solar.
Read that sentence again.
It's the safest power source we have, by a wide margin. It's also the most energy-dense, which is important given our enormous energy demands which are ever-increasing.
More research and money should be put into this:
Exclusive: Orbital solar power plants touted for energy needs | Reuters
The sun's abundant energy, if harvested in space, could provide a cost-effective way to meet global power needs in as little as 30 years with seed money from governments, according to a study by an international scientific group.
Orbiting power plants capable of collecting solar energy and beaming it to Earth appear "technically feasible" within a decade or two based on technologies now in the laboratory, a study group of the Paris-headquartered International Academy of Astronautics said.
How many years now have we heard such promises? How many years have we been told that fusion power will emerge? How about the promise of Solar? Or electric powered vehicles or even hydrogen-powered?
Where are we to get the money to invest? We already run, at least the last 4 years or so at over a Trillion dollar annual deficit. Is that likely to improve in the near future, maybe you think so, but I don't see it. We could cut 100% of defense spending and that would still leave over $200 billion a year in deficit spending if that were the only cuts made.
Certainly we should pursue alternate means, but we also have to work with existing technologies to survive to the point that these other means become available, if they ever do. The government is trying to shut down 175 power generation plants in the next 4 years or less due to "environmental concerns". Are there replacement plants already built? Are we going to replace them prior to a new technology emerging capable of that amount of generation? If the concern is pollution from these plants, why have they not been or planed to be replaced by nuclear which has no airborne environmental pollutants?
Where are we going to get the money to build nuclear power stations or to keep the ones we have running as the age? Where will we get the money to clean up our own nuclear cartography?
And please do not try to make me argue against your strawman argument.
What I am asserting is that we need to make advances in power production not just keep spending money on old technology. And nuclear power plants are old technology.
I dont know if you read the article that I linked, but its talking about an endless supply of power. Given that it is in space the solar energy is much higher than on the surface. Such a power station could catapult the economy in a way that nuclear never could. You should really research the subject of that link before lumping it in with fusion and regular solar power.