• 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
We humans cracked the atom sometime in the early 1940's; built the first nuclear power plant anywhere on the planet in 1954 in the USSR. The US currently has 104 nuclear power plants.

Nuclear Energy Institute - U.S. Nuclear Power Plants

I can't believe I'm asking this, but I am. I'd rather have another one in my county than to have fraking for natural gas going on, or coal mining, or that benighted Keystone Pipeline.

What say you? Could we achieve energy independence via building more nuclear power plants, and if so, would you be willing to do so?

I think they are fine. I've never understand the anti-nuclear energy crowd.
 
They are building another nuke plant within 20 miles of where I sit, along with the existing three-within-100-miles I already have.


I'm fine with that. Bring it on.

exactly. I have lived in the shadow of Browns Ferry nuke plant my entire life.
 
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.

Well we need to have an actual future plan not just keep expecting to limp along because the future isnt here yet. I mean the future will never get here if we just keep putting it off as if its unattainable. We built dams because we needed power. The same with coal, Natural gas and nuclear power plants. Btw I would rather see Natural gas power plants being built rather than nuclear as a bandaid fix for the immediate future. They can be built and removed form the site without the troubles of nuclear or even coal. Hydro is awesome but we lack enough waterways to really do much more good. ANd dare I point to coastal tidal power generation without people crying any more about broken promises? Or even further with thermal towers? Speaking of thermal geo thermal power generation is very promising and the technology already exists. We even already have some geothermal power stations running.

The plan should be for multiple solutions not just one. No one really is suggesting that just solar or just wind power will solve all of our problems. Well there are some ass backwards hippies but do they really count? I think they are more of a fringe element.
 
Well we need to have an actual future plan not just keep expecting to limp along because the future isnt here yet. I mean the future will never get here if we just keep putting it off as if its unattainable. We built dams because we needed power. The same with coal, Natural gas and nuclear power plants. Btw I would rather see Natural gas power plants being built rather than nuclear as a bandaid fix for the immediate future. They can be built and removed form the site without the troubles of nuclear or even coal. Hydro is awesome but we lack enough waterways to really do much more good. ANd dare I point to coastal tidal power generation without people crying any more about broken promises? Or even further with thermal towers? Speaking of thermal geo thermal power generation is very promising and the technology already exists. We even already have some geothermal power stations running.

The plan should be for multiple solutions not just one. No one really is suggesting that just solar or just wind power will solve all of our problems. Well there are some ass backwards hippies but do they really count? I think they are more of a fringe element.

I agree multiple forms of energy are the way to go. And Yes we should definetly invest in future technologies. I consider Tidal to be hydro as well, Hydro really just means water, like traditional hydro dams it is also geographically dependant so all i said before applies to both types. I know geothermal is another, should have thought of that. I do not know that much about it however. I understand the principal but i am not sure of how much energy it can supply and whether or not it is very geographically sensetive as well.
As to natural gas pretty much same as oil in terms of speed of construction costs etc as far as i know, as well as having the same downsides.
There is way too many people who think wind/solar can/will solve all our energy needs, possibly if the solar satellite idea does pan out they may have somethign but ATM it doesnt.

I really have little problem with Nuclear because right now it is the only working technology that can provide energy for the indefinate future, natural gas is a much more limited resource, still got lots but do we have enough for the next 100,200,500,1000 years if we start using more and more of it? I suppose we could switch to nuclear if other tehnologies dont pan out and we start to really run low on coal/oil/natural gas but there is the carbon emissions problem with them as well.
 
I agree multiple forms of energy are the way to go. And Yes we should definetly invest in future technologies. I consider Tidal to be hydro as well, Hydro really just means water, like traditional hydro dams it is also geographically dependant so all i said before applies to both types. I know geothermal is another, should have thought of that. I do not know that much about it however. I understand the principal but i am not sure of how much energy it can supply and whether or not it is very geographically sensetive as well.
As to natural gas pretty much same as oil in terms of speed of construction costs etc as far as i know, as well as having the same downsides.
There is way too many people who think wind/solar can/will solve all our energy needs, possibly if the solar satellite idea does pan out they may have somethign but ATM it doesnt.

I really have little problem with Nuclear because right now it is the only working technology that can provide energy for the indefinate future, natural gas is a much more limited resource, still got lots but do we have enough for the next 100,200,500,1000 years if we start using more and more of it? I suppose we could switch to nuclear if other tehnologies dont pan out and we start to really run low on coal/oil/natural gas but there is the carbon emissions problem with them as well.

If there is an incredible breakthrough in batteries wind/solar would become very viable. But I think until then those sources can be supplemental viable source of power. Certainly the more power production the better. Iceland have some good geothermal plants. I think they account for something like 30% of their energy production, but you have to remember Iceland has a very small population. In reality all of their power plants account for power part of Los Angles. And if you go by the numbers the US out produces Iceland in both Hydroelectric and Geo thermal power production already. I know when people get all puffy and say we should do what Iceland is doing I just say we already are and then some.

I like the space solar scheme because it has the potential of being a main power source of mega proportions. But at this point I agree its years away. And in 30 years something better might come along. Nuclear power plants though have a lifespan that limits their use. Even if you ignore the by products of nuclear power it is by far not a efficient option. Overall efficiency for a nuclear power plant is 38% while hydroelectric is in the 85% range. To be fair though most power stations (including geothermal) have an efficiency of around 30% to 40% except solar and wind because of variances they range down in the 10% to 20% efficiency area. But Nuclear efficiencies are deceptive since no one seems to count the disposal of nuclear wastes in the amount. As of yet there really is no solution in what to do about nuclear power -plant waste.

And another thing that I think is relevant is that only coal and nuclear power create long term hazards that is directly to the site of the stations and the surrounding areas. One could argue though Natural gas and petrolatum plants do pose long term hazards to the environment. My point is that we should not choose the power plants that pose the largest threat to the safety of American citizens. Of course that brings us back too we are not ready to switch yet from coal or nuclear. But if we ramp up the number of nuclear power plants we will still have to replace them later with something better. And we will have a lot more nuclear waste to deal with. Its like choosing a firewood that makes excessive ash. Yea it worked but was not the best choice.
 
If there is an incredible breakthrough in batteries wind/solar would become very viable. But I think until then those sources can be supplemental viable source of power. Certainly the more power production the better. Iceland have some good geothermal plants. I think they account for something like 30% of their energy production, but you have to remember Iceland has a very small population. In reality all of their power plants account for power part of Los Angles. And if you go by the numbers the US out produces Iceland in both Hydroelectric and Geo thermal power production already. I know when people get all puffy and say we should do what Iceland is doing I just say we already are and then some.

I like the space solar scheme because it has the potential of being a main power source of mega proportions. But at this point I agree its years away. And in 30 years something better might come along. Nuclear power plants though have a lifespan that limits their use. Even if you ignore the by products of nuclear power it is by far not a efficient option. Overall efficiency for a nuclear power plant is 38% while hydroelectric is in the 85% range. To be fair though most power stations (including geothermal) have an efficiency of around 30% to 40% except solar and wind because of variances they range down in the 10% to 20% efficiency area. But Nuclear efficiencies are deceptive since no one seems to count the disposal of nuclear wastes in the amount. As of yet there really is no solution in what to do about nuclear power -plant waste.

And another thing that I think is relevant is that only coal and nuclear power create long term hazards that is directly to the site of the stations and the surrounding areas. One could argue though Natural gas and petrolatum plants do pose long term hazards to the environment. My point is that we should not choose the power plants that pose the largest threat to the safety of American citizens. Of course that brings us back too we are not ready to switch yet from coal or nuclear. But if we ramp up the number of nuclear power plants we will still have to replace them later with something better. And we will have a lot more nuclear waste to deal with. Its like choosing a firewood that makes excessive ash. Yea it worked but was not the best choice.

A big difference between nuclear and coal is that nuclear waste is held in a very small area, like a ten meter long dry cask. So it's waste is highly concentrated. It's extremely unlikely a human being will come in contact with it. Whereas coal releases a great deal of waste into the atmosphere, guaranteeing that some people will be exposed to it's pollution. Add to it the massive mountains of sulphur and rivers of coal slurry that are both hard to dispose of, and it becomes clear that coal is far more poisonous as an energy source when compared to nuclear.
 
If there is an incredible breakthrough in batteries wind/solar would become very viable. But I think until then those sources can be supplemental viable source of power. Certainly the more power production the better. Iceland have some good geothermal plants. I think they account for something like 30% of their energy production, but you have to remember Iceland has a very small population. In reality all of their power plants account for power part of Los Angles. And if you go by the numbers the US out produces Iceland in both Hydroelectric and Geo thermal power production already. I know when people get all puffy and say we should do what Iceland is doing I just say we already are and then some.

I like the space solar scheme because it has the potential of being a main power source of mega proportions. But at this point I agree its years away. And in 30 years something better might come along. Nuclear power plants though have a lifespan that limits their use. Even if you ignore the by products of nuclear power it is by far not a efficient option. Overall efficiency for a nuclear power plant is 38% while hydroelectric is in the 85% range. To be fair though most power stations (including geothermal) have an efficiency of around 30% to 40% except solar and wind because of variances they range down in the 10% to 20% efficiency area. But Nuclear efficiencies are deceptive since no one seems to count the disposal of nuclear wastes in the amount. As of yet there really is no solution in what to do about nuclear power -plant waste.

And another thing that I think is relevant is that only coal and nuclear power create long term hazards that is directly to the site of the stations and the surrounding areas. One could argue though Natural gas and petrolatum plants do pose long term hazards to the environment. My point is that we should not choose the power plants that pose the largest threat to the safety of American citizens. Of course that brings us back too we are not ready to switch yet from coal or nuclear. But if we ramp up the number of nuclear power plants we will still have to replace them later with something better. And we will have a lot more nuclear waste to deal with. Its like choosing a firewood that makes excessive ash. Yea it worked but was not the best choice.

I agree the solar sats seem best long term if they work, short term I guess it depends on how important you think global warming and carbon footprints are, If it is a major concern than ATM only Nuclear can be used as an alternative to coal/oil/natural gas. As to hydroelectric dams, they are bad for the environment as well and destroy/render unusable large tracts of land. Unlike coal/oil, they are bad if you use em or not, once built the damage is done. But hey I'm from Quebec thats where we get most of our energy from so I'm pretty keen on it, I just knwo it doesnt work everywhere. There are some types that only partially block rivers and cause less damage but again geographically dependant and dont get as much energy as a full dam.
As to geothermal like I said I am not sure how geographically dependant they are. I know it works great in iceland but they have great geography for it
 
A big difference between nuclear and coal is that nuclear waste is held in a very small area, like a ten meter long dry cask. So it's waste is highly concentrated. It's extremely unlikely a human being will come in contact with it. Whereas coal releases a great deal of waste into the atmosphere, guaranteeing that some people will be exposed to it's pollution. Add to it the massive mountains of sulphur and rivers of coal slurry that are both hard to dispose of, and it becomes clear that coal is far more poisonous as an energy source when compared to nuclear.

I did not assert that nuclear waste results in larger wastes than coal. I also said nothing about emissions. Didnt really think that I needed to though.

A typical nuclear power plant in a year generates 20 metric tons of used nuclear fuel. The nuclear industry generates a total of about 2,000 - 2,300 metric tons of used fuel per year.
Over the past four decades, the entire industry has produced about 67,500 metric tons of used nuclear fuel. If used fuel assemblies were stacked end-to-end and side-by-side, this would cover a football field about seven yards deep.

Nuclear Energy Institute - Nuclear Waste: Amounts and On-Site Storage
 
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?

Maybe I'm wrong, but I assumed you were talking about Government Money for the research. What you mention would come from existing industry as it struggles to meet demand and government regulation. The kind of money you are talking about would either have to come from a government or a very large power company. Whoever builds it first is going to own the rights to the technology, unless it is developed by public funds and patented on a public license.

Right now, governments simply do not have the monies to put into the kind of R&D, and will not for the foreseeable future, that would be necessary to bring this kind of technology to the market place in the time period given. These kind of articles, not just concerning energy technologies, are the life blood of Popular Science and Popular Mechanics. How many have we actually seen come to pass and make to market, when they do, in the time periods predicted?

Perhaps the best approach would be for the government to announce that in 10 years, say Jan 1, 2023, all coal/fossil fuel plants must be replaced and closed by that date. Wouldn't cost the government anything and would force the industry to put out the money for new Nuke plants, Geo-Thermal, solar and other means of producing power. The government could really make money on the deal two, set a date in two years where the tax rate applied to power generation from Fossil fuels will go up by 10% per year. The first two years is so the generation companies can get replacements built prior to the increase.

And please do not try to make me argue against your strawman argument.

What strawman? That our existing infrastructure is aging, based highly upon fossil fuels and will not meet our needs for the next 30 years without the building of new plants? Or perhaps that predictions about future technology reaching the market have never been met?

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 never said we didn't need to. I clearly stated that "we have to work with existing technologies to survive to the point that other means become available."

To assume Nuclear technology is fully matured and cannot be advanced any further is ludicrous nonsense. If nuclear is so advanced, why do we not have nuclear battery powered electric vehicles?

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.

Read, no, scan, yes. Beaming power from space is not a new idea, it's been in science fiction for a longtime. So has core-taps (actually may be the better way to go), FTL travel, etc, etc.

With the right investments, it could happen in that time frame. But that is a mighty big maybe to be banking trillions of dollars on. My prediction is that they will continue the R&D but nowhere near the level to meet time predictions.

Instead of beaming the power, using a "beanstalk" cable arrangement may actually be cheaper and easier to do. Carbon nano-tube technology has the math saying it is possible to run such a cable now, if you can find someone to fund it.
 
I did not assert that nuclear waste results in larger wastes than coal. I also said nothing about emissions. Didnt really think that I needed to though.

A typical nuclear power plant in a year generates 20 metric tons of used nuclear fuel. The nuclear industry generates a total of about 2,000 - 2,300 metric tons of used fuel per year.
Over the past four decades, the entire industry has produced about 67,500 metric tons of used nuclear fuel. If used fuel assemblies were stacked end-to-end and side-by-side, this would cover a football field about seven yards deep.

Nuclear Energy Institute - Nuclear Waste: Amounts and On-Site Storage

I don't mean to claim you did. I merely wish to point out that there is much more waste from coal than there is from nuclear, and the waste from coal not nearly as well controlled, being released daily into our shared atmosphere. So for me, the choice between coal and nuclear is very easy. I'll take nuclear every time. Consider this:

Yes, after operating nuclear energy plants in the US since 1957, we have accumulated about 50-60,000 tons of used fuel material. That material is carefully inventoried, monitored and stored in either pools or casks. The plant operators can account for almost every single gram produced. There are 806 billion kilowatt hours produced every year in nuclear plants in the US.

In contrast, a single large coal plant will be required to dump about 45,000 tons of waste material DIRECTLY into our shared atmosphere EVERY single DAY that it operates. It will also dump about 1,000 tons of a toxic mix of ash and ‘stuff’ into a slurry pond and ash pile. Those storage locations are neither monitored nor even sealed from the environment and are often found to be leaking into nearby bodies of water. Sometimes the retaining dams fail with significant and well publicized consequences. A large coal plant might produce 8 billion kilowatt hours per year, so you can easily see the difference in the tons of toxic waste per kilowatt hour between coal and nuclear.
Waste Storage at Nuclear Plants Versus Waste Dumping at Coal Plants - Atomic Insights
 
I'm perfectly okay with nuclear power. It's generally far safer and less damaging to the environment than fossil fuels. Obviously there have been a few potentially catastrophic safety lapses throughout the world, but that's an issue of proper oversight and management.

Although I'm really looking forward to the day when some clever individual works out cold fusion.
 
I don't mean to claim you did. I merely wish to point out that there is much more waste from coal than there is from nuclear, and the waste from coal not nearly as well controlled, being released daily into our shared atmosphere. So for me, the choice between coal and nuclear is very easy. I'll take nuclear every time. Consider this:


Waste Storage at Nuclear Plants Versus Waste Dumping at Coal Plants - Atomic Insights

That is very true, the facts are out there if all goes well with a nuclear power plant it is much better than a coal plant.

Personally in my opinion I think that even with the US good track record after 3 miles island that even a small chance of a major catastrophe is a lot to ask of the people of any country. Mistakes happen, we have all scene the unimaginable happen before. That one in a thousand chance statistically is meaningless if despite those odds disaster strikes.

If we build enough reactors to replace coal where would we put that many damn reactors? And who is going to pay trillions to do it?
 
That is very true, the facts are out there if all goes well with a nuclear power plant it is much better than a coal plant.

Personally in my opinion I think that even with the US good track record after 3 miles island that even a small chance of a major catastrophe is a lot to ask of the people of any country. Mistakes happen, we have all scene the unimaginable happen before. That one in a thousand chance statistically is meaningless if despite those odds disaster strikes.

If we build enough reactors to replace coal where would we put that many damn reactors? And who is going to pay trillions to do it?
Same could be said for solar/wind/hydro/geothermal or any other form of power generation
 
As to geothermal like I said I am not sure how geographically dependant they are. I know it works great in iceland but they have great geography for it

Very geographically dependent. They basically use the heat from magma (lava). They have to be built where the magma is close enough to the surface to use. I guess you really could build them just about anywhere, if you were willing to bury them deep enough to get close to magma.
 
Same could be said for solar/wind/hydro/geothermal or any other form of power generation
Nuclear power though is unique in that the start up investment is very high. Hydroelectric though also has a high start up price. But I dont really count dams since it would be very hard to convince people that more dams on that favorite piece of river is something they have to accept.

Really what people want is for electricity to be cheaper and power plants should be fewer in number and clean. It is obviously going to be tough to fill that bill. One of the problems is that power generation has become politicalized but not in a good way. See we have the Left that says that power generation should be green at any cost. They lack any real detail on how thats would work. Most will point to wind and solar but cant really explain how that would replace fossil fuel generators. Then theres the Right that claim that nuclear is the magic bullet and that all alternative power generation is pointless. Funding and location are valid questions that should be asked of both sides. Nuclear safety is a valid concern because despite every reassurance **** happens. We have 23 reactors like what is in Fukushima. Most of the time the danger of anything happening bad at nuclear power plants is very slim, and the statistics show it. Its kind of like dam failure is rare but not out of possibility even though not likely. There are safety rules though for a reason, because despite the good records with both dams and reactors they still pose large dangers to human life and property. Of course alarmists go way overboard and even lie about such dangers. But safety is always apart of decision making especially when one is talking about the safety of many people. ANd right now if anyone raises any concerns about the safety of nuclear power Republicans are quick to dismiss it because of the alarmists.

From a logical assessment Nuclear power has pros and cons. A big con is the fact that no one can get around, and that is more reactors means more nuclear waste will need to be stored. There isnt right now a good solution for storing nuclear waste. All nuclear waste requires capital to be spent on storing nuclear waste for generations. 100-200 years down the road the problem of storing nuclear waste will still exist. So we shouldnt just run into building bunches of new nuclear reactors without debating the science behind the solutions available for power generation. Yes Nuclear energy power generation exists right now while other ideas are just ideas. But either way building enough nuclear power plants to take over fossil fuel power generation will be astronomically expensive and would not happen over night. Is that the best solution to this nations power needs?

I dont think its wise to put all of our eggs in one basket. Nuclear power generation isnt the magic bullet. At best it is a half ass temporary solution. We need to find an actual solution for the immediate future. Something that involves a hell of a lot less capital to do.
 
Really what people want is for electricity to be cheaper and power plants should be fewer in number and clean.

Then theres the Right that claim that nuclear is the magic bullet and that all alternative power generation is pointless..

Actually, I don't think most people care about the number of plants, other than those that realize they provide jobs, in which case they actually want more, not less.

Interesting view of the right, since that is not what I have seen from them. I've seen them trying to protect coal and push natural gas too much to think that the average person on the "right" is promoting nuclear as a "magic bullet." It is more the middle pushing for it. The middle doesn't go whole hog environmentalist but would like to see the elimination of fossil fuels and are willing to accept Nuclear as the available primary source that can be exploited right now while allowing as much alternative sourcing and R&D into other sources as possible.

However, for me at least, possible does not mean increasing deficit spending in budgets that are already over a trillion dollars/year in deficit spending. While I would love to see more put into research and development, the simple fact is that we are now more that $16 trillion in debt and the deficit has exceeded $1 trillion for several years now. Is new technologies worth pursuing, yes, but pursuing at the cost of collapsing everything else in our country, no.

Also, the "right" is not against alternative sources, they are against the government spending money on it since the industry was already expanding it for years without the government money. Part of this may even be that Obama gave that money to companies in Liberal states that competed with other companies in states that did not vote for him and that some of that money has been sent overseas instead of being kept in the US. Had the money been given equally to all companies involved in alternative power and spread equally, based upon population to all states, not just liberal ones, then there would probably be less resistance to it.
 
People want more power, and they want it cheap? Good luck with that....
There is no shortage of electrical power, but there is a shortage of CLEAN electrical power.....clean don't come cheap.

Currently nukes are the only viable source for clean electricity, and there is nothing on the horizon to replace it, not even Fusion, which has a lot more problems than most people are aware of.....
Assuming they can even make it work, there are still SOME waste storage problems, and there will still be people complaining about it..

When electricity starts getting price hikes similar to oil prices, then maybe we will decide to stop wasting it.
We could get by without a lot of the dirtier coal plants tomorrow, if we just stopped using electrical power indiscriminately...
 
I agree multiple forms of energy are the way to go. And Yes we should definetly invest in future technologies. I consider Tidal to be hydro as well, Hydro really just means water, like traditional hydro dams it is also geographically dependant so all i said before applies to both types. I know geothermal is another, should have thought of that. I do not know that much about it however. I understand the principal but i am not sure of how much energy it can supply and whether or not it is very geographically sensetive as well.
As to natural gas pretty much same as oil in terms of speed of construction costs etc as far as i know, as well as having the same downsides.
There is way too many people who think wind/solar can/will solve all our energy needs, possibly if the solar satellite idea does pan out they may have somethign but ATM it doesnt.

I really have little problem with Nuclear because right now it is the only working technology that can provide energy for the indefinate future, natural gas is a much more limited resource, still got lots but do we have enough for the next 100,200,500,1000 years if we start using more and more of it? I suppose we could switch to nuclear if other tehnologies dont pan out and we start to really run low on coal/oil/natural gas but there is the carbon emissions problem with them as well.
Something usually overlooked with gas is that it is not easily stored on site...so if your gas supply is interrupted, your electricity is interrupted.
Coal plants usually have a pile of coal ready to burn, I don't know how many days supply they have in the event some terrorist decides to blow up the tracks but I would hope it is at least 30 days. Nuclear plants can store new fuel easily, a years worth can be stashed in a small room.
Nobody tries to store natural gas, that I know of, because they think the gas lines will always be at full pressure and able to deliver all that is needed. A few years ago, in Texas, they found out that a serious drop in pressure and the gas turbine plants have to be shut down. It got really cold, people used more in their homes, line pressure dropped. At the same time, the cold caused some coal plants to shut down. Some of the equipment was designed based on their never having such severe and extended cold...
 
People want more power, and they want it cheap? Good luck with that....
There is no shortage of electrical power, but there is a shortage of CLEAN electrical power.....clean don't come cheap.

Currently nukes are the only viable source for clean electricity, and there is nothing on the horizon to replace it, not even Fusion, which has a lot more problems than most people are aware of.....
Assuming they can even make it work, there are still SOME waste storage problems, and there will still be people complaining about it..

When electricity starts getting price hikes similar to oil prices, then maybe we will decide to stop wasting it.
We could get by without a lot of the dirtier coal plants tomorrow, if we just stopped using electrical power indiscriminately...

With scheduled closers of so many plants, that kind of price hike may not be that far away.

I think some of what you call waste, others would consider it the reasons they have electricity.

But while waste could still be reduced, what is the cost to the individual to do so? My house was built in 1983, to bring everything, insulation, windows, doors, heating/cooling, water-heater, etc, up to current top efficiency available would cost me out of pocket half the value of my house or more. Since my electric bill runs me a little over a $100 a month on average (was $52 last month) and less than a $1,000 per year for propane (gas furnace is only use of it), it would take me one hell of a longtime to recoup the cost to upgrade. Although at current prices, I will probably never see a real savings on them, I am working towards replacing all lighting with LEDs, due to medical conditions, I cannot use Fluorescents so they were never installed before. If people did put in fluorescents, it definitely would not be worth the upgrade to LEDs even though they are more efficient. So are people wasting electricity by not upgrading, sure, but financially, not upgrading is more affordable. I can pay for a hell of a lot of electricity for a long, long time for what it would cost me to not be wasteful.
 
With scheduled closers of so many plants, that kind of price hike may not be that far away.

I think some of what you call waste, others would consider it the reasons they have electricity.

But while waste could still be reduced, what is the cost to the individual to do so? My house was built in 1983, to bring everything, insulation, windows, doors, heating/cooling, water-heater, etc, up to current top efficiency available would cost me out of pocket half the value of my house or more. Since my electric bill runs me a little over a $100 a month on average (was $52 last month) and less than a $1,000 per year for propane (gas furnace is only use of it), it would take me one hell of a longtime to recoup the cost to upgrade. Although at current prices, I will probably never see a real savings on them, I am working towards replacing all lighting with LEDs, due to medical conditions, I cannot use Fluorescents so they were never installed before. If people did put in fluorescents, it definitely would not be worth the upgrade to LEDs even though they are more efficient. So are people wasting electricity by not upgrading, sure, but financially, not upgrading is more affordable. I can pay for a hell of a lot of electricity for a long, long time for what it would cost me to not be wasteful.

If you are asking a contractor to do the work, yeah, it isn't worth it. But some things can be done by the average individual....
There was a time that all windows were single pane, and we had screens in the summer, storm windows in the winter....that can still be done.
I would not replace a working water heater just to get a more efficient one, but when it fails, then I would.
Adding insulation to attics is usually not that expensive or hard to do...blown in insulation is really easy.
Even a well insulated house can be expensive to heat and cool, if infiltration is a problem. Air leaks are common in older homes.
And a dumb contractor will tell you that venting your clothes dryer inside the house during the winter months is dangerous. Well, it is, if you are using a natural gas or propane dryer, but not so an electric dryer. Next they will say that venting the dryer inside will cause a build up of mold, but that is only true if you live in a humid climate (rare for winter months), do a lot of laundry, and your house is really air-tight, and very few of houses are.
 
Nuclear power though is unique in that the start up investment is very high. Hydroelectric though also has a high start up price. But I dont really count dams since it would be very hard to convince people that more dams on that favorite piece of river is something they have to accept.

Really what people want is for electricity to be cheaper and power plants should be fewer in number and clean. It is obviously going to be tough to fill that bill. One of the problems is that power generation has become politicalized but not in a good way. See we have the Left that says that power generation should be green at any cost. They lack any real detail on how thats would work. Most will point to wind and solar but cant really explain how that would replace fossil fuel generators. Then theres the Right that claim that nuclear is the magic bullet and that all alternative power generation is pointless. Funding and location are valid questions that should be asked of both sides. Nuclear safety is a valid concern because despite every reassurance **** happens. We have 23 reactors like what is in Fukushima. Most of the time the danger of anything happening bad at nuclear power plants is very slim, and the statistics show it. Its kind of like dam failure is rare but not out of possibility even though not likely. There are safety rules though for a reason, because despite the good records with both dams and reactors they still pose large dangers to human life and property. Of course alarmists go way overboard and even lie about such dangers. But safety is always apart of decision making especially when one is talking about the safety of many people. ANd right now if anyone raises any concerns about the safety of nuclear power Republicans are quick to dismiss it because of the alarmists.

From a logical assessment Nuclear power has pros and cons. A big con is the fact that no one can get around, and that is more reactors means more nuclear waste will need to be stored. There isnt right now a good solution for storing nuclear waste. All nuclear waste requires capital to be spent on storing nuclear waste for generations. 100-200 years down the road the problem of storing nuclear waste will still exist. So we shouldnt just run into building bunches of new nuclear reactors without debating the science behind the solutions available for power generation. Yes Nuclear energy power generation exists right now while other ideas are just ideas. But either way building enough nuclear power plants to take over fossil fuel power generation will be astronomically expensive and would not happen over night. Is that the best solution to this nations power needs?

I dont think its wise to put all of our eggs in one basket. Nuclear power generation isnt the magic bullet. At best it is a half ass temporary solution. We need to find an actual solution for the immediate future. Something that involves a hell of a lot less capital to do.

I agree relying on only 1 source of power, unless we find one that has no down sides (beyond unlikely) is just plain stupid. I dont see any short/medium term replacement for nuclear though, unless you accept more oil/coal/gas plants, something that has as much politics running againt them as nuclear. The other problem is what if we dont find anythign else? What if these new technologies dont pan out? Stickign our heads in the sand and saying no no it'ss all work out with future tech is insane.
 
Very geographically dependent. They basically use the heat from magma (lava). They have to be built where the magma is close enough to the surface to use. I guess you really could build them just about anywhere, if you were willing to bury them deep enough to get close to magma.

I was under that impression but as I wasnt sure I didnt think I should just act like I knew it was, after all when you assume you make an ass of you U and me :)
Thanx for the info
 
I agree relying on only 1 source of power, unless we find one that has no down sides (beyond unlikely) is just plain stupid. I dont see any short/medium term replacement for nuclear though, unless you accept more oil/coal/gas plants, something that has as much politics running againt them as nuclear. The other problem is what if we dont find anythign else? What if these new technologies dont pan out? Stickign our heads in the sand and saying no no it'ss all work out with future tech is insane.

There are better ways of delivering electricity than from massive centralized power plants. Long power lines are highly inefficient. I forget what the equation is but there is loss attributed to the length of the power lines. Knowing this fact and the fact that this nations power grid is not up to par, it shouldnt be too much of a stretch to realize that a fundamental change in how we build power grids is needed. One of the danger right now is that the right damage in the right stops could wipe out electricity to a huge region of the US. And it might be weeks or even months before it could be all fixed. Everyone knows that power grids suck in concept and design. Every electrician knows that there should be stops that would allow the electricity to stay on and the problem should have been local rather than regional like some of the worst blackouts have been. In making these improvements to the nations power grid we could design in some what people call alternative power generation. We need to remove some of the road blocks that dont allow us to progress forward.

We need a fast and responsive power grid scheme, one that allows fast recovery to natures fury. A system that can promote private power stations on any level. It just be easy for anyone to hook a generator of some type to their local power grid and make a profit.

ANd I agree that no one should give faith in something that may or may not exist. Fusion power is a good example of that mindset. How many times have we heard 'If only we had fusion power' I know that I have been hearing that line all of my life so far. So yes we need a plan that looks at reality first then as technology advances which it will that plan should be flexible enough to change with the times. One of my main objections to the assertion that nuclear power is the solution is that more than likely if we commit to nuclear power to replace coal etc that we will probably slowdown other more promising technology because of that commitment. Like I said starting up new nuclear plants is not cheap. But then at this stage of the game one accident would change the game. Or it could go the other way if we started having bad blackouts people would welcome new nuclear plants no problem. At any rate there are new nuclear plants in the works so really all of this is kind of a mute point. I guess it is good that this conversation is at least going around the country. Hopefully there will be some real interest and it wont just fade.
 
There are better ways of delivering electricity than from massive centralized power plants. Long power lines are highly inefficient. I forget what the equation is but there is loss attributed to the length of the power lines. Knowing this fact and the fact that this nations power grid is not up to par, it shouldnt be too much of a stretch to realize that a fundamental change in how we build power grids is needed. One of the danger right now is that the right damage in the right stops could wipe out electricity to a huge region of the US. And it might be weeks or even months before it could be all fixed. Everyone knows that power grids suck in concept and design. Every electrician knows that there should be stops that would allow the electricity to stay on and the problem should have been local rather than regional like some of the worst blackouts have been. In making these improvements to the nations power grid we could design in some what people call alternative power generation. We need to remove some of the road blocks that dont allow us to progress forward.

We need a fast and responsive power grid scheme, one that allows fast recovery to natures fury. A system that can promote private power stations on any level. It just be easy for anyone to hook a generator of some type to their local power grid and make a profit.

ANd I agree that no one should give faith in something that may or may not exist. Fusion power is a good example of that mindset. How many times have we heard 'If only we had fusion power' I know that I have been hearing that line all of my life so far. So yes we need a plan that looks at reality first then as technology advances which it will that plan should be flexible enough to change with the times. One of my main objections to the assertion that nuclear power is the solution is that more than likely if we commit to nuclear power to replace coal etc that we will probably slowdown other more promising technology because of that commitment. Like I said starting up new nuclear plants is not cheap. But then at this stage of the game one accident would change the game. Or it could go the other way if we started having bad blackouts people would welcome new nuclear plants no problem. At any rate there are new nuclear plants in the works so really all of this is kind of a mute point. I guess it is good that this conversation is at least going around the country. Hopefully there will be some real interest and it wont just fade.

Not really in disagreement with you except I still think nuclear has a place in providing power. I do not expect it to take over the majority of power production, any more than I expect Solar or Wind to provide a large percentage of the power generation.
 
Actually, I don't think most people care about the number of plants, other than those that realize they provide jobs, in which case they actually want more, not less.
I think that you would be surprised. So what you are saying is that the public will go for any carrot in front of their faces that promises jobs?

Interesting view of the right, since that is not what I have seen from them. I've seen them trying to protect coal and push natural gas too much to think that the average person on the "right" is promoting nuclear as a "magic bullet." It is more the middle pushing for it. The middle doesn't go whole hog environmentalist but would like to see the elimination of fossil fuels and are willing to accept Nuclear as the available primary source that can be exploited right now while allowing as much alternative sourcing and R&D into other sources as possible.
Well so far I havenet seen anyone except people on the Right promote the idea of more nuclear power plants. If you have proof otherwise dont be shy show it.

However, for me at least, possible does not mean increasing deficit spending in budgets that are already over a trillion dollars/year in deficit spending. While I would love to see more put into research and development, the simple fact is that we are now more that $16 trillion in debt and the deficit has exceeded $1 trillion for several years now. Is new technologies worth pursuing, yes, but pursuing at the cost of collapsing everything else in our country, no.
I am not promoting spending public monies on anything. Research is research no matter who is doing it. I promote the concept of doing real research towards finding better methods of generating electricity. Talking about the debt the way that you are doing now only serves as political hype and nothing more. And my view on debt is that things need to change but that is not really the subject here. But if thats what you want to talk about we could talk about how promoting nuclear energy in the short term will add to that same debt. More nuclear power plants mean more subsidies which means a bigger debt. And your point was?

Also, the "right" is not against alternative sources, they are against the government spending money on it since the industry was already expanding it for years without the government money. Part of this may even be that Obama gave that money to companies in Liberal states that competed with other companies in states that did not vote for him and that some of that money has been sent overseas instead of being kept in the US. Had the money been given equally to all companies involved in alternative power and spread equally, based upon population to all states, not just liberal ones, then there would probably be less resistance to it.
Oh come on do you think that I will just let that one slide? What I mean by that is that your entire point is to make the Left look bad mainly the Democrats by proxy of Obama. I dont care for Obama I didnt vote him. Though I have to say that attacking Obama over the Green investment failures is a bit hypocritical. Its is not like there has not been the same type of failures by other non Democratic Presidents.

Partisan Divide Over Alternative Energy Widens | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press
 
Back
Top Bottom