Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,286
- 19,284
- 146
Originally posted by: dug777
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: MS Dawn
Time to warm up!
:music:
One day in a nuclear age
They may understand our rage
They build machines that they can't control
And bury the waste in a great big hole
Power was to become cheap and clean
Grimy faces were never seen
But deadly for twelve thousand years is carbon fourteen
:music:
Meanwhile, tens of thousands each year die from fossil fuel power plant emissions. Millions over time. How many have died from nuclear waste in the US?
Whoops!
Rejecting nuclear power is not only the irrational choice, it's the deadly choice.
That's a little dramatic and 'FUD speading' of you Amused
You know as well as anyone else here are plenty of alternatives that are far cleaner than coal (in fact, everything is cleaner than coal, with the possible exception of nuclear), there are even plenty of ways to make coal 'clean' (scrubbing and geo-sequestration), without going nuclear.
You don't believe in global warming, in fact you're utterly adamant man has had no role in it, so LNG is an extremely clean and viable option if you don't mind the CO2 emissions (and you don't, you;ve made that clear in the past)
Screw global warming. Fossil fuel power plant emissions are killing people everyday.
Show me a PRACTICAL alternative to coal and oil fired plants that exists today other than nuclear.
You cannot. If one existed companies would jump on it like crazy.
No drama. No FUD. Simple fact. Fossil fuel power plant emssions kill tens of thousands in the US EACH YEAR. That's millions over time. How many have died from nuclear waste?
eits
Lifer
when i was a kid, i asked my mom the same thing... she's a senior project manager for three nuclear power plants and works for the nuclear regulatory commission.
basically, it's ignorance. people are afraid of what they don't understand and they automatically think that nuclear power plants are harmful to the environment. the only thing that's harmful to the environment is nuclear waste, but not the kind that comes from nuclear power plants... that's all controlled to the tee. nuclear waste dumping mainly comes from people who dump old x-ray machines, medical supplies, etc.
no nuclear power plant disposes any waste in the open environment... waste from nuclear power plants, from what i understood from my mom when i was younger, is encapsulated in tiny glass-like balls that would take thousands of tons of pressure to break and they transport it to a big mountain (yucca mountain) where they dispose of it way deep inside where there'd never be a chance of contaminating anything or affecting any human for an extremely long, long time.
the whole "not in my backyard" crap was what screwed everyone over, i think.
basically, it's ignorance. people are afraid of what they don't understand and they automatically think that nuclear power plants are harmful to the environment. the only thing that's harmful to the environment is nuclear waste, but not the kind that comes from nuclear power plants... that's all controlled to the tee. nuclear waste dumping mainly comes from people who dump old x-ray machines, medical supplies, etc.
no nuclear power plant disposes any waste in the open environment... waste from nuclear power plants, from what i understood from my mom when i was younger, is encapsulated in tiny glass-like balls that would take thousands of tons of pressure to break and they transport it to a big mountain (yucca mountain) where they dispose of it way deep inside where there'd never be a chance of contaminating anything or affecting any human for an extremely long, long time.
the whole "not in my backyard" crap was what screwed everyone over, i think.
dug777
Lifer
- Oct 13, 2004
- 24,778
- 4
- 0
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: dug777
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: MS Dawn
Time to warm up!
:music:
One day in a nuclear age
They may understand our rage
They build machines that they can't control
And bury the waste in a great big hole
Power was to become cheap and clean
Grimy faces were never seen
But deadly for twelve thousand years is carbon fourteen
:music:
Meanwhile, tens of thousands each year die from fossil fuel power plant emissions. Millions over time. How many have died from nuclear waste in the US?
Whoops!
Rejecting nuclear power is not only the irrational choice, it's the deadly choice.
That's a little dramatic and 'FUD speading' of you Amused
You know as well as anyone else here are plenty of alternatives that are far cleaner than coal (in fact, everything is cleaner than coal, with the possible exception of nuclear
You don't believe in global warming, in fact you're utterly adamant man has had no role in it, so LNG is an extremely clean and viable option if you don't mind the CO2 emissions (and you don't, you;ve made that clear in the past)
Screw global warming. Fossil fuel power plant emissions are killing people everyday.
Show me a PRACTICAL alternative to coal and oil fired plants that exists today other than nuclear.
You cannot. If one existed companies would jump on it like crazy.
No drama. No FUD. Simple fact. Fossil fuel power plant emssions kill tens of thousands in the US EACH YEAR. That's millions over time. How many have died from nuclear waste?
Well, for starters LNG is an extremely viable option here, it's very clean burning, extremely high calorific value, and you can pipe it as far as you like. I understand it's used relatively extensively in the US too, the price hikes of LNG were a significant factor in the California energy crisis..
preslove
Lifer
- Sep 10, 2003
- 16,754
- 64
- 91
The one problem I see with Nuclear energy isn't U.S. use, but third world countries adopting it in the decades to come. If they reprocess their waste they can easily make nuclear weapons. We may have to expand weapons inspections to counter proliferation issues.
As for the U.S. I'm for nuclear energy and am somewhat of an environmentalist.
As for the U.S. I'm for nuclear energy and am somewhat of an environmentalist.
Natural gas is still a fossil fuel, so it doesnt produce particulates, and has less NOx and SOx, but you still get large amounts of CO2 which is bad for global warming. Also, the fact that natural gas costs 20 times as much per BTU as uranium makes it a pretty foolish alternative. Even when you consider lifetime costs where you add in the high price of nuclear plants natural gas is still several times more expensive than nuclear.
Natural gas and nuclear plants do NOT fill the same niche, nuclear plants are base load plants which produce pwoer 24/7 very cheaply, but they have to run at high capacity factors 90+% to acheive maximum profitability. Natural gas plants on the other hand are peaking plants and produce power only when it is in very high demand. Where I worked this summer at TVA the combined cycle natural gas plants were getting 8-10% capacity factors, and the combustion turbines were less than 1%. That measn that a 1000MWe combustion turbine only averages 10MW, whereas a 1000MWe nuclear plant would average 900MW. However, you need both types of plants for the grid to function correctly. Also, for the last 15 years natural gas plants are all anyone has been building, so there are currently way to many of them. Building more nuclear plants allows companies to create a diversified production shceme which is better suited to the demand curve than it currently is in many areas where natural gas plants are used as base load plants because they face less opposition than coal or nuclear plants during construction.
No single source can produce all our power needs, wind gets pretty iffy if its over 10% of capacity, base load nuclear and coal probably should be around 50-60% combined, and hydro and natural gas can be used as peaking units along with older less efficient coal units.
Natural gas and nuclear plants do NOT fill the same niche, nuclear plants are base load plants which produce pwoer 24/7 very cheaply, but they have to run at high capacity factors 90+% to acheive maximum profitability. Natural gas plants on the other hand are peaking plants and produce power only when it is in very high demand. Where I worked this summer at TVA the combined cycle natural gas plants were getting 8-10% capacity factors, and the combustion turbines were less than 1%. That measn that a 1000MWe combustion turbine only averages 10MW, whereas a 1000MWe nuclear plant would average 900MW. However, you need both types of plants for the grid to function correctly. Also, for the last 15 years natural gas plants are all anyone has been building, so there are currently way to many of them. Building more nuclear plants allows companies to create a diversified production shceme which is better suited to the demand curve than it currently is in many areas where natural gas plants are used as base load plants because they face less opposition than coal or nuclear plants during construction.
No single source can produce all our power needs, wind gets pretty iffy if its over 10% of capacity, base load nuclear and coal probably should be around 50-60% combined, and hydro and natural gas can be used as peaking units along with older less efficient coal units.
dug777
Lifer
- Oct 13, 2004
- 24,778
- 4
- 0
Nice to hear from someone who knows what they're talking about regarding energy generation. I'm starting work at the WA Office of Energy next year, so i'm quite interested in all that atm.
Regarding intermittent generation, the latest report they did suggests you can easily get over 10% with it:
Our investigations have shown that in energy markets around the world, frequency instability due to intermittent generation output swings are managed.
This is primarily achieved the use of Frequency Control Ancillary Service (FCAS).
International case studies suggest that for penetration levels of 10 per cent or lower, the impact of intermittent generation on FCAS requirements, when properly quantified, is not significant once the existing requirements for conventional generators and demand are taken into account and costreflective charging is used.
When intermittent energy penetration approaches levels of 20 per cent or more then additional FCAS requirements become necessary and start to impact market participants. However, several studies in jurisdictions where intermittent generation has reached 30 per cent penetration show that total cost upon market participants is around 2 per cent of the retail price of electricity.
When relatively high level of penetrations of intermittent generation have been reached, the use of forecasting techniques and provision of a certain degree of FCAS from intermittent generators provide substantial benefits in maintaining electricity market accuracy, improving system security and minimising the requirement for, and cost of, ancillary services. It is also noted that research is under way to assess the potential method by which an electronic grid interface, provided by certain types of intermittent generators, can be controlled to create the effect of inertia when subjected to system disturbances.
sdifox
No Lifer
- Sep 30, 2005
- 99,836
- 17,762
- 126
A little checking will tell you the USofA considers Canadian Lumber industry is dumping its goods at below cost, thus there is a huge tariff tagged on it. The current Conservative sellouts in Canada are trying to push through a deal that compromises the Canadian position (backed up by both NAFTA and WTO). Harper is going to let US get off easy. That has me hopping mad. In essence, USofA is trying to protect local producers by slapping a 18% tariff on Canadian softwood lumber. Start with the US Government when you want to complain about lumber price.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/softwood_lumber/
2nd, US producers don't want to cut the stuff they should be cutting (the planted stuff) because it costs them more.
sdifox
No Lifer
- Sep 30, 2005
- 99,836
- 17,762
- 126
Originally posted by: K1052
Seeing as how the terrorists would have to get through the guards with automatic weapons on the perimiter and interior of the facility, most of the plant, and a rather solid containment structure made of lots of steel and concrete I'd say they would have a fairly tough time.
The storage issue is being addressed. Reprocess what we can and store the remainder for far less time than required for unreprocessed fuel, thus decreasing the chances that the geologic storage we select will become compromised and release radioactive materials to the environment.
Or we could just ship it all to Australia as some have suggested.....
Nuclear plants are not that hard to penetrate. Or are you pretending it is hard to get weapon and explosives in the states? Setting off a nuclear blast however, is a lot harder.
On the reprocessing part, I think it is high time the states started doing that. Oh where is that pebble bed reactor when you need it ?
"Why are the environmentalists against nuclear energy?"
Where do you get this crap? Some environmentalists are for it while others are against it- kind of like the rest of the population in the USA and the world.
Where do you get this crap? Some environmentalists are for it while others are against it- kind of like the rest of the population in the USA and the world.
K1052
Elite Member
- Aug 21, 2003
- 52,340
- 45,755
- 136
Originally posted by: sdifox
Originally posted by: K1052
Seeing as how the terrorists would have to get through the guards with automatic weapons on the perimiter and interior of the facility, most of the plant, and a rather solid containment structure made of lots of steel and concrete I'd say they would have a fairly tough time.
The storage issue is being addressed. Reprocess what we can and store the remainder for far less time than required for unreprocessed fuel, thus decreasing the chances that the geologic storage we select will become compromised and release radioactive materials to the environment.
Or we could just ship it all to Australia as some have suggested.....
Nuclear plants are not that hard to penetrate. Or are you pretending it is hard to get weapon and explosives in the states? Setting off a nuclear blast however, is a lot harder.
On the reprocessing part, I think it is high time the states started doing that. Oh where is that pebble bed reactor when you need it ?
Building a bomb that can penetrate the containment and do enough damage to the reactor iteslf would be a pretty tough job, especially given that any attempt would be made at ground level (where the concrete and steel are thickest) and that curve of the structure would deflect a lot of the energy. That is even assuming they could reach the containment building in the first place.
JohnCU
Banned
- Dec 9, 2000
- 16,528
- 4
- 0
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: sdifox
Originally posted by: K1052
Seeing as how the terrorists would have to get through the guards with automatic weapons on the perimiter and interior of the facility, most of the plant, and a rather solid containment structure made of lots of steel and concrete I'd say they would have a fairly tough time.
The storage issue is being addressed. Reprocess what we can and store the remainder for far less time than required for unreprocessed fuel, thus decreasing the chances that the geologic storage we select will become compromised and release radioactive materials to the environment.
Or we could just ship it all to Australia as some have suggested.....
Nuclear plants are not that hard to penetrate. Or are you pretending it is hard to get weapon and explosives in the states? Setting off a nuclear blast however, is a lot harder.
On the reprocessing part, I think it is high time the states started doing that. Oh where is that pebble bed reactor when you need it ?
Building a bomb that can penetrate the containment and do enough damage to the reactor iteslf would be a pretty tough job, especially given that any attempt would be made at ground level (where the concrete and steel are thickest) and that curve of the structure would deflect a lot of the energy. That is even assuming they could reach the containment building in the first place.
uhhh nuke plants are extremely hard to penetrate. the one i work at can withstand a hit from a 747. and if you think anyone can sneak in, think again. i can't disclose security details but needless to say it'd be impossible.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,398
- 8,567
- 126
as i posted in one of these threads, cancer rates in matagorda county have apparently skyrocketed from well below texas state averages prior to the opening of the south texas project, to well above texas state averages. so have underweight births. however, apparently the demographics haven't changed vis-a-vis the state as a whole.
anyway, unfortunately externalities do exist, and until we find a good way to incorporate them (i'd say tax but you'd trout me), there won't be a practical alternative to coal.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,398
- 8,567
- 126
NG turbines are the market clearing plant, and so will set the price regardless of how many of them there are. no company in its right mind would clear the market with a coal or a nuclear base load plant. of course, using less NG plants as base plants would lessen demand for NG as a whole, dropping the price of electricity.
eits
Lifer
Originally posted by: sdifox
Originally posted by: K1052
Seeing as how the terrorists would have to get through the guards with automatic weapons on the perimiter and interior of the facility, most of the plant, and a rather solid containment structure made of lots of steel and concrete I'd say they would have a fairly tough time.
The storage issue is being addressed. Reprocess what we can and store the remainder for far less time than required for unreprocessed fuel, thus decreasing the chances that the geologic storage we select will become compromised and release radioactive materials to the environment.
Or we could just ship it all to Australia as some have suggested.....
Nuclear plants are not that hard to penetrate. Or are you pretending it is hard to get weapon and explosives in the states? Setting off a nuclear blast however, is a lot harder.
On the reprocessing part, I think it is high time the states started doing that. Oh where is that pebble bed reactor when you need it ?
actually, since 9/11, it's almost impossible to gain access into a nuclear power plant.
also, all this worry about flying a plane into a reactor is nonsense. the walls are made of concrete that are like 10 feet thick.
also, what you need to understand is that nobody would want to hit a nuke plant with a plane since it would likely do nothing but shut down the plant and kill some people on site. slammign a plane into a drowded sports stadium or high rise building could easily kill tens of thousands. NOTHING is completely secure, but nuclear plants are alot more secure even than equally dangerous locations.
TRENDING THREADS
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 232
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter