• 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!

Would You Tolerate Nuclear Power For Energy Independence?

Are You Interested In More Nuclear Power?

  • Total voters
    101
UtahBill said:
nuclear is cheaper than solar....
Click to expand...

You keep saying that and not linking the costs. Very consistent. Consistently wrong. Joko's link illustrated the real costs of nukes. You should read it. Local solar is far cheaper than nukes. Local solar is efficient. Local solar makes jobs. Local solar saves money. Local solar puts those savings in local economies. Local solar fights Global Warming and Global Glowing. Local solar does not pollute. Local solar cuts taxing entities and grid operators out of the loop. Last sentence explains why local solar is not supported at a National level.
 
DaveFagan said:
You keep saying that and not linking the costs. Very consistent. Consistently wrong. Joko's link illustrated the real costs of nukes. You should read it. Local solar is far cheaper than nukes. Local solar is efficient. Local solar makes jobs. Local solar saves money. Local solar puts those savings in local economies. Local solar fights Global Warming and Global Glowing. Local solar does not pollute. Local solar cuts taxing entities and grid operators out of the loop. Last sentence explains why local solar is not supported at a National level.
Click to expand...

Hnmm you seem to be a big supporter of Solar. Myself I'm more on the fence, it has good sides/bad sides. One of the bad sides is that it is not usefull everywhere nor for every application.
Basically the USA cannot supply its energy needs through solar alone, it can help but not be a repalcement for other forms of energy.
 
DaveFagan said:
You keep saying that and not linking the costs. Very consistent. Consistently wrong. Joko's link illustrated the real costs of nukes. You should read it. Local solar is far cheaper than nukes. Local solar is efficient. Local solar makes jobs. Local solar saves money. Local solar puts those savings in local economies. Local solar fights Global Warming and Global Glowing. Local solar does not pollute. Local solar cuts taxing entities and grid operators out of the loop. Last sentence explains why local solar is not supported at a National level.
Click to expand...
Local solar will not support heavy loads 24/7, so local solar is little more than a supplemental source of electricity....
 
UtahBill said:
Local solar will not support heavy loads 24/7, so local solar is little more than a supplemental source of electricity....
Click to expand...

Yes but not forever. Firstly, there's nothing wrong in my opinion with a supplemental electrical source. Secondly, technologies are always improved upon and nothing speeds those improvements faster than than being out on the market where competition drives innovation while along with mass production drives down costs. The best way to stay in the stone ages is to say lets just keep walking and riding animal back because wheel technology isn't ready and won't be until rubber tire mass production and compressed air technology is perfected.
 
Quag said:
Hnmm you seem to be a big supporter of Solar. Myself I'm more on the fence, it has good sides/bad sides. One of the bad sides is that it is not usefull everywhere nor for every application.
Basically the USA cannot supply its energy needs through solar alone, it can help but not be a repalcement for other forms of energy.
Click to expand...

adding more...
solar cell output is DC, direct current, suitable for lighting, toasting, resistance heating....to have it drive an AC load, you need inverters, a not-so-cheap device that has to be able to drive the high current loads of motors, compressors, etc. in your major appliances.
I had to repair a high dollar high current inverter once, for my employer. It was damned expensive, using a lot of matched output transistors. A co-worker lifted the output wires while they were hot, used duct tape to insulate them, never did turn off the input power....tape fell off, wires got moved, arc and spark showed up, and blew all the output transistors.

if the panels ever get really cheap, I still would not use them...my money is better spent on LED lighting, since lighting is the only place I would use solar, and guess what? turns out the sun don't shine at night and I would need batteries, made of highly polluting chemicals.
So for daytime lighting, guess I will have to go back-woodsy and open the curtains....
Apparently you have them and like them....but you won't convert me...I am a heathen.
 
Smeagol said:
Yes but not forever. Firstly, there's nothing wrong in my opinion with a supplemental electrical source. Secondly, technologies are always improved upon and nothing speeds those improvements faster than than being out on the market where competition drives innovation while along with mass production drives down costs. The best way to stay in the stone ages is to say lets just keep walking and riding animal back because wheel technology isn't ready and won't be until rubber tire mass production and compressed air technology is perfected.
Click to expand...
supplements are fine, but the media keeps calling them alternatives...which they are not.
an alternative to a 24/7 source is another 24/7 source, not a 3rd cousin twice removed....
 
i hate every power which harms humanity
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Meanwhile in Japan....


563126-japan-inside-the-zone.jpg
Click to expand...

At least the meat has been irradiated, so no pesky parasites. :mrgreen:
 
How long, in reality, does it take to complete a new nuclear power facility? It takes years, and oodles of money. So, if there's a huge safety or efficiency improvement in the meantime, towards the end of the constuction - we're stuck with the old. I'd rather wait for the thorium or molten salt reactors to be perfected before we invest in old tech.

Yes, we know coal plants must either be replaced or radically improved by tech, but they exist now and provide power now. We should phase in replacement as the tech for those replacements is absolutely stable and workable.

And again, there is no reason to jump right back in to the borrow from Peter to pay Paul mode. Sacrificing tomorrow for what we need today. I'll say it again, we lose close to 47% of the electricity we generate in the transmission. Change that and the electricity provided by clean energy sources (no waste) has a chance to meet our needs.
 
clownboy said:
How long, in reality, does it take to complete a new nuclear power facility? It takes years, and oodles of money. So, if there's a huge safety or efficiency improvement in the meantime, towards the end of the constuction - we're stuck with the old. I'd rather wait for the thorium or molten salt reactors to be perfected before we invest in old tech.

Yes, we know coal plants must either be replaced or radically improved by tech, but they exist now and provide power now. We should phase in replacement as the tech for those replacements is absolutely stable and workable.

And again, there is no reason to jump right back in to the borrow from Peter to pay Paul mode. Sacrificing tomorrow for what we need today. I'll say it again, we lose close to 47% of the electricity we generate in the transmission. Change that and the electricity provided by clean energy sources (no waste) has a chance to meet our needs.
Click to expand...
an easier start is to use less at home, that being as low tech as we can get....
the less we use, the less line loss as well.
 
UtahBill said:
an easier start is to use less at home, that being as low tech as we can get....
the less we use, the less line loss as well.
Click to expand...

Agreed, combine that with increasing transmission efficiency and we'll have already made a huge dent in the problem.
 
UtahBill said:
Local solar will not support heavy loads 24/7, so local solar is little more than a supplemental source of electricity....
Click to expand...

Consistent. Wrong again. Solar charges batteries, preferably nickel/iron, some still being used since 1900. They use up electrolyte, potassium hydroxide, not the metal plates. Inverters are use to make the alternating current. Many small inverters, 2-400 watts availavle at $29-79 at Harbor Frieght. The cooling fans in the larger cause diminishing returns, but are necessary for appliances with motors. A generator with the exhaust pipe plugged in to a hot water heater so when you do need a little extra juice, you can use the 75% of energy usually wasted out exhaust to make hot water. Potable or baseboard. Now the big factory down the street might not be able to do this, but does that mean we are subsidizing them with centralized distribution of energy or as you refer "the grid," and if they are using big current, they are responsible for larger line losses and should pay more. Tip o' the iceberg, bucko.
 
DaveFagan said:
Consistent. Wrong again. Solar charges batteries, preferably nickel/iron, some still being used since 1900. They use up electrolyte, potassium hydroxide, not the metal plates. Inverters are use to make the alternating current. Many small inverters, 2-400 watts availavle at $29-79 at Harbor Frieght. The cooling fans in the larger cause diminishing returns, but are necessary for appliances with motors. A generator with the exhaust pipe plugged in to a hot water heater so when you do need a little extra juice, you can use the 75% of energy usually wasted out exhaust to make hot water. Potable or baseboard. Now the big factory down the street might not be able to do this, but does that mean we are subsidizing them with centralized distribution of energy or as you refer "the grid," and if they are using big current, they are responsible for larger line losses and should pay more. Tip o' the iceberg, bucko.
Click to expand...

nickel iron? had to look that up....had not heard of them before.
 
Quag said:
News to me as well, seems they tend to be rather innefficient though.

Nickel Iron Batteries
Click to expand...

That is correct. The power density is lower than conventional lead/acid batteries, but they're an investment because your grandchildren might still be using the ones you install today. The correct statement is that they are not as efficient as lead acid batteries. That does not mean they are innefficient and that word is poorly chosen. They're lots better than nukes.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I think "energy independence" is stupid.
If it is done, for that reason alone, no I don't support it.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to be with electricity as its an oil issue for now, however do you connect our energy needs in any way to our need to be involved in the terrorist/dictator/volatile/anti-American rich Middle East?
 
Last edited:
UtahBill said:
nickel iron? had to look that up....had not heard of them before.
Click to expand...

Quag said:
News to me as well, seems they tend to be rather innefficient though.

Nickel Iron Batteries
Click to expand...

I don't think anybody is using these anymore. NiMH are more common these days.

A better solution for electrical storage with intermittent energy source like Wind and Solar are Flow Batteries. They can hold a charge for a very long time. Some are already being used for industrial applications.
Flow batteries are a relatively new technology. Although originally dating back to the mid-1950s, most of the research leading to their development was carried out by NASA in the 1970s and by scientists at the University of New South Wales in the 1980s, where the contemporary, vanadium-based version was patented. The largest flow battery installation is a 1.5 megawatt facility at a semiconductor factory in Japan.

The technology offers relatively low energy density in terms of energy storage per pound of material–even compared to heavy storage systems like lead-acid batteries–which does not make them good candidates for mobile applications. For stationary power storage purposes, however, this is far less a critical factor than it is for vehicles or for portable electronics. Flow batteries’ high level of rechargeability and relative safety (compared to lead-acid batteries, which release dangerous hydrogen gas) and stability make them potentially well suited for further development for moderate-scale power storage systems.

Flow batteries are also useful as large-scale backup power supplies because of their ability to quickly respond (within fractions of a millisecond) to demand for power. Because of their long life expectancy, they would also do extremely well for load-shifting, where electricity is used to charge the battery during off-peak hours when rates are low, and then provide power back to a facility from the batteries instead of paying the premium, peak electricity rates.
Click to expand...
Storing That Power: Flow Batteries -

That said, I think it makes sense to employ several different energy solutions. There are advantages and disadvantages to each one. Properly positioning the various energy types can take advantage of the strengths of each while compensating for the weaknesses. Solar is an excellent idea in Tempe, AZ but a lousy one in Seattle, WA. I see people arguing for their favorite energy source as though they expect it to be the last type ever used. I don't see that as possible. We'd like cheap electricity but also pollution-free electricity. Well, "you can't always get want. But if you try sometime, you just might find, you get what you need." We might have to accept a certain number of nuclear plants and a certain number of Natural Gas plants, all sprinkled in amongst Wind, Solar, and Wave plants. Many types of energy working together can provide energy independence, cleaner air, and reasonable costs. It's all about placing the right kind of energy where it is most suited.
 
DaveFagan said:
That is correct. The power density is lower than conventional lead/acid batteries, but they're an investment because your grandchildren might still be using the ones you install today. The correct statement is that they are not as efficient as lead acid batteries. That does not mean they are innefficient and that word is poorly chosen. They're lots better than nukes.
Click to expand...

so what isn't better than nukes?:2razz:
 
DaveFagan said:
That is correct. The power density is lower than conventional lead/acid batteries, but they're an investment because your grandchildren might still be using the ones you install today. The correct statement is that they are not as efficient as lead acid batteries. That does not mean they are innefficient and that word is poorly chosen. They're lots better than nukes.
Click to expand...

Shortcomings
Low cell voltage.

Very heavy and bulky.

The low reactivity of the active components limits the high rate performance of the cells. They cells take a charge slowly, and give it up slowly.

Low coulombic efficiency, typically less than 65%

Steep voltage drop off with state of charge

Low energy density.

High self discharge rate.

More pronounced Hydrogen gassing than Nickel-Cadmium

Applications
Click to expand...

Low efficiency = inefficiency in my book.
Again depends on the application. Solar panels dont work so well in Alaska especially in winter, and dont provide enough energy for city/heavy industrial applications. Like wind they can be usefull in certain circumstances but cannot replace oil/coal/nuclear any time in the near-medium future. perhaps someday technology will progress enough but ATM we arent there.
 
UtahBill said:
so what isn't better than nukes?:2razz:
Click to expand...

More nukes. I'm not too keen on rubber tire fired steam boilers. Truthfully, the lack of virtue that attaches itself to anything that makes big money, makes it tough to sympathize with the distribution network. That's an old boy net, usually. Had time enough to get established and buy the requisite politicians with the same lack of virtue that attaches to other big money. That's our system and the "nukes" are a natural fit.
 
Smeagol said:
It has nothing to be with electricity as its an oil issue for now, however do you connect our energy needs in any way to our need to be involved in the terrorist/dictator/volatile/anti-American rich Middle East?
Click to expand...

We get most of our oil from Canada, secondly, we aren't going to get away from Mid East oil, as it's traded on the world market.

Plus, nuclear energy isn't really do anything to decouple us from oil.
 
Chernobyl was a defective basic physics reactor run by people that had NO IDEA of how reactors work.

So Chernobyl is a FAILURE of the PEOPLE. Not nuclear power.

you will notice NO ONE in the west even has a TINY graphite reactor..........They are stupid - period.

No PWR has ever failed because of the reactor or the design. ONLY the people running it. ( three mile islend)
 
274ina said:
Chernobyl was a defective basic physics reactor run by people that had NO IDEA of how reactors work.

So Chernobyl is a FAILURE of the PEOPLE. Not nuclear power.

you will notice NO ONE in the west even has a TINY graphite reactor..........They are stupid - period.

No PWR has ever failed because of the reactor or the design. ONLY the people running it. ( three mile islend)
Click to expand...

The message is clear. Reactors run by people FAIL. Arrogance, hubris, greed, and the litany of human shortcomings lead the charge.
 
The message is clear. Reactors run by people FAIL. Arrogance, hubris, greed, and the litany of human shortcomings lead the charge.

No they do not.

That is what the PWR proves. When the people screw up, the reactor STOPS the PEOPLE from a outside the fence accident.
(and no I am not counting irrelivant and harmless noble gasses releases)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom