• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

replacing coal power plants with nuclear power plants

M

matsuiny2004

Active member
Joined
Dec 5, 2011
Messages
384
Reaction score
78
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Why are there no politicians attempting to replace coal with nuclear power. Coal miners and workers can be retrained and coal plant owners can just become nuclear plant owners. I think this should be done with tax breaks. This would cut a good amount of carbon.
 
yes it would, but the average person has only limited knowledge of this issue, and even that comes from the media types who know nothing but would have us believe they know something....
Reporters are repeaters, and they get it wrong a lot.
Likewise the politicians who use their ignorance to create fear in the even more ignorant.

The issue that most detractors discuss the most is waste disposal. Truth be known, a lot of nuclear waste has already been dumped in our oceans, and Godzilla hasn't happened yet. There are some really deep places in the oceans, and some are at subduction zones, even better for long term disposal.

But before we build new power plants of any kind, we need to look at what can be done easily, cheaply, and using old technology, and by that I mean efficiencies, aka conserving.
Example: Ask anybody why we don't vent our clothes dryers indoors in the winter and you will get an answer that fits the one or two instances where it shouldn't be done. That would be when using gas or propane and/or in very humid climates. If the humidity in your house is low, as it usually is in winter almost everywhere in the USA, vent indoors as long as your clothes dryer is electric. It is easy to build a baghouse type filter to contain the lint. You get free heat inside your house that otherwise would be vented outdoors, and wasted, and you get some needed humidity as well. I have heard HVAC contractors say it is a bad idea due to humidity buildup, then tell me I need to add a humidifier to my furnace....Unless you are doing laundry several times a day and every day of the week, humidity will not build up. You have to have a super sealed house before that becomes an issue, and even then there are relatively easy and cheap ways to capture the heat without the humidity. As long as you aren't getting moisture condensing on your windows, you don't have too much humidity.

That is JUST ONE thing that nearly every HVAC contractor gets wrong. Why is there so much ignorance? because the right kind of training isn't getting done.
 
UtahBill said:
yes it would, but the average person has only limited knowledge of this issue, and even that comes from the media types who know nothing but would have us believe they know something....
Reporters are repeaters, and they get it wrong a lot.
Likewise the politicians who use their ignorance to create fear in the even more ignorant.

The issue that most detractors discuss the most is waste disposal. Truth be known, a lot of nuclear waste has already been dumped in our oceans, and Godzilla hasn't happened yet. There are some really deep places in the oceans, and some are at subduction zones, even better for long term disposal.

But before we build new power plants of any kind, we need to look at what can be done easily, cheaply, and using old technology, and by that I mean efficiencies, aka conserving.
Example: Ask anybody why we don't vent our clothes dryers indoors in the winter and you will get an answer that fits the one or two instances where it shouldn't be done. That would be when using gas or propane and/or in very humid climates. If the humidity in your house is low, as it usually is in winter almost everywhere in the USA, vent indoors as long as your clothes dryer is electric. It is easy to build a baghouse type filter to contain the lint. You get free heat inside your house that otherwise would be vented outdoors, and wasted, and you get some needed humidity as well. I have heard HVAC contractors say it is a bad idea due to humidity buildup, then tell me I need to add a humidifier to my furnace....Unless you are doing laundry several times a day and every day of the week, humidity will not build up. You have to have a super sealed house before that becomes an issue, and even then there are relatively easy and cheap ways to capture the heat without the humidity. As long as you aren't getting moisture condensing on your windows, you don't have too much humidity.

That is JUST ONE thing that nearly every HVAC contractor gets wrong. Why is there so much ignorance? because the right kind of training isn't getting done.
Click to expand...

what the smart grid be an example of conserving?
 
matsuiny2004 said:
what the smart grid be an example of conserving?
Click to expand...
yes, a very expensive and high tech way of controlling usage to minimize peaks that are too high....read the wiki article on it.
It is the govt and high tech industry's way of making us do the right thing.
It reminds me of what Engineer Scott said about how he sabatoged the new Enterprise so it couldn't pursue the old Enterprise when the crew stole it to go rescue Spock, IIRC.
What he said...
The more you overthink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain....
in simpler terms, as soon as we become dependent on automation, we are setting ourselves up for disaster.
A culture shift is probably harder to achieve than implementing high tech and super expensive technology, even tho it should be easier. But make it costly to fight the system and they will pay attention.
Tell people that they will pay higher rates during peak hours, and if they are smart, they will do their laundry in offpeak hours....
 
UtahBill said:
yes, a very expensive and high tech way of controlling usage to minimize peaks that are too high....read the wiki article on it.
It is the govt and high tech industry's way of making us do the right thing.
It reminds me of what Engineer Scott said about how he sabatoged the new Enterprise so it couldn't pursue the old Enterprise when the crew stole it to go rescue Spock, IIRC.
What he said...
The more you overthink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain....
in simpler terms, as soon as we become dependent on automation, we are setting ourselves up for disaster.
A culture shift is probably harder to achieve than implementing high tech and super expensive technology, even tho it should be easier. But make it costly to fight the system and they will pay attention.
Tell people that they will pay higher rates during peak hours, and if they are smart, they will do their laundry in offpeak hours....
Click to expand...

so are you saying a smart grid could be a good idea?

I do agree that it would be good to be not spend alot. Global warming does need to be acted on soon. I am just not sure if waiting for nuclear power plants to be built would be good.

oh and here a way nuclear waste could be dealt with

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/37476/
 
Last edited:
matsuiny2004 said:
so are you saying a smart grid could be a good idea? I do agree that it would be good to be not spend alot. Global warming does need to be acted on soon. I am just not sure if waiting for nuclear power plants to be built would be good.

oh and here a way nuclear waste could be dealt with

A 100-Year Plan for Nuclear Waste - Technology Review
Click to expand...
Having worked with engineers a lot, I am pretty sure the smart grid they build will be over priced from the start, and get worse from there. I think the culture shift should be done first...
 
UtahBill said:
Having worked with engineers a lot, I am pretty sure the smart grid they build will be over priced from the start, and get worse from there. I think the culture shift should be done first...
Click to expand...

I am cynical that people will change their energy habits so nuclear power would allow them to continue with the same habits and not burn carbon. Energy efficiency could be a secondary goal, as far as energy efficieny goes besides a smart grid you could phase out the production of energy hogging electronics
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Coal can be burned clean and we have lots of it. As a firm believer in Murphys Law I am anti nuke power plus we still havn't come up with any great way to deal with the waste.
Click to expand...
How do you think we are dealing with the wastes from coal plants? and coal cannot be burned clean....the equipment needed to make coal burn anywhere near clean would cost as much as a nuclear power plant, and you still have train loads of coal coming in everyday, along with train loads of ash going out every day....nukes store waste, coal plants dump it...

Environmental impact of the coal industry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Radioactive waste - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clean Coal Technologies | Carbon Capture and Storage | CCS

Waste Storage at Nuclear Plants Versus Waste Dumping at Coal Plants | Atomic Insights
 
matsuiny2004 said:
Why are there no politicians attempting to replace coal with nuclear power. Coal miners and workers can be retrained and coal plant owners can just become nuclear plant owners. I think this should be done with tax breaks. This would cut a good amount of carbon.
Click to expand...

Just how naive are you?
This isn't some business simulation game where you can retrain a person every few hours or so. It's hardly likely that coal miners can function well as nuclear plant workers.
 
Proud South Korean said:
Just how naive are you?
This isn't some business simulation game where you can retrain a person every few hours or so. It's hardly likely that coal miners can function well as nuclear plant workers.
Click to expand...
If the plant owners start training the local workers when the plant is 3 years from completion, it can be done. First they test the applicants and see which of them are suitable for the various types of operators, like the Navy did for me in 1964. After 9 months of electronics school, and a year of nuclear power school, they deemed me ready to operate. But That was Navy training, they owned me and my time. Civilians would take twice as long. Navy primary plant operators are considered equal to those with college bachelors degrees in science, engineering, etc. Those are the 2 main sources for most of our nuclear console/control room operators.
Some of the coal miners might end up being low skill laborers, some would be middle level tech, some would be high tech.
One thing for sure, it would be essential to keep the unions out of the training process. Not saying they can't be there later on, but only qualified workers should be hired. If the trainiees can't handle the training offered, let them step down to a lower level job, or go home and let the next generation train for those jobs.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Coal can be burned clean and we have lots of it. As a firm believer in Murphys Law I am anti nuke power plus we still havn't come up with any great way to deal with the waste.
Click to expand...

No, coal cannot be burned clean. Very, very simple physics. The exhaust can be scrubbed of some of the nastier things (mercury, uranium, etc) but some will always be released and we really don't have a decent setup for collecting CO2. Right now we store the coal waste in massive pools, which is just as big an environmental problem as nuclear waste. (if not more, due to the staggeringly large volume of waste from coal plants)

We can deal with nuclear waste: it can be recycled. The reason we don't is due to a treaty with Russia.
 
There is a growing demand for green energy like solar panels.
 
UtahBill said:
If the plant owners start training the local workers when the plant is 3 years from completion, it can be done. First they test the applicants and see which of them are suitable for the various types of operators, like the Navy did for me in 1964. After 9 months of electronics school, and a year of nuclear power school, they deemed me ready to operate. But That was Navy training, they owned me and my time. Civilians would take twice as long. Navy primary plant operators are considered equal to those with college bachelors degrees in science, engineering, etc. Those are the 2 main sources for most of our nuclear console/control room operators.
Some of the coal miners might end up being low skill laborers, some would be middle level tech, some would be high tech.
One thing for sure, it would be essential to keep the unions out of the training process. Not saying they can't be there later on, but only qualified workers should be hired. If the trainiees can't handle the training offered, let them step down to a lower level job, or go home and let the next generation train for those jobs.
Click to expand...

Just a question, as you know more aboit the nuts and bolts of nuclear:

What do you think about thorium reactors?

Seems to me from the little I've read that its safer and utilizes something that is currently a toxic waste.

Half-lifes shorter too, isn't it?

I'm one of those who likes nuclear in principle, but have reservations as to practise.

In other words, if the Dalai Lama was in charge, or we had nuclear "Jedi" I thino it would be great.

My concerns devolve from our "maximum profit right now" corporate mentality. I've seen FAR too many negative consequences of this modus to be entirely comfortable with its application to something with the potential consequences of nuclear power.

I LOVE the idea of using the subduction zones, though!
 
we aren't going to build an entirely new infrastructure for Th, it is just too expensive...
there are different kinds of Uranium reactors, tho, newer designs.
I remain committed to the concept of a culture shift that mandates reduced use of power FIRST....



Debate: Thorium based nuclear energy - Debatepedia
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Coal can be burned clean and we have lots of it. As a firm believer in Murphys Law I am anti nuke power plus we still havn't come up with any great way to deal with the waste.
Click to expand...

give me proof. There is no clean coal.
 
UtahBill said:
we aren't going to build an entirely new infrastructure for Th, it is just too expensive...
there are different kinds of Uranium reactors, tho, newer designs.
I remain committed to the concept of a culture shift that mandates reduced use of power FIRST....



Debate: Thorium based nuclear energy - Debatepedia
Click to expand...

I don't think that people will change their energy habits. Nuclear would allow them to continue their energy habits.
 
Last edited:
matsuiny2004 said:
I don't think that people will change their energy habits. Nuclear would allow them to continue their energy habits.
Click to expand...

Some things we can change. Like lightbulbs. While people will grumble about the change, after LED's become the main source of lighting people will realize how awesome it is to have them, and this will provide a substantial reduction in electrical needs. The other thing we need to do is move away from internal combustion engines as much as possible. They're horribly inefficient, only able to use ~20-25% of the energy in the gasoline they burn. An electric motor can use nearly 100% of the energy delivered to it. (although you still have inefficiencies built into the electric production and distribution. On the other hand you have to distribute gasoline too)

Problem is that lifestyle change issue. You're right that people don't want to change their habits. Not necessarily the energy habit, but rather the lifestyle habits. My car goes hundreds of miles before needing to be refueled, and refueling only takes a few minutes. People like that, people are used to that. New technologies need to be at least comparable to that or people aren't going to want to switch even if it is cheaper. Right now, the technology just isn't there to replace our fleet of cars with electric. The batteries take too long to charge and don't store enough energy. Hopefully this improves in the near future - we really should be funneling tax dollars into this sort of research.
 
matsuiny2004 said:
I don't think that people will change their energy habits. Nuclear would allow them to continue their energy habits.
Click to expand...
not if they have to pay extra for it.....we need a sliding scale on home energy usage, the more you use, the higher the rate.
one of my AZ neighbors was telling me his summer bills are $700 per month becuase his wife likes the house cold....
she should have to pay a higher rate. Same house as ours, we rarely get close to $200 per month in the summer...
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Some things we can change. Like lightbulbs. While people will grumble about the change, after LED's become the main source of lighting people will realize how awesome it is to have them, and this will provide a substantial reduction in electrical needs. The other thing we need to do is move away from internal combustion engines as much as possible. They're horribly inefficient, only able to use ~20-25% of the energy in the gasoline they burn. An electric motor can use nearly 100% of the energy delivered to it. (although you still have inefficiencies built into the electric production and distribution. On the other hand you have to distribute gasoline too)

Problem is that lifestyle change issue. You're right that people don't want to change their habits. Not necessarily the energy habit, but rather the lifestyle habits. My car goes hundreds of miles before needing to be refueled, and refueling only takes a few minutes. People like that, people are used to that. New technologies need to be at least comparable to that or people aren't going to want to switch even if it is cheaper. Right now, the technology just isn't there to replace our fleet of cars with electric. The batteries take too long to charge and don't store enough energy. Hopefully this improves in the near future - we really should be funneling tax dollars into this sort of research.
Click to expand...

Well I don't think we should wait on nuclear power though. I do agree that replacing gas burning cars with electric cars would be a good idea as well as replacing gas with other alternative fuels. As far as energy storage the tesla roadster can go 300 miles on a single charge. If that batter technology can be put in most electric cars for cheap then I think it has a chance. Creating car chargin stations would minimize the kind of battery you would need. A light bulb change using tax credits would be a good idea.
 
Last edited:
UtahBill said:
not if they have to pay extra for it.....we need a sliding scale on home energy usage, the more you use, the higher the rate.
one of my AZ neighbors was telling me his summer bills are $700 per month becuase his wife likes the house cold....
she should have to pay a higher rate. Same house as ours, we rarely get close to $200 per month in the summer...
Click to expand...

I don't think people would like that
 
UtahBill said:
They are free to use less electricity.....
Click to expand...

I just think a cheap technological approach would be better. People don't like the idea of being charged more to use a service. I mean look at netflix.
 
The question is can coal plants meet the pollution standards?

EPA Rules On Coal Plants Will Force Some Of Dirtiest Plants To Shut Down, Survey Finds

WASHINGTON — More than 32 mostly coal-fired power plants in a dozen states will be forced to shut down and an additional 36 might have to close because of new federal air pollution regulations, according to an Associated Press survey.

Together, those plants – some of the oldest and dirtiest in the country – produce enough electricity for more than 22 million households, the AP survey found. But their demise probably won't cause homes to go dark.

The fallout will be most acute for the towns where power plant smokestacks long have cast a shadow. Tax revenues and jobs will be lost, and investments in new power plants and pollution controls probably will raise electric bills.
Click to expand...

EPA Rules On Coal Plants Will Force Some Of Dirtiest Plants To Shut Down, Survey Finds
 
matsuiny2004 said:
I just think a cheap technological approach would be better. People don't like the idea of being charged more to use a service. I mean look at netflix.
Click to expand...
nothing is free, nothing....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom