Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Nuclear energy development- Yeah or nay?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
callous taoboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 01:42 PM
Original message
Nuclear energy development- Yeah or nay?
From what I can gather it is still too unsafe and the waste is a problem we don't have solutions for, yet. My right-wing brother, of course, says yeah, claims that the Hollywood celebs who've been anti-nuke (James Garner, Streisand etc.) are now encouraging nuclear energy development.

What are your thoughts on this, DU?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 01:45 PM
Response to Original message
1. Assuming we aren't going back to the dark ages
we are going to need energy and a lot of it going forward. Nuclear isn't the safest energy in town, but no energy source is ideal. Nuclear, in my opinion, clearly has a place in the grand scheme of energy.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 01:46 PM
Response to Original message
2. Research, yes, Development, not yet
There is the biggest unanswered question out there: What do you do with the spent fuel rods?

Yes, we should study it, and design a much more efficient method

Yes, we should look into Cold Fusion - our great grandchildren will benefit from that

But build more? No. It's not ready for prime time yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-12-08 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #2
68. For starters, cold fusion is largely a myth.
Even assuming that the experiments which have claimed it have produced a nuclear reaction, it's currently impossible to harness for energy extraction.

What do we do with the fuel rods? It's the simplest answer in the world: we recycle them. Most of the uranium is still good to use, it just needs to be reprocessed to remove the byproducts which stop the reaction.

Reprocessing the used fuel rods yields new fuel rods, and it decreases both the quantity and radioactivity of the stuff we need to store and get rid of by an order of magnitude. Not to mention some of those other waste isotopes, once extracted, are useful in medical or industrial applications like radio-decay batteries for space probes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-12-08 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #68
73. Recycling is good - but Cold Fusion is not a myth
Just not something you or I will see in our lifetime
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
3. I live near a nuke plant.
Edited on Mon Aug-11-08 01:55 PM by Cleita
How many public utilities have pills for radiation that are passed out to the public and sirens in case of meltdown? People argue that since there never has been one yet that they are safe, but unlike other disasters we can only have one meltdown. It's not something you recover from in just a few years. Disposing of the waste is a 50,000 year problem, minimum. Also, our nuke company is inefficient and we suffer power outages on a regular basis. The plant was built without concern about the fact that it's over earthquake faults and what appears to have been the caldera of ancient volcano. In my state of California we have so many choices for alternate energy that we don't need nuke plants. A nuke plant should be the very last choice after all other means have been studied.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
callous taoboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #3
35. My brother is arguing that
the older plants need to be phased out, that the newer technology is much safer etc., but then he does concede that the waste is still the problem but only as far as the transport of it to the salt caves where it is going now, right? I know that France has done well with nukes but that they are worried about the waste and are shipping it to Russia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #35
40. In the end the waste is the BIG problem.
I'm not saying nuclear energy shouldn't be used, it just should be the very last option on the table after all others have been explored. This would keep the field very small and we'd be better able to contain the waste and pollution for longer periods of time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DesertFlower Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
4. it seems to be working in france.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. France is having concerns about it's waste disposal. They are running out
of options. Waste takes a minimum of over 50,000 years to biodegrade and usually a lot more. Just how many radioactive dumps do you want to spread around the planet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DesertFlower Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. i'm not advocating it.
living in arizona with so much sunshine and open desert, my choice is solar. i'd like to convert my house to solar, but it would cost about $40,000.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. You need to start pressuring your politicians, municipal, state and federal
to pass laws giving people help in converting to solar. In southern California, the local electric utility which is run by the city is offering all building owners I believe it's $5,000 per building towards solar. I know it's a drop in the bucket but I do believe money that is being wasted on other energy companies could be diverted to this instead. It's a matter of making them give it to homeowners for solar instead of the predatory energy company like Enron. Activism will be required to get their attention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
callous taoboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #5
36. And is it true that they are shipping the waste to Russia? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ben_meyers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
6. We could always go back to Whale oil and cutting trees
for fuel.

Nuclear power is less than 60 years old and continued development and research will always go on.

I'm comfortable with my local Nuclear power facility.

The Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, commonly referred to as Palo Verde Power Plant is a nuclear power plant located in Tonopah, Arizona, about 45 miles (80 km) west of central Phoenix, and is currently the largest nuclear generation facility in the United States, averaging over 3.2 gigawatts (GW) of electrical power production in 2003<1> to serve approximately 4 million people. Arizona Public Service owns the largest portion (29.1%) of the station and operates the facility. Other owners include Salt River Project (17.5%), El Paso Electric Co. (15.8%), Southern California Edison (15.8%), PNM Resources (10.2%), Southern California Public Power Authority (5.9%), and the Los Angeles Dept. of Water & Power (5.7%).(snip)

It supplies electricity at a production cost (including fuel, maintenance and operation) of 1.33 U.S. cents per kilowatt-hour. This is cheaper than coal (2.26 cents/kWh) or natural gas (4.54 cents/kWh) in the region at the same time (2002), but more expensive than hydro (0.63 cents/kWh). Assuming a 60-year plant life and 5% long-term cost of capital, the depreciation and capital costs not included in the previous marginal cost for Palo Verde are approximately another 1.4 cents per kilowatt-hour. In 2002, the wholesale value of the electricity produced was 2.5 cents/kWh. By 2007, the wholesale value of electricity at the Palo Verde hub was 6.33 cents/kWh. Nuclear power generators are very profitable when fossil fuel prices are high.

Due to its location in the Arizona desert, Palo Verde is the only nuclear generating facility in the world that is not located adjacent to a large body of water. Instead, it uses treated sewage from several nearby municipalities to meet its cooling water needs, recycling 20 billion US gallons (76,000,000 m³) of wastewater each year. At the nuclear plant site, the wastewater is further treated and stored in an 80 acre (324,000 m²) reservoir for use in the plant's cooling towers.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Verde_Nuclear_Generating_Station

My air conditioning bill thanks you!







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DesertFlower Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. i'm in arizona too.
last month's electric bill was $390. not bad considering that the whole house is electric including the well and septic system and we don't skimp on AC.

5 years ago my summer bills were about $70 lower. the rates have gone up quite a bit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Wielding Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 02:03 PM
Response to Original message
7. Plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24,000 years. That's not great.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/radwaste.html

One mistake is too many. Although it is renewable,it's very expensive to produce and it's cost in mishandling could be unmeasurable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. The earth won't survive another 1,000 years without CO2-free energy
Maybe wind will be viable one day, but there is no time to lose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. If you were truly worried about radiation...
...you would be protesting coal plants, not nuclear plants. A coal plant produces more radioactive waste than a nuclear one, and unlike a nuclear plant, a coal plant just dumps all that radioactive waste into the atmosphere without any effort whatsoever to contain it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. Coal plants are a bad idea too and they should be replaced with alternative energy
sources. Also, where do you get that coal plants produce radioactive waste? And don't bother to put up any links to your usual RW think tank sources. Where in real science is this stated?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #19
29. Source
Edited on Mon Aug-11-08 03:01 PM by Nederland
The source for this claim is from a Science magazine article decades old:

"Radiological Impact of Airborne Effluents of Coal and Nuclear Plants", December 8, 1978

Science is hardly a RW magazine, and the central facts presented in the article have never been debunked.

On update, I found a summary: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/202/4372/1045
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Wielding Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #14
25. I am concerned with all pollution. This thread asks about nuclear
power plants and to that I have questioned the production of nuclear waste. I haven't researched the pollution produced from coal. Thank for your focus on that resource.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #25
30. You have to ask yourself though
...if radioactive material from a nuclear plant is captured and never released into the environment, should it count as pollution? Yes, accidents can happen, but really there is no comparision. On one hand you have genuine pollution: crap being spewed into the atmosphere on purpose and with no plan of cleaning it up. On the other you have a problem only if something goes wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 02:06 PM
Response to Original message
9. yeah. Until we get fusion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
isentropic Donating Member (344 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 02:11 PM
Response to Original message
12. It's the only way to keep up with energy demand. There are no good
alternatives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 02:11 PM
Response to Original message
13. Nay
Waste is a problem. You can't just dump it all somewhere and forget about it. It needs to be kept cool.
That takes water. Lots of water. Shut off the water and it goes BOOM and spews radiation.
How are they going to get all this water to Yucca Mountain in the middle of the desert?

Then there is the matter of fuel. We are even less self-sufficient for nuclear fuel than for oil,
and the places it comes from are even more unstable and/or unfriendly.

We can do better with renewables.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ben_meyers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. Did you notice where Palo Verde is? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
isentropic Donating Member (344 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #13
20. Active cooling is only needed for a year or 2 and there is plenty of uranium in the U.S.
...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AngryAmish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #13
32. The idea of yucca Mountain is to keep it away from water
Edited on Mon Aug-11-08 03:21 PM by AngryAmish
Nuclear fissile material produces heat energy through shedding of neutrons (radiation). When nuclear atoms are closer together the high-energy shed neutrons hit the nucleus' of the atoms causing more neutrons to shed. A nuclear reactor is about controlling the reaction to generate heat to (mostly) boil water to make steam to turn turbines to get electricity so I don't have to sit in the dark while I'm getting drunk. Unless I want to. (This is a very basic understanding to the reaction process - and if I am wrong about any aspect then please correct me)

Nuclear explosions happen when the nuclear material get so compressed a runaway reaction occurs, tons of heat and the explosion.

ANYWAY, when the material is concentrated in a fuel rod it generates a lot of heat. The idea of long term storage is to encase it in a glass-like material with the atoms far away from each other so very little heat is generated since the radiation emitted (the neutrons) are less likely to hit other atom's nucleus. Physical space makes it less likely.

Cheers.

on edit: Why keep the spent fuel away from water? Prevent corrosion of the storage material.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 02:20 PM
Response to Original message
16. Yeah. Right now. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izquierdista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 02:24 PM
Response to Original message
18. Underground
If there is anything that was learned by the years of underground nuclear testing, it is that lots of dirt will protect the environment from the worst accident that can happen. If the Chernobyl plant was 100 feet underground, there would have been no airborne release; if it was 1000 feet underground it likely wouldn't even be able to contaminate the nearby lake and river and the groundwater.

Abandoned hard rock, salt and coal mines would make the perfect containment for future nuclear energy development. When the facilities reach the end of their useful life, all that would be necessary is to unplug the reactor and backfill the shafts. No transporting of nuclear waste to remote facilities, just plan in the beginning to abandon it in place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. How long do you think you can do this before you run out of places to do this?
If every country in the world does this, there will be a time that you will have to stop using nuke energy because there will be no more places to dump it. It's best not to use it to begin with when there are many other options to start investing in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
isentropic Donating Member (344 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. There are millions of sites like the one described...and with current technology
there ARE no practical "other options."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. And what is the population of the world?
Do your math again. There are many other practical options, one being to cut down on electrical usage for unnecessary uses. I mean do we really need all those lights on Times Square, Las Vegas and the Ginza in Japan?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
isentropic Donating Member (344 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #23
34. I'm not going to tell the Japanese what they can do in the Ginza.
Maybe you could try.:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izquierdista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. Illogical
Edited on Mon Aug-11-08 03:32 PM by izquierdista
Like Khan, your pattern indicates a two-dimensional thinking. All the proposed solutions to the nuclear waste problem involve deep geological repositories, so the obvious solution is to incorporate it in the first place by building it DOWN, not on the surface.

On edit: a subterranean nuke plant could even be a mile BELOW Times Square, Las Vegas or the Ginza, if the geology is right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. Oh and your thinking is three dimensional?
You have closed your mind to any other alternatives than nuclear. That looks really one dimensional thinking to me. I have never said no nukes ever. What I have said is that nuke plants should be the very last option after every other much safer and less polluting alternatives have been studied. However, these alternatives are not lucrative to the energy companies that want to use nuclear power, well with the exception of T. Boone Pickens, so they don't want to even talk about them or admit that they are viable.
Really, find out who are the corporations who are behind this and who are getting the press to the exclusion of the other greener companies who have to get their message out on fringe leftie news outlets like LinkTV.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izquierdista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #27
33. I agree that nukes are not the best solution
Other alternatives should be used: wind in North Dakota, tidal currents in Maine, solar in Arizona, geothermal in Nevada. Each area of the country has naturally occurring energy options that should be used to the fullest extent possible.

I know who the corporations are behind this because I used to work for one of them (and I hope they continue to be in business so they can pay me my pension when I go to collect). You are right that they want economy of scale to work for them, which means big power plants with big distribution networks so that they can bill lots of customers. But that is not the way of the future. The future lies in widely distributed small scale producers supplying power locally and exporting a little surplus when they have it. Wind and solar are typical of that model.

The only problem with the small scale distributed producers model is what to do with huge cities with enormous demands for power. Even in the 1800s, New York city was pulling in firewood and coal from enormous distances to feed their appetite. That is the one niche where nuke plants would fit the bill. With nuke plants a mile deep below the big cities, they would not need to pull all the surplus power from miles around. Neither would they have to rely on scam artists like Pickens, who would want to get their "cut" of every square meter of sunshine or every gust of wind passing by.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Popol Vuh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 02:50 PM
Response to Original message
26. Three Mile Island
And Chernobyl. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 02:58 PM
Response to Original message
28. Nay, too many problems and too much money placed into the same hands that have screwed us
so many times before.

The bottom line to the objections to the alternatives is that a distributed system takes control, and therefore much of the profit, from the traditional tools of the masters.

We need a massive production requirement (i.e. millions of small generation items, wind, solar, etc.) to employ and drive the economy.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #28
31. Best answer yet as to why we shouldn't place all our eggs in one basket. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theboss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 04:41 PM
Response to Original message
37. It strikes me as the best of many bad options.
It works. So, it has that going for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 04:46 PM
Response to Original message
38. you can love your brother for other reasons....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 04:56 PM
Response to Original message
39. Nay.
You can do it better, cheaper, and faster with wind and solar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
isentropic Donating Member (344 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #39
44. Uh huh. If you actually knew how to do it better, cheaper and faster
you would be out there getting filthy rich with your unique expertise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. umm...
People are building new wind and solar plants all over the place. And they're making money too.

Nobody's building new nuke plants because they cost too much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
isentropic Donating Member (344 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #45
51. No "solar plant" will ever be useful for more than one or a few households.
Sure, wind is a good source of energy but it's not "on" 24/7...the outputs of turbines still have to be hooked into the existing grid to be functionally and economically feasible. Unless you're talking about a little one charging batteries for a log cabin out in the boondocks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #51
55. There's the SEGS operation providing power to half a million people.
Has been since the seventies.

Maybe you should look into what you're talking about before making yourself a fool.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
isentropic Donating Member (344 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #55
59. They are not self-contained, they depend on burning natural gas for
sustained operation. Maybe YOU should do a little research before you call somebody a fool.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-12-08 02:10 AM
Response to Reply #45
63. Ignore it, it will go away.
Just another in the latest wave that's "gonna show us how 'murrakin no-how" can "git 'er done".



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pokerfan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 05:01 PM
Response to Original message
41. a qualified yea
We need to recycle waste as the French do. It doesn't eliminate waste entirely, but at least it consumes about 95% of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 05:02 PM
Response to Original message
42. I've been following what could be a "magic bullet" solution
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=165288&mesg_id=165288

The Polywell. Brainchild of the late Dr. Robert Bussard, this may be the answer.

Fusion power. No, not cold fusion. It can be described as a fusion-fission reaction (internal electrostatic containment, or IEC fusion), with helium as the exhaust and boron-11 as fuel.

Wiki this. It's an important project, they're doing good science involving proven physics, and if successful, this will solve our energy problem. Period. For all time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
callous taoboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. Wow, pretty neat. I'll pass this on to the bro.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
begin_within Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 05:53 PM
Response to Original message
46. I'd rather spend the money on solar, wind, hydro and geothermal
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
isentropic Donating Member (344 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. If you can figure out a way to run an airplane with those, you can become very very rich.
:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. I understand the Soviets tried to make a nuclear power airplane.
Edited on Mon Aug-11-08 06:06 PM by Bornaginhooligan
They couldn't get it to work though.

You?

Looks like you got your neocon talking points switched, kid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
isentropic Donating Member (344 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #48
52. They had the first artificial satellite...the fact they couldn't make a nuke powered plane
just tells me it's a losing proposition. If you think I'm a neocon you might as well put me on ignore because to me facts are facts no matter which side of the political playing field they fall on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #52
54. What fact do you think is a fact?
Edited on Mon Aug-11-08 06:41 PM by Bornaginhooligan
You used the neocon argument against electric cars (you can't have electric planes), when the discussion was on power plants.

Among other nonsense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
isentropic Donating Member (344 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #54
56. I agree the thread contains a lot of nonsense...one example of which is the
assertion that solar and wind power can replace any significant or useful portion of energy currently obtained from hydrocarbons. I'm sure I saw someone making that absurd claim.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #56
57. You can replace all the electricity produced by hydrocarbon
Edited on Mon Aug-11-08 06:43 PM by Bornaginhooligan
using a small portion of, say, Nevada with a large solar facility. That's a simple fact.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
isentropic Donating Member (344 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #57
58. Bullshit.
That's one of the goofiest proposals I've ever heard in my long engineering career.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pokerfan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-12-08 01:40 AM
Response to Reply #58
61. yep
The USA uses over eighty exajoules in hydrocarbons (coal, oil, natural gas) annually.

The most modern and largest solar power facility in North America is the Nellis facility in Nevada. It covers 140 acres and is expected to produce about 25 million kilowatt-hours annually.

The entire state of Nevada is about 110,000 sq. miles. The math is sobering.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-12-08 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #58
67. Makes more sense than nukes.
Not that I think you've had a long engineering career.

Or do you drive a train?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pokerfan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-12-08 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #67
69. Have you done the math?
Please demonstrate how we can replace 80+ quads of hydrocarbon energy (annually) with a "solar facility" covering a "small portion of, say, Nevada."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-12-08 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #69
70. Well, like I was saying...
SEGS generates power for half a million people. So you'd need six hundred of those to fulfill all of the U.S. domestic purposes. More for industry obviously, but it's perfectly feasible.

It'd be about five thousand square miles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pokerfan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-12-08 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #70
71. That's not what you said
Edited on Tue Aug-12-08 04:18 PM by pokerfan
I doubt that SEGS (while certainly helpful) supplies all their energy needs. Unless they are all driving electric cars, farmimg with electric tractors, etc.

You said that a solar facility covering a small portion of Nevada can replace our hydrocarbon usage, that's eighty 80 exajoules.

How many 40MW solar plants would it take to replace 80EJ annually?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-12-08 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #71
74. Well, assuming you're correct...
You'd need 2,000,000,000,000 solar power plants.

Of course, assuming you're correct you'd also need 2,000,000,000,000 40 MW nuclear powerplants to replace the 2,000,000,000,000 40 MW coal fired power plants we've got now.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pokerfan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-12-08 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #74
75. Your math is off - it's not that bad
Edited on Tue Aug-12-08 05:28 PM by pokerfan
1 joule = 1 watt-second
1 year = 31,556,926 seconds

Therefore:
40 MW * 31.6 Ms = 1.26e15 J
80e18 / 1.26e15 = 63,492 plants

Note: the 40MW plant is actually an 80MW plant. I just cut it in half to allow for night. This assumes that it's at full capacity as long as the sun is above the horizon, which is probably a horrible assumption but I couldn't get any better figures other than rated capacities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-12-08 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #75
76. Excuse me, I misinterpreted the question.
Edited on Tue Aug-12-08 05:32 PM by Bornaginhooligan
I thought you were saying 80 exawatts.

"63,492 plants"

Well, there you go.

:shrug:

I'd rather have 63,492 solar plants than 6,350 nuke plants.

Build a few more to run at night and you've solved all sorts of problems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pokerfan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-12-08 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #76
77. I only wanted you to get a feel for the scale of the problem
You will agree that we're no longer talking about a small portion of Nevada, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-12-08 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #77
78. No, it's still small portion of Nevada.
Edited on Tue Aug-12-08 05:48 PM by Bornaginhooligan
Like I said, some 5,000 square miles. If you put them all together.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pokerfan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-12-08 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #78
80. depends upon your definition of small I guess
FWIW, I see that Solar One is 400 acres. 63,000 of those is about 40,000 sq miles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-12-08 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #80
81. 40,000 sq. miles you say.
About 60,000 sq. miles of the U.S. is currently paved. Roads and parking lots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pokerfan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-12-08 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #81
82. I've talked you from 600 plants
to over 60,000 and yet you see no difference.

This is a religious war for you. I'm outta here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-12-08 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #82
83. What, exactly, are you trying to argue?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-12-08 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #58
79. See my post above.
IEC fusion- aka the Polywell- just might be the answer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
begin_within Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 11:12 PM
Response to Reply #47
60. I'll take the sailboat, but thanks anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 05:59 PM
Response to Original message
49. no way
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terry in Austin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 06:04 PM
Response to Original message
50. Ah, screw it - let's just go ahead!
Some amount of nuclear "development" is probably inevitable, given the deep denial and sheer numbers of people who wish we could maintain the extreme energy-per-capita levels once afforded by cheap and plentiful fossil fuels. Victims of wishful thinking are unlikely to be dissuaded by any kind of rational argument, but they may eventually take notice of stark, intrusive reality.

So yeah, let's get on with building the damn things and get it over with. We might reach one or two hundred out of the necessary 12,000 before this ill-conceived stunt runs out of money, uranium, plausibility, political will, or all of the above.

After that, poorer and wiser (and more radioactive), we can get on with the main task of refurbishing the world so that it can run on sustainable amounts of energy.

We've spent the inheritance, and wishing won't bring it back. Uranium might look like another rich uncle ready to croak, but we've been through this movie before -- how many times do we want to sit through it?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-12-08 06:53 AM
Response to Reply #50
66. Once was enough for me
I honestly thought that we had slain that dragon already but like a two headed snake it rises again. The ball was dropped when we didn't listen to President Carter and followed up on his dream of energy independence. When the neo'CONs conned us out of the election in '80 they proceeded to dismantle all steps that had been taken toward that end too. yesterday I went to see my bro and getting to his sawmill business I have to pass an energy products manufacturing plant that was created using one of the incentives that Carter championed, remember the move the work to the people rather than move all the people to the work program, well that is where a total of 5 different plants that I can travel to within a few miles of here got their start. Cheap fossil fuels, greed and shortsightedness has us in a bind now like we've never experienced before. Jumping out of the energy mess pot and into the nuclear energy fire is not a smart move to be making right now. Give us Fusion and I'll be all for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-08 06:33 PM
Response to Original message
53. How far from his home should we build the cooling tower? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-12-08 01:49 AM
Response to Original message
62. Yes, and right the fuck now.
It's not perfect, but it's infinitely better than the current system and a million times more practical that the alternatives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-12-08 02:25 AM
Response to Original message
64. No. I live too close to one, & they haven't figured out what to do with the waste yet. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fla_Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-12-08 06:13 AM
Response to Original message
65. Yeah
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Truth2Tell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-12-08 04:27 PM
Response to Original message
72. Nay. Welcome to Chernobyl. Enjoy your stay.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 10:16 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC