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

replacing coal power plants with nuclear power plants

KW/hr isn't the main factor to consider supplying your fridge and freezer, hard to run some loads on solar unless you have a battery bank attached....surge currents are high when compressors start....good way to ruin a fridge is to try running it on a system that can't handle start surges.

It still wouldn't take a 20 kw solar system with battery storage to supply the electrical needs of a refrigerator and freezer, which was the claim made.
 
It still wouldn't take a 20 kw solar system with battery storage to supply the electrical needs of a refrigerator and freezer, which was the claim made.

I will be more clear with claim made. Appliances on top of other household elec uses needs a 20k system if you want to live an average life with toasters, hair dryers microwaves washing machines etc. I have 3 k into my minimalist system that runs only lights, computer and tv. We run the generator to use the washing machine, power tools etc. I bought my wife a wash board an an old fashioned roller squeezer thing but she told me to go to Hell! LOL
 
It still wouldn't take a 20 kw solar system with battery storage to supply the electrical needs of a refrigerator and freezer, which was the claim made.
i find it difficult to believe batteries can't run a house when in 1942 the russians had a submarine that could run silent and deep on 1942 battery power. so why in the ammount of time since then haven't batteries advanced more than they have?
 
i find it difficult to believe batteries can't run a house when in 1942 the russians had a submarine that could run silent and deep on 1942 battery power. so why in the ammount of time since then haven't batteries advanced more than they have?

Batteries can run a house you just need lots of them and lots of solar panels to charge them. I use golf cart batteries because they are the least expensive but their is new battery technology that cost 3 times as much. Really though they don't hold power much better they just have a longer service life. On the sub thing I would be interested to know how long they could actually run underwater on battery power not only to move the sub but to keep all the life support and other systems up, not long I suspect.
 
A good example of why we don't rely on alternative energy sources more is what you have to go through to live "off the grid". I saw a show of the cost and effort needed to to so on the Discovery Channel for one family and their house and it was considerable. They had solar panels and I think a wind turbine too. Batteries were very expensive and even though they could pick an ideal site to build the home you have to deal with realiability problems with the sun and the wind. Energy storage is the key drawback. They still had to install a backup generator for standby in case they couldn't store enough energy. We, meaning the United States, have done tons of research on things like wind and solar energy. It's not like we are ignoring the technology. It just isn't there yet.

It think we need to continue to use coal fired power plants and build new more efficient ones to replace the older ones and slowly build up our nuclear power capacity. Right now nuclear provides about 20% of our needs in the U.S. I'd like to see that increase to at least one third or more in the next ten years and more beyond that. Any large scale alternative energy project is going to have to be heavily subsidized by the government. I don't mind that if it seems likely to be viable. But the government needs to quit wasting money and prioritize such undertakings.
 
Interconnect the world in a smart grid, and as long as the sun shines or river runs or wind blows in some part of the world, there will be power everywhere.
 
Interconnect the world in a smart grid, and as long as the sun shines or river runs or wind blows in some part of the world, there will be power everywhere.
get a degree in electrical engineering then come back and read your post...you will get a giggle out of it at least...
 
A good example of why we don't rely on alternative energy sources more is what you have to go through to live "off the grid". I saw a show of the cost and effort needed to to so on the Discovery Channel for one family and their house and it was considerable. They had solar panels and I think a wind turbine too. Batteries were very expensive and even though they could pick an ideal site to build the home you have to deal with realiability problems with the sun and the wind. Energy storage is the key drawback. They still had to install a backup generator for standby in case they couldn't store enough energy. We, meaning the United States, have done tons of research on things like wind and solar energy. It's not like we are ignoring the technology. It just isn't there yet.

It think we need to continue to use coal fired power plants and build new more efficient ones to replace the older ones and slowly build up our nuclear power capacity. Right now nuclear provides about 20% of our needs in the U.S. I'd like to see that increase to at least one third or more in the next ten years and more beyond that. Any large scale alternative energy project is going to have to be heavily subsidized by the government. I don't mind that if it seems likely to be viable. But the government needs to quit wasting money and prioritize such undertakings.
the show you watched is an example of the culture shift we would have to face if we forego base load providers like coal and nuclear.....
 
get a degree in electrical engineering then come back and read your post...you will get a giggle out of it at least...

Lol, I actually do have a degree in ECE.

There has been a tendency in this thread to think of buildings as independent of others, but the smart grid works by grouping buildings together. Also, I'm curious, what was wrong in my post?
 
"In 2010, the average annual electricity consumption for a U.S. residential utility customer was 11,496 kWh, an average of 958 kilowatthours (kWh) per month. Tennessee had the highest annual consumption at 16,716 kWh and Maine the lowest at 6,252 kWh."

How much electricity does an American home use? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

The average annual electric consumption could be lowered by more than half with some energy saving measures:


Twenty Things You Can Do to Conserve Energy
 
[...] I bought my wife a wash board an an old fashioned roller squeezer thing but she told me to go to Hell! LOL
Too bad, Debate Politics ladies, he's already taken :2razz:
 
Lol, I actually do have a degree in ECE.

There has been a tendency in this thread to think of buildings as independent of others, but the smart grid works by grouping buildings together. Also, I'm curious, what was wrong in my post?
assumes that the answer is to connect everything together, and that is how we get major blackouts, some tree grows too tall, takes out a power line, the protection circuits don't operate as planned, and bingo, half the northeast is without power....
We need smart gridS, plural, regionalized to protect one area from the inadequate maintenance that goes on in a neighbor state.
I am not a engineer, but have worked in and around power plants (nuclear operator and I&C and metrology tech) with and for people of all levels who don't take these things seriously. Point of that is, we need smarter people operating and maintaining...
 
The network is actually all interconnected. There are separate power companies, but they are all interconnected, and they sell power to each other. There is a lot of protection built into the network, such that if a line gets overloaded and starts sagging too much, explosives are set off to protect the power plant generators (triggers the massive blackouts). Yeah, competency is definitely needed, especially in predicting loads and finding the critical wires (and adding alternate routes). The men on the ground could only do so much.
 
Good point, but then again, why add to the problem with a gas burner?

Superior towing and hauling power, passenger capacity, power supply for the air-compressor powering the tools......

I'm still waiting for the hybrid truck which can plow snow all night, and then be used by the day crew to haul materials to fix roofs torn apart from the same storm which brought the snow.

The military uses a lot of gas guzzlers, too. Most of our modern MRAPS get 6-7mpg. Where's your hybrid MRAP? On the civilian front, where's your hybrid tractor trailer with competitive capabilities and at a competitive cost?
 
Superior towing and hauling power, passenger capacity, power supply for the air-compressor powering the tools......

I'm still waiting for the hybrid truck which can plow snow all night, and then be used by the day crew to haul materials to fix roofs torn apart from the same storm which brought the snow.

The military uses a lot of gas guzzlers, too. Most of our modern MRAPS get 6-7mpg. Where's your hybrid MRAP? On the civilian front, where's your hybrid tractor trailer with competitive capabilities and at a competitive cost?

Greening the Military

"Its not very often that you think of the military being green. However according to a latest report by the Sierra Club entitled Blood and Oil, the US military has very firm plans of becoming more eco-friendly. We reported on green ambassadors within the military last month. Two days ago the Pentagon announced the Operational Energy Strategy that talks about moving towards alternative energy.

According to the report, the strategy has three basic components. The top priority, called “More fight, less fuel,” boils down to basic energy efficiency. That means investing in new technology that can power the same tanks, jets, and aircraft carriers with less conventional fuel, such as hybrid and electric engines. It also means low-tech solutions like lightening cargo loads and finding new, shorter aircraft routes .

The second priority is “More options, less risk.” This translates into a drive to diversify energy sources. The idea is to move away from petroleum. For example, two bases in Afghanistan’s Helmand province are using solar power instead of diesel for their operations. The third is “More capability, less cost: Build energy security into the future force.” The idea is to build the goals of reducing energy use and increasing energy options into all the military’s long-term planning.

In many ways the military is on the forefront of climate change. Many military personal are able to draw the link between climate change and national security. Changing weather patters automatically means more natural disasters, displaced people, human rights issues – all this will put troops in harm’s way more frequently. Active war will only constitute a small part of military operations in the future. The army may even be deployed to guard water resources due to growing scarcity."

Greening the Military
 
Back
Top Bottom