The answer is that hydrogen power is essentially a type of battery sytem that we could use to power cars. Once you have the electricity, its mostly a matter tweaking the energy storage sytem. We're also rightly concerned about continuing to use coal due to its enviromental effects, and more natural gas burning plants have been built. We're starting to rely on imported natural gas to help meet our energy needs, and we only have so much natural gas in the first place within the US.
1. Nuclear power is very very clean compared to coal.
2. Nuclear power doesn't generate CO2
3. Nuclear power can be used to make hydrogen, which can be burned or oxidized in fuel cells. It's a storage medium for energy.
Nuclear waste is sitting out in the open in rotting barrels. Everybody likes a picnic but nobody wants to pay to clean up the park. People are pigs and pigs that sh!t poison that kills for millions of years need turning on a spit. Only a moron thinks that tomorrow people will be different than they are today. Nuclear waste, like toxic waste will be left to accumulate in the environment till all life on earth is threatened. Think for a moment about Chernobyl. Do we really want that here. The government will push nuclear because it won't fit on your roof and power your house without you having an electric bill. With nuclear power you get to pay and pay and pay, and for a thousand generations.
Where do you think this Uranium we use for Nuclear power comes from?
Your fear and loathing about Chernobyl is noted however the reactors are completely different.
Well, this is offtopic, but we should all be putting up solar panels on our roofs. I was looking into it for my parents' house. It would cost about $7-8k including installation of the new >25% efficient panels... but it would generate nearly 2/3 of the electricity they consume. It would pay for itself in under 6 years, according to my calculations.
The trouble is that these new panels are so popular (and there arent that many produced) that the waiting line for most of the new ones reaches way into 2008.
The trouble is that these new panels are so popular (and there arent that many produced) that the waiting line for most of the new ones reaches way into 2008.
Sounds like a great opportunity to make some money
I think solar panels on roofs should almost become a standard in the housing market for new homes or homes replacing the roof. Imagine the potential energy of millions of homes gathering the energy from the Sun?
Currently, a solar panel installation increases the value of the home >200% more than the cost of the installation.Originally posted by: Genx87
Sounds like a great opportunity to make some money
I think solar panels on roofs should almost become a standard in the housing market for new homes or homes replacing the roof. Imagine the potential energy of millions of homes gathering the energy from the Sun?
And yes, I agree, it should become the standard. Actually, I think people should be able to deduct the cost of the panels from their property taxes during the year they install them... let's say up to 50% of the property tax (limited to residential homes of course, not multi-unit buildings).
Zorba
Lifer
- Oct 22, 1999
- 15,253
- 10,841
- 136
Hmm, the peaking plant in Stillwater has three 2MW diesel generators, therefore oil is used to generate electricity. There are also oil fired powerplants around, although most are switching to natural gas.
Even if every power plant did just use coal, which they don't, you must look at the massive amount of oil used to mine and transport it.
Furthermore, even if no plants used oil products at all, a large percentage use natural gas, which is now being imported as well.
Do I think a safer design than Chernobyl can be had today? Yes I do. Do I think the cost benefit ratio between nuclear power and nuclear disaster are worth the risk? No.
As for where the uranium is today, that is a question you should be able to answer rather easily for yourself. This is really a non issue as you probably realize.
I find it interesting a product found in nature can scare you so much into believing it shouldnt be used for power consumption but the product down the road that spews tons upon tons of CO2 into the atmosphere is considered good enough.
Outside of Chernobyl and 3 mile island what other "major" disaster has happened from a nuclear power plant?
afaik the power plants being built now are very very safe and have mechanisms that will not allow another chernobyl to happen.
I think you have bought into the environutz propaganda hook, line, and sinker.
I think it pays off to educate yourself on the subject before making a judgement, what do you think? I bet you think fusion powerplants are dangerous too, since they are "hydrogen bombs in your backyard".
There was only one nuclear incident which took many lives, and one that was more like a scare. Chernobyl was the result of stupidity and shortsightedness, as well as lack of precautions. Unlike any of the modern reactors, the Chernobyl reactors were not housed in a concrete sarcophagus. Had they been, the damage, while larger than 3-mile island, would have been a far cry from what happened.
The new generation of fission plants is pretty much meltdown-proof, due to the synthetic thermoexpanding moderator.
Nuclear reprocessing would actually heavily reduce the amount of radioactive waste we have to deal with since we're effectively turning what would otherwise be waste we have to dispose of into fuel. By the way, on top of the other comments about Chernobyl, its worth noting that wildlife is actually thriving within the area in which humans have been evacuated from.
http://ranprieur.com/crash/naturechernobyl.html
The threat nuclear waste poses for wildlife in general is massively overrated.
By the way, even with effects of Chernobyl upon humans seem to be nowhere remotely near what people expected.
http://www.uic.com.au/nip22.htm
Basically other than 9 kids who died from thyroid cancer, the longterm effects upon everyone other than those directly involved with the accident has been extremely limited, most consisting of cases of thyroid cancer which are quite treatable is detected in a reasonably timely manner. Its also only a 30 kilometer area around the plant where the radiation levels remain particularly dangerous.
Nuclear power will never be a viable option until we know what to do with any and all waste products. Anything that builds a reservoir of material that remains highly toxic for millennia isn't practical in the long run. It's worse when it can go boom.
Fortunately modern reactor designs CAN'T go boom, at least in a way that spreads significant amounts of radioactive material outside of the plant itself. The realistic risks of placing a relatively small quantity of material into a well prepared storage area is not anywhere near as high as the consequences of continuing to belch fossil fuels products into the air on a constant basis.
Most liberals I know are for Nuclear power (including myself), it is the fringe extremists that don't want it.
I would have to work overtime to think of anything more irrlevant to say. Here.. I'll try.
I got a haircut, last week. :roll:
MOst of it has significantly cooled after about 50. The nuclear waste problem is completely managable. Recycle, let it cool, turn it glass and store it somewhere.
ROFLMAO Somebody needs to get this guy a science tutor to explain what renewable means, and where nuclear power comes from. There may be more potential reserves than in fossil fuels, but it sure as heck isn't renewable.
If nuclear power wasn't so heavily subsidized by the government, it would serve a very small market in that part of the US that doesn't have much wind or solar potential. If nuclear power is so "safe" then why does the government have to exempt power plants from liability for damages? They should end this exemption first before allowing any new plants to be built.
There are a number of large problems with nuclear power in the US. First of all, in most parts of the country it is more cost effective to build wind farms than nuclear power plants. Exceptions appear white on the following map of wind availability . Second, nuclear power plants have high maintenance costs. Radiation causes damage to the various components of the plumbing, so that ultimately you have to replace just about the whole thing every thirty years or so. This also has the potential to take a whole reactor offline for maintenance.
The other major problem with nuclear is the waste. Unfortunately, most pro-nuke websites generally avoid discussing the waste products of the different reactor types and potential fuel cycles, so it is difficult to obtain complete objective information on the topic. As far as I can tell, the CANDU style reactors from canada would be able to take our nuclear "waste" and burn it as fuel, with no transuranic waste products. All radioactive waste from this process should have short half-lives, less than a hundred years. If this is accurate, then it would make sense to build these types of reactors as a means of disposing of the waste from the many other reactors we have, as well as the plutonium from disarmed warheads.
To make more nuclear power plants that use a fuel cycle which results in the production of long half-life transuranic radioactive waste is purely shortsighted folly. That said, the production of reactors which do not generate long-term waste is probably economical in the wind-poor states of Alabama, Louisiana, and Georgia. Therefore, what are the pros and cons of the different styles of reactors they might build there, and the nuclear fuel cycles they could use?
The reality is that even with those maintenance costs and the initial costs of operation, nuclear power is at least comperable to wind per kilowatt in many locations, and cheaper than solar is. The big issue is that there are only so many suitable locations for wind and solar power given how much space they take up, read my early post on this subject for the details, and this is a huge problem if you rely on wind or solar too heavily. If you rely on wind and solar as your primary power sources, there are also huge energy storage costs to protect against situations where its cloudy or there is no wind. Its also true there are plenty of potential maintenance related costs for wind.
Wind and solar power make sense for suplimentary power sources, but nuclear is what's available right now as a replacement for fossil fuels.
What, you think in 2000 years we won't know how to deal with nuclear waste?
In 2000 years we'll be traveling between stars and laughing at the idea that anyone would be concerned about how to deal with nuclear waste.
Hell, we'll probably be laughing at that idea in a couple hundred years.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 14K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter