Wind or Nuclear?

[Karateka]

Nuclear - only it sounds like it's time for people to be more informed instead of reactionary and hysterical as soon as "nu...' comes out for discussion.

 

[KittenKoder]

Nuclear - only it sounds like it's time for people to be more informed instead of reactionary and hysterical as soon as "nu...' comes out for discussion.

That's the problem, they keep bringing up two examples of accidents that really do not apply to modern technology. They fear radiation yet so easily forget that every time they enter the sun they are getting "lethal" doses of it. Most of our household appliances give off radiation. Our own bodies give off radiation ... radiation is natures energy.

 

[rdean]

Nuclear - only it sounds like it's time for people to be more informed instead of reactionary and hysterical as soon as "nu...' comes out for discussion.

That's the problem, they keep bringing up two examples of accidents that really do not apply to modern technology. They fear radiation yet so easily forget that every time they enter the sun they are getting "lethal" doses of it. Most of our household appliances give off radiation. Our own bodies give off radiation ... radiation is natures energy.

Most of our household appiances give off radiation? Every time we enter the "sun"? Our bodies give off radiation?

Household appliances to be deemed "safe" and receive certification have to go through and pass EMC testing. This requires running that piece of equipment in a copper wire cage and measuring emissions if it has any type of microwave or certain types of electronics.

If it is made to be sold overseas in the European Market, no control panel can have a component that operates at higher then 24Volts.

Who enters the "sun"?

Our bodies give off "radiation"? You mean heat?

I have slogans, not really sure what you have? Hope it isn't contagious.

 

[Intense]

Compared to all the people who die from our current forms, all the drawbacks of the options idiots are pushing like drugs on people, and fact that radiation is unavoidable ... nuclear is the only solution to reduce ... everything.

We still need back ups capable of maintaining the grid in the event of an unscheduled shut down. Nukes are very slow in coming back on line. Two Weeks?

So ... thousands of lives a year is a better price than having to actually update some of the technology? Or if we switch to one of the "green" solutions we have sky rocketing electric bills and have to destroy a lot of wildlife ... all just to avoid a 1% chance of something serious happening?

No Kit, You misunderstand what I'm saying. Remember the last two big blackouts? I'm saying that we have to have enough conventional Plants on line to Survive an accidental shut down of Nuke Plants. It is an automatic process that is not reversible. It takes weeks to come back on line, once shut down. Nuke plants need conventional Plants to start them up, too. Diablo ran off of the Morro Bay Plant if I remember right.

 

[GHook93]

Here is the break down of our energy sources:

Keep Our Fuel Mix Diverse
Coal - 49%
Natural Gas - 19.9%
Nuclear - 19.4%
Hydropower - 6.9%
Non-hydro-renewable (Solar, wind, biomass) - 3.1%
Oil - 1.6%

Hydro, Wind and solar: We are all tapped out on Hydro, but most will acknowledge that hydro doesn't populate the air, water or emit CO2. Keeping it at 7% is good.
But look at Solar, Wind and Biomass (the so called clean renewable energies) they hit piss poor 3%. Not sure why year round sunny states like NV, AZ, CA, OK, TX, NM etc don't utilize more solar sources. Or why windy states like IL, WY, OH, etc don't use more wind power. I mean there is no reason we can't bump up that 3% to 25%!

Nuclear: Nuclear is at an embarrassing 20%! Nuclear admits nuclear waste (which can be recycled, just ask the Frogs/Franks)! But it admits no pollution or CO2. Call it the liberal fear tactic of 3 mile island (even there were no deaths or injuries). There is no reason that nuclear should be bumped up to at least double. Right now America has 104 Nuclear reactors! With no new reactors allowed since 1979, even though the atomic commission received 1,000s of applications to build them around the country.
There is no reason nuclear's percentage is not doubled.

Nuclear power in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Recap: 7% hydro, 25% Wind and Solar, 40% Nuclear = 72%

Natural Gas:
Quick question, which 3 countries have the largest amount's of natural gas (and not the gas coming out of Shogun's mouth)? America, Canada and Russia.

Natural Gas is the considered the cleanest of the fossil fuels. That last 28% should be consist of Natural Gas.
NaturalGas.org

The Loser - Coal:
Yes we have a ton of it. But its the dirtest fossil fuel. It produces the most CO2. If we can replace why don't we? The Clean Coal solution should good, but watch the 60 minutes story on Clean Coal and coming fromt he Coal industry itself, switching to clean coal would cost well over $1 trillion dollar and take more than a decade to get 50% of it done. These were the coal executives saying it.

 

[Tech_Esq]

We still need back ups capable of maintaining the grid in the event of an unscheduled shut down. Nukes are very slow in coming back on line. Two Weeks?

So ... thousands of lives a year is a better price than having to actually update some of the technology? Or if we switch to one of the "green" solutions we have sky rocketing electric bills and have to destroy a lot of wildlife ... all just to avoid a 1% chance of something serious happening?

No Kit, You misunderstand what I'm saying. Remember the last two big blackouts? I'm saying that we have to have enough conventional Plants on line to Survive an accidental shut down of Nuke Plants. It is an automatic process that is not reversible. It takes weeks to come back on line, once shut down. Nuke plants need conventional Plants to start them up, too. Diablo ran off of the Morro Bay Plant if I remember right.

France is 100% nuclear, how do they do it? I'm thinking if the French can do it, it's just possible, we might be able to figure it out too.

 

[Intense]

So ... thousands of lives a year is a better price than having to actually update some of the technology? Or if we switch to one of the "green" solutions we have sky rocketing electric bills and have to destroy a lot of wildlife ... all just to avoid a 1% chance of something serious happening?

No Kit, You misunderstand what I'm saying. Remember the last two big blackouts? I'm saying that we have to have enough conventional Plants on line to Survive an accidental shut down of Nuke Plants. It is an automatic process that is not reversible. It takes weeks to come back on line, once shut down. Nuke plants need conventional Plants to start them up, too. Diablo ran off of the Morro Bay Plant if I remember right.

France is 100% nuclear, how do they do it? I'm thinking if the French can do it, it's just possible, we might be able to figure it out too.

I don't know. Do you know how they power up during start up.

 

[GHook93]

So ... thousands of lives a year is a better price than having to actually update some of the technology? Or if we switch to one of the "green" solutions we have sky rocketing electric bills and have to destroy a lot of wildlife ... all just to avoid a 1% chance of something serious happening?

No Kit, You misunderstand what I'm saying. Remember the last two big blackouts? I'm saying that we have to have enough conventional Plants on line to Survive an accidental shut down of Nuke Plants. It is an automatic process that is not reversible. It takes weeks to come back on line, once shut down. Nuke plants need conventional Plants to start them up, too. Diablo ran off of the Morro Bay Plant if I remember right.

France is 100% nuclear, how do they do it? I'm thinking if the French can do it, it's just possible, we might be able to figure it out too.

They are not 100% nuclear but 87% and they make a killing on exporting power across Europe. We should take note and go nuclear like them. The rest I believe is all nature sourcs (wind, hydro and solar).

Nuclear power in France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Intense]

Need to work on reprocessing spent fuel, for two reasons I can think of.
1). It makes sense to recycle it and conserve. The French have laid it out plainly.
2). Why have it laying around waiting for bad things to happen to it and us.

Is there a down side to reprocessing?

 

[Old Rocks]

So ... thousands of lives a year is a better price than having to actually update some of the technology? Or if we switch to one of the "green" solutions we have sky rocketing electric bills and have to destroy a lot of wildlife ... all just to avoid a 1% chance of something serious happening?

No Kit, You misunderstand what I'm saying. Remember the last two big blackouts? I'm saying that we have to have enough conventional Plants on line to Survive an accidental shut down of Nuke Plants. It is an automatic process that is not reversible. It takes weeks to come back on line, once shut down. Nuke plants need conventional Plants to start them up, too. Diablo ran off of the Morro Bay Plant if I remember right.

France is 100% nuclear, how do they do it? I'm thinking if the French can do it, it's just possible, we might be able to figure it out too.

France has a health care system that gives the French people the highest longevity among the large nations. Maybe we can copy that, also.

 

[Old Rocks]

Currently, the largest wind farm in the US – and the largest in the world – is Florida Power & Light's Horse Hollow Wind Energy Center, located in Taylor County, Texas. The Horse Hollow project operates 421 wind turbines and has a capacity of 735 megawatts

Rocks did you know that the entire capacity of wind in the Untied States is enough to serve 4.5 million homes just about equal to that of Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station here in Arizona that serves Approx. 4 million. So while wind has it's place in an overall solution , nuclear would seem to be a much better solution in terms of power generation, jobs, and long term power generation.

Not for long.


Oregon wind farm could be world's largest - Portland Business Journal:

The Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council gave its approval of the site of a wind farm billed to be the largest in the world.

The Shepherd's Flat Wind Farm, which would span Gilliam and Morrow counties in north-central Oregon, is proposed to have 303 wind turbines with a peak capacity of 909 megawatts -- instantly doubling the state's current wind-generated capacity of 889 megawatts, making it one of the largest wind farms in the country.

 

[Intense]

Currently, the largest wind farm in the US – and the largest in the world – is Florida Power & Light's Horse Hollow Wind Energy Center, located in Taylor County, Texas. The Horse Hollow project operates 421 wind turbines and has a capacity of 735 megawatts

Rocks did you know that the entire capacity of wind in the Untied States is enough to serve 4.5 million homes just about equal to that of Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station here in Arizona that serves Approx. 4 million. So while wind has it's place in an overall solution , nuclear would seem to be a much better solution in terms of power generation, jobs, and long term power generation.

Not for long.


Oregon wind farm could be world's largest - Portland Business Journal:

The Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council gave its approval of the site of a wind farm billed to be the largest in the world.

The Shepherd's Flat Wind Farm, which would span Gilliam and Morrow counties in north-central Oregon, is proposed to have 303 wind turbines with a peak capacity of 909 megawatts -- instantly doubling the state's current wind-generated capacity of 889 megawatts, making it one of the largest wind farms in the country.

What is the projected Maintenance Cost? 1 Yr, 5 Yr, 10 Yr. What is the life expectancy of a single turbine? May work, but I suspect it's gonna cost. There are issues with pollution too.

 

[Intense]

Question for

Skull Pilot
&
Navy1960

If We have the Technology, the Capability, and Resources capable to Reprocess spent fuel rods, and International Cooperation to collect, from the outside, Isn't it More Environmentally Responsible for Us to do it? Why is FAS so against GNEP? Anybody want to play Devil's advocate? Translation / legitimate perspective from both sides of the issue . Deep Concerns?

Found this Link on FAS Web-Site. Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP)

The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) is a Bush administration plan managed by the United States Department of Energy. GNEP plans to reverse decades of domestic nuclear policy by promoting the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel for use in nuclear power reactors. Reprocessing creates plutonium, the same material that is used in making nuclear weapons; therefore GNEP will increase the amount of nuclear weapon material available for use or potential theft or sale. GNEP also promises states purchasing US reactor fuel that the US will "recover" this fuel when it has been spent. This will bring more radioactive waste into our country, where there is no permanent repository available, and will create potential environmental hazards or terrorist targets when this material is transported.

Links:
FAS information on GNEP

U.S. Department of Energy information on GNEP

 

[rdean]

Question for

Skull Pilot
&
Navy1960

If We have the Technology, the Capability, and Resources capable to Reprocess spent fuel rods, and International Cooperation to collect, from the outside, Isn't it More Environmentally Responsible for Us to do it? Why is FAS so against GNEP? Anybody want to play Devil's advocate? Translation / legitimate perspective from both sides of the issue . Deep Concerns?

Found this Link on FAS Web-Site. Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP)

The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) is a Bush administration plan managed by the United States Department of Energy. GNEP plans to reverse decades of domestic nuclear policy by promoting the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel for use in nuclear power reactors. Reprocessing creates plutonium, the same material that is used in making nuclear weapons; therefore GNEP will increase the amount of nuclear weapon material available for use or potential theft or sale. GNEP also promises states purchasing US reactor fuel that the US will "recover" this fuel when it has been spent. This will bring more radioactive waste into our country, where there is no permanent repository available, and will create potential environmental hazards or terrorist targets when this material is transported.

Links:
FAS information on GNEP

U.S. Department of Energy information on GNEP

Bush was kinda strange. At the same time he was pushing for "nuw cue lar" power, as he put it, he was cutting funding for education. Republicans think you can McGiver a nuclear power plant from a glow in the dark plastic Jesus, some hairspray, a few wires and a matchbook with only one match. It's more complicated than that. You can't use a kitchen inspector to inspect a nuclear power plant either.

Funny Republicans turn to science, which they clearly don't believe in. Want help from scientists, who they say have no common sense.

 

[Navy1960]

Question for

Skull Pilot
&
Navy1960

If We have the Technology, the Capability, and Resources capable to Reprocess spent fuel rods, and International Cooperation to collect, from the outside, Isn't it More Environmentally Responsible for Us to do it? Why is FAS so against GNEP? Anybody want to play Devil's advocate? Translation / legitimate perspective from both sides of the issue . Deep Concerns?

Found this Link on FAS Web-Site. Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP)

The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) is a Bush administration plan managed by the United States Department of Energy. GNEP plans to reverse decades of domestic nuclear policy by promoting the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel for use in nuclear power reactors. Reprocessing creates plutonium, the same material that is used in making nuclear weapons; therefore GNEP will increase the amount of nuclear weapon material available for use or potential theft or sale. GNEP also promises states purchasing US reactor fuel that the US will "recover" this fuel when it has been spent. This will bring more radioactive waste into our country, where there is no permanent repository available, and will create potential environmental hazards or terrorist targets when this material is transported.

Links:
FAS information on GNEP

U.S. Department of Energy information on GNEP

I will try an answer this for you, most reprocessing facilites use the PUREX method to reprocess spent nuclear fuel and in fast cycle reactors it can produce as a byproduct weapons grade material. So FAS claims that GNEP by and large because it advocates the expansion of reprocessing is a violation of the nonproliferation treaty. the problem with this is that most LWR Light Water Reactors of which all US commercial reactors are would have to refuel many many more times on average than they do now to produce such material. In fact in ths PUREX method this fuel can be reprocessed again and then reused such as it is with russian weapons grade material that is currently being used in US commerical reactors.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wj4kFP8t3Xc]YouTube - Josh Explains Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing[/ame]

The United States has established a number of cooperative arrangements to pursue technical cooperation on this proposal. On February 16, 2006 the United States, France and Japan signed an "arrangement" to research and develop sodium-cooled fast reactors in support of the GNEP. The United States has established “action plans” for collaboration with Russia, Japan and China

Fission of the nuclear fuel in any reactor produces neutron-absorbing fission products, and because of this it is necessary to reprocess the fuel and breeder blanket from a breeder reactor if one is to fully utilise its ability to breed more fuel than it consumes. The most common reprocessing technique, PUREX, is generally considered a large proliferation concern because such reprocessing technologies can be used to extract weapons grade plutonium from a reactor operated on a short refuelling cycle. For this reason, the FBR closed fuel cycle is often seen as a greater proliferation concern than a once-through thermal fuel cycle.

However, to date all known weapons programs have used far more easily built thermal reactors to produce plutonium, and there are some designs such as the SSTAR which avoid proliferation risks by both producing low amounts of plutonium at any given time from the U-238, and by producing three different isotopes of plutonium (Pu-239, Pu-240, and Pu-242) making the plutonium used infeasible for atomic bomb use.

In short what this means is that the technology exists to reprocess this spent fuel without producing material that can be considered weapons grade and while GNEP may be seen as sort of a cumbersome first step it's my opinion that these reactors especially the mini reactors and on long fuel cycles with worldwide standards as it applies to safety and fissil material handling then we will be able to proceed in a safe manner that everyone in general can be happy with.

 

[JBeukema]

tiered, decentralized system
​

 

[Intense]

Thank You for the Effort. Very well spoken. SSTAR,as you describe it would seem the right direction.
To establish accountability, joint-partnerships, acceptable procedures and standards only adds to the safety and protection. Standards change, as awareness increases, so it sounds like a good starting point. It would be nice for FAS to contribute in a positive was rather than obstruct and divert funding. One would think they would want to be a part of it, advise and consent, whatever. N.Korea, Iran, Pakistan, probably of more concern, yet I don't think we have much influence there. Still the potential for accident or theft, rises over time. Then again I sure Hope Prez. Obama's sense of equal distribution does not extend to Weapons Grade Plutonium.

 

[KittenKoder]

No Kit, You misunderstand what I'm saying. Remember the last two big blackouts? I'm saying that we have to have enough conventional Plants on line to Survive an accidental shut down of Nuke Plants. It is an automatic process that is not reversible. It takes weeks to come back on line, once shut down. Nuke plants need conventional Plants to start them up, too. Diablo ran off of the Morro Bay Plant if I remember right.

France is 100% nuclear, how do they do it? I'm thinking if the French can do it, it's just possible, we might be able to figure it out too.

I don't know. Do you know how they power up during start up.

TE beat me to it, but no, they don't rely on "conventional" plants and most don't take "two weeks" to start up, the time between a forced shut down and start up is greatly influenced by inspections, not mechanical requirements. You do need to look into how they operate a little more.

 

[GHook93]

No Kit, You misunderstand what I'm saying. Remember the last two big blackouts? I'm saying that we have to have enough conventional Plants on line to Survive an accidental shut down of Nuke Plants. It is an automatic process that is not reversible. It takes weeks to come back on line, once shut down. Nuke plants need conventional Plants to start them up, too. Diablo ran off of the Morro Bay Plant if I remember right.

France is 100% nuclear, how do they do it? I'm thinking if the French can do it, it's just possible, we might be able to figure it out too.

France has a health care system that gives the French people the highest longevity among the large nations. Maybe we can copy that, also.

There are a few dozen other threads where this argument can go!

 

[Intense]

France is 100% nuclear, how do they do it? I'm thinking if the French can do it, it's just possible, we might be able to figure it out too.

I don't know. Do you know how they power up during start up.

TE beat me to it, but no, they don't rely on "conventional" plants and most don't take "two weeks" to start up, the time between a forced shut down and start up is greatly influenced by inspections, not mechanical requirements. You do need to look into how they operate a little more.

We take 2 weeks, remember the big black out in the North East, and the one in Florida, I'm just referring to what is, not what could be. Nukes don't simply turn on an off with a flick of the switch. Restarting is a process. During this process, the grid needs to be stable. These shut downs were a glitch, that I'm sure was looked at. No offense intended. There are also issues with phase syncronization when coming into the grid.

Kit, I'm not blasting Nuclear Power, Done safely, I will support it. I recognize that we are grossly under powered. The solution is years away. Natural Gas and Hydro compliment the Grid too, and also have their own advantages. They should not be abandoned.

I'm also trying to learn. Navy 1960 has been very helpful. Why not check into reprocessing spent fuel, and if it checks out for you, support that too. It seems to make allot of sense.

Love that Avatar. It's one of my favorites.