• 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
DaveFagan said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
A properly built house can easily get by with less than half the energy consumption of the houses being built today, but very few builders talk about it. If my builder told me I could have a house that has half the energy bills, I would want to know more. But sadly, that doesn't happen.
And if I bring it up, I get blank stares from most developers and contractors.
I wonder how high utility bills, and gasoline, have to get before people decide to try having some greens on their plate..
 
joko104 said:
Nuclear can not be done on a point of usage or micro level. Solar can.
Click to expand...

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....
 
DaveFagan said:
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..
Click to expand...

NiFe has a low specific energy of about 50Wh/kg, has poor low-temperature performance and exhibits high self-discharge of 20 to 40 percent a month. If a battery cannot be charged efficiently whats the point? Theres no conspiracy keeping NiFe's out of demand, its just that they are not good batteries to use for storing electricity.


ANd I was not implying that global climate change was an ideological dependent subject. I was referring to the other things that you were pimping.
 
UtahBill said:
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....
Click to expand...

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.
 
DaveFagan said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
We had some massive blackouts in the northeast, but that was way, way back, more than a week ago, so we all forget they happened....
 
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.
 
digsbe said:
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).
Click to expand...

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.
 
earthworm said:
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.
Click to expand...
soon the terrorists will have local nuke plants to attack....the Saudi's are going to build them and sell power to their neighbors...
 
UtahBill said:
soon the terrorists will have local nuke plants to attack....the Saudi's are going to build them and sell power to their neighbors...
Click to expand...

Apparently, the Saudis plan to stay in the energy business. Smart thinking. Hedge your bets before the rug gets pulled out.
 
DVSentinel said:
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.
Click to expand...
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....
 
Once the fission fusion reactors come on line we will have a new era of power.
 
Yeah sure - I support Thorium energy 100%
 
blaxshep said:
Once the fission fusion reactors come on line we will have a new era of power.
Click to expand...

They said that 50 years ago. They still be working on it.
 
UtahBill said:
electrical power....we will still have an oil problem.
Click to expand...

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.

PirateMk1 said:
They said that 50 years ago. They still be working on it.
Click to expand...

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.
 
EagleAye said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
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.
 
UtahBill said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
EagleAye said:
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.
Click to expand...
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....
he isn't dead yet, but he doesn't have far to go...
 
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.
 
Deuce said:
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.
Click to expand...

Amen, brother.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
DVSentinel 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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have heard of this before, and it does seem promising only trouble is it is still too far away, even the article states 30 years from now. Given the history of overly optomisitic predictions on timelines for technology I would be pleased if this happens within 50 years. The study also did not estimate the price tag either, which may make it prohibitive.
So even best case scenario 30 years out we get this technology what do you do in the meantime? We need the energy today not 30 years from now. To get any large scale energy project going takes time, Wind/solar/nuclear/oil/coal/hydro all take time. Wind/solar as it stands now cannot supply all the energy required, so that leaves, coal/oil the fastest 2 to build but with obvious downsides or Hydro and nuclear. Hydro is not feasible in all locations and does have a negative effect on the environment itself, Nuclear can be placed anywhere but like Hydro takes soem tiem to get going and there is the waste disposal issue.

Saying lets do nothing untill some future tech gets here is really playing with fire, What if the tehcnology fails or takes much longer than expected? What if it is so cost prohibitive that it becomes unfeasable?
I do not have the answers to these questions and as far as I know no one does. Untill there are answers all sources of energy should be investigated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom