Is anyone against unlimited energy supplies for the world...

[TooTall]

Where is the money coming from to build all of these nuclear plants, and who controls the spent radioactive fuel?

We are going beyond this to a what if argument...the future energy source would be completely green...whatever it was...the main point...we would have as much energy as we wanted and could advance with no fear of energy shortages...

As someone who works in the electric utility industry the biggest problems will be the cost of totally rebuilding the entire transmission and distribution systems that deliver the electricity. There will also have to be major changes in the electric utility operating structure.

This question is for after the rebuilding and paying that off...which would be faster because we would have all the energy we needed...for more infrastructure to support more people living in 1st world standards..

The first question is where is the money coming from to build all of these nuclear plants? And the second question is who controls the spent radioactive fuel?

That isn't the question. Where does the money come from to build coal fired power plants? When people need something, they get the money to pay for it.

They wouldn't be called third world countries if they had a lot of money.

 

[bripat9643]

Where is the money coming from to build all of these nuclear plants, and who controls the spent radioactive fuel?

We are going beyond this to a what if argument...the future energy source would be completely green...whatever it was...the main point...we would have as much energy as we wanted and could advance with no fear of energy shortages...

As someone who works in the electric utility industry the biggest problems will be the cost of totally rebuilding the entire transmission and distribution systems that deliver the electricity. There will also have to be major changes in the electric utility operating structure.

This question is for after the rebuilding and paying that off...which would be faster because we would have all the energy we needed...for more infrastructure to support more people living in 1st world standards..

The first question is where is the money coming from to build all of these nuclear plants? And the second question is who controls the spent radioactive fuel?

That isn't the question. Where does the money come from to build coal fired power plants? When people need something, they get the money to pay for it.

They wouldn't be called third world countries if they had a lot of money.

I thought we were talking about the United States. If they can't afford one of these fusion plants, then they also can't afford a coal fired power plant.

 

[JiggsCasey]

We'll end up having to bomb them in the long run.

Why...we won't be fighting about energy or food...both will be plentiful with unlimited energy...

Fail.

Me thinks some people in this thread need to spend more time in the energy subforum, or just take a basic physics class at their local community college.

There is no free lunch. You can't get something for nothing. There is always a cost, and waste. The basic Laws of Thermodynamics dictate this, and cannot be trumped. Ever. Period. End sentence. Full stop.

Nuclear and green energy will not move freight, will not kill bugs, will not fertilize crops, will not provide plastics, rubber, enamel and 10,000 other things that fossil fuels are used for. Nevermind that nuclear plants require and enormous amount of hydrocarbon energy to build and maintain, and nevermind that they each require a decade to safely decommission or power down in the event of a crisis. THey are a blight on the land, as we've already learned twice in last 30 years.

 

[mamooth]

High-level radioactive waste is the byproduct of recycling used nuclear fuel, which in its final form will be disposed of in a permanent disposal facility. NEI supports the recycling of used nuclear fuel as part of its integrated fuel management strategy, which includes 1) interim storage 2) research, development and demonstration to recycle nuclear fuel, and 3) development of a permanent disposal facility suitable for the final waste form.

Nuclear Energy Institute - Nuclear Waste Amounts On-Site Storage

There's really no point in recycling spent nuclear fuel now, because uranium is relatively plentiful and cheap. Recycling it costs more than using new uranium.

However, that won't always be the case. We'll want to recycle that spent fuel someday, so it makes sense to keep the spent fuel accessible, instead of putting it somewhere where we can't get it back.

 

[Freewill]

Here is a question...let's say we find an energy source that is absolutely safe, it's cheap, takes up as much land as todays power plants, and provides unlimited energy for anyone who needs it...does anyone see a problem with this...it would mean the 3rd world would be able to develop into the 1st world and they would be able to increase their populations and improve their standards of living...as would the entire rest of the world...and since the energy would be "green" there would be no reason to tax wealthy countries for energy use...right?

Let me ask you this, is there a shortage of energy today? If so I don't see it.

 

[Anathema]

Let me ask you this, is there a shortage of energy today? If so I don't see it.

At certain times of the year and in certain parts of the country, yes.

That's why MY winter Supply Rate is going UP by 37% while the same company's rate in another area is going DOWN by 2-5%.

 

[Freewill]

Here is a question...let's say we find an energy source that is absolutely safe, it's cheap, takes up as much land as todays power plants, and provides unlimited energy for anyone who needs it...does anyone see a problem with this...it would mean the 3rd world would be able to develop into the 1st world and they would be able to increase their populations and improve their standards of living...as would the entire rest of the world...and since the energy would be "green" there would be no reason to tax wealthy countries for energy use...right?

Let me ask you this, is there a shortage of energy today? If so I don't see it.

And since radiation exposiure is cumulative (continuously adds up) more radiation is never going to be good or safe.

Incorrect. Below a certain level, radiation exposure is meaningless. Living creatures can and do self-repair a certain amount of radiation damage. That's an evolutionary adaptation of living on a planet bathed in a low-level radiation flux, something life had mastered before it crawled out of the oceans.

As proof of that, we can see how humans who live in areas with higher background counts have cancer rates that are no different from those of humans who live in low background count areas.

Only known creatures (on this planet) who can do radiological self-repair are microscopic like Deinococcus radiodurans (a microbe,) and tardigrades.
Space Suits Them First Animal That Can Survive in Orbit - Scientific American

The background radiation in some places (Brazil's beaches for example,) hasn't caused Brazilians to evolve radiation repair. It's simply that they don't live long enough to see negative effects. If they did, they would.

Their ability to do so in fact has resulted in geneticists trying to extract the gene(s) responsible for implantation into humans. Space travel means exposure to cumulative, lethal amounts of radiation. Without figuring out shielding or some biological solution, space travel will never be practical.

No one has ever recovered from a Sun burn? UV light is not really "back ground radiation." Cosmic rays and radioactive materials that are found in nature produce back ground radiation.

The only problem with radiation and space travel I know is the Van Allen Belt. Of course we know that the dose is not lethal, we had astronauts travel through the belt twice and lived. Could be their lives were shortened by the experience but the dose was far from lethal. Wasn't even enough to make them sick, some guess somewhere around 2 rem.

As for no self healing, here is an interesting article:

New study suggests humans could become radiation-resistant

 

[Freewill]

Let me ask you this, is there a shortage of energy today? If so I don't see it.

At certain times of the year and in certain parts of the country, yes.

That's why MY winter Supply Rate is going UP by 37% while the same company's rate in another area is going DOWN by 2-5%.

there is no shortage. Except, maybe during the hottest times of the year. And that shorage has as much to do with transmission limitation and heat disruption of equipment then it does supply.

(From Table 8.8.A.)

Summer Demand and Capacity

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Year	Summer Net Internal Demand	Summer Capacity	Summer Capacity Margin
2002	696,376	833,380	16.4%
2003	696,752	856,131	18.6%
2004	692,908	875,870	20.9%
2005	746,470	882,125	15.4%
2006	776,479	891,226	12.9%
2007	766,786	914,397	16.1%
2008	744,151	909,504	18.2%
2009	713,106	916,449	22.2%
2010	746,513	923,599	19.2%
2011	759,642	892,426	14.9%
2012	768,943	927,060	17.1%

[THEAD] [/THEAD]
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

SAS Output

So if the numbers are to be believed even in the Summer there is a margin of supply exceeding demand.

What I think you are requesting is not more energy but some pie in the sky belief that someone will supply you with cheap or free energy. Not gonna happen.

 

[Kosh]

Here is a question...let's say we find an energy source that is absolutely safe, it's cheap, takes up as much land as todays power plants, and provides unlimited energy for anyone who needs it...does anyone see a problem with this...it would mean the 3rd world would be able to develop into the 1st world and they would be able to increase their populations and improve their standards of living...as would the entire rest of the world...and since the energy would be "green" there would be no reason to tax wealthy countries for energy use...right?

There will always be some group or set f people opposed to anything..

The problem that the world has is that the entire economy of the world is based on fossil fuels and natural resources. OIL employs more people around the world than any other industry. It is what keeps the world economy moving.

As much as there are those against said comities, the fact is it is needed.

And the far left will always want to tax and regulate people, except in the form of voting and pot..

 

[elektra]

Nuclear power is cheap, clean, and safe.

We have nuclear power plants that run 24 hours a day, 500 days in a row. Reliability equals safe.

Spent nuclear fuel can be used again, like in france.

Nuclear power can move freight, people seem to forget that trains are Electric.

 

[elektra]

We'll end up having to bomb them in the long run.

Why...we won't be fighting about energy or food...both will be plentiful with unlimited energy...

Fail.

Me thinks some people in this thread need to spend more time in the energy subforum, or just take a basic physics class at their local community college.

There is no free lunch. You can't get something for nothing. There is always a cost, and waste. The basic Laws of Thermodynamics dictate this, and cannot be trumped. Ever. Period. End sentence. Full stop.

Nuclear and green energy will not move freight, will not kill bugs, will not fertilize crops, will not provide plastics, rubber, enamel and 10,000 other things that fossil fuels are used for. Nevermind that nuclear plants require and enormous amount of hydrocarbon energy to build and maintain, and nevermind that they each require a decade to safely decommission or power down in the event of a crisis. THey are a blight on the land, as we've already learned twice in last 30 years.

Freight trains operate on electricity, last time I checked nuclear power produces electricity.

We power ships with nuclear power in the navy, so your idea that nuclear power can not move freight is pure hogwash.

 

[Ernie S.]

Nuclear power is cheap, clean, and safe.

We have nuclear power plants that run 24 hours a day, 500 days in a row. Reliability equals safe.

Spent nuclear fuel can be used again, like in france.

Nuclear power can move freight, people seem to forget that trains are Electric.

Damned few freight trains run on overheads. Virtually all are electric, but 99% of freight is moved by trains with diesel engines powering generators.

 

[elektra]

Nuclear power is cheap, clean, and safe.

We have nuclear power plants that run 24 hours a day, 500 days in a row. Reliability equals safe.

Spent nuclear fuel can be used again, like in france.

Nuclear power can move freight, people seem to forget that trains are Electric.

Damned few freight trains run on overheads. Virtually all are electric, but 99% of freight is moved by trains with diesel engines powering generators.

Trains run on electricity, as I stated.

Big Electric Generators, why did you leave that fact out of your post

 

[konradv]

Did he say anything about nuclear plants?

Though you do raise a good question. Cheap is relative. The infrastructure would be very expensive. Who would pay for the plants? I would have no problem with private corporations building the system, but would be very sceptical of the government getting involved.

What do you know of that meets his requirements other than nuclear?

"let's say we find an energy source that is absolutely safe, it's cheap, takes up as much land as todays power plants"

Fusion

 

[Ernie S.]

Nuclear power is cheap, clean, and safe.

We have nuclear power plants that run 24 hours a day, 500 days in a row. Reliability equals safe.

Spent nuclear fuel can be used again, like in france.

Nuclear power can move freight, people seem to forget that trains are Electric.

Damned few freight trains run on overheads. Virtually all are electric, but 99% of freight is moved by trains with diesel engines powering generators.

Trains run on electricity, as I stated.

Big Electric Generators, why did you leave that fact out of your post

See if I can explain this so you will understand. A conventional locomotive has it's own great big diesel engine that is used to turn a generator that makes electricity to power electric motors that move the train. They DO not use electricity off the grid.

Trains you see running on overhead electrical wires or electric tracks in the case of subways, #1, rarely move freight. #2, Use electricity generated by the train system at 11,000 volts at 25Hz. That is power incompatible with the standard US grid, so NO. Freight trains are not now and likely never will be, powered by nuclear reactors.

 

[elektra]

Nuclear power is cheap, clean, and safe.

We have nuclear power plants that run 24 hours a day, 500 days in a row. Reliability equals safe.

Spent nuclear fuel can be used again, like in france.

Nuclear power can move freight, people seem to forget that trains are Electric.

Damned few freight trains run on overheads. Virtually all are electric, but 99% of freight is moved by trains with diesel engines powering generators.

Trains run on electricity, as I stated.

Big Electric Generators, why did you leave that fact out of your post

See if I can explain this so you will understand. A conventional locomotive has it's own great big diesel engine that is used to turn a generator that makes electricity to power electric motors that move the train. They DO not as a rule, use electricity off the grid.

Trains you see running on overhead electrical wires or electric tracks in the case of subways, #1, rarely move freight. #2, Use electricity generated by the train system at 11,000 volts at 25Hz. That is power incompatible with the standard US grid, so NO. Freight trains are not now and likely never will be, powered by nuclear reactors.

Who said anything about trains running on overhead electric lines, not me.

I stated electricity runs a train.

So your point is what again, that I am right, correct.

 

[Ernie S.]

You stated that trains run on electricity generated by nuclear power plants. THEY DON'T

You said:
"Nuclear power can move freight, people seem to forget that trains are Electric."

THAT is flat out wrong.

 

[Flopper]

The first question is where is the money coming from to build all of these nuclear plants? And the second question is who controls the spent radioactive fuel?

It isn't nuclear...it isn't any specific energy type...perhaps some source we haven't considered yet...the main point...it is all the energy we want and more...would there be any objection to having as much energy as we needed to grow our societies and allow more people to exist and to live in a 1st world or better life style...any down side to that...?

Of course there would be objections from the nations rich in oil and gas, from those who own the mineral rights, the companies that drill wells, operate pipelines, supertankers, petroleum wholesalers,and retailers, developers and marketers of alternative energy sources, manufacturers sellers of pollution control equipment. These businesses and countries would have much to loose and would surely use their considerable financial resource to see that no such energy source every saw the light of day.

This reminds of an old movie called "The Man in the White Suit" with Alex Guinness who invented a cloth that was indestructible and would last forever..

 

[elektra]

You stated that trains run on electricity generated by nuclear power plants. THEY DON'T

You said:
"Nuclear power can move freight, people seem to forget that trains are Electric."

THAT is flat out wrong.

You are dumb, you quote me then twist my comment into lie.

So you are stating we can not move freight with electricity from nuclear power?

We could have pure nuclear powered trains, just like some of our ships.

 

[Ernie S.]

You stated that trains run on electricity generated by nuclear power plants. THEY DON'T

You said:
"Nuclear power can move freight, people seem to forget that trains are Electric."

THAT is flat out wrong.

You are dumb, you quote me then twist my comment into lie.



So you are stating we can not move freight with electricity from nuclear power?

We could have pure nuclear powered trains, just like some of our ships.

I simply point out that freight does not run on nuclear energy, nor should it.

Could it? Sure. Would it be a smart thing to do? Hell no!
Oh we could, I suppose build nuclear trains, but do you really want thousands of nuclear reactors riding the rails? Freight trains derail roughly once a week. Would you be happy with a 4 mini Fukushimas every month? Sorry I hope trains NEVER carry on board reactors.