| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Menino80
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Location: Hodor?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 2:10 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
The problem in the US is political. Everyone understands that the fuel rods are dangerous, but a location for storage cannot be agreed upon. Underground in the Nevada desert is a popular option, except to Nevadans, of course.
And why does the US have this political problem, whereas Germany and China do not? Re-read the OP. There's really something awry with the way Americans approach political discussion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MacLean
Joined: 14 Feb 2011
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tsunami's aside, nuclear energy is still one of the most cost effective and environmentally-friendly sources of energy we have. Some leftist types aren't happy unless their protesting something.
Nuclear energy is fine. The country with the highest dependency on it is France. In the hands of Soviet Russia or North KOrea there's grounds for worry. In Canada's hands, or those of Western Europe, not so much. Far better than coal or petroleum. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| How many more centuries is it until it's safe to live near Chernobyl? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| How many more centuries is it until it's safe to live near Chernobyl? |
People live there now, and no noticeable increase in their risk of cancer has been found. I'm not sure about birth defects, though; have any of these people gotten pregnant since they moved back in? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unposter
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There are plenty of better ways to produce electricity than nuclear power. Wind and Solar jump to mind.
I personally hope that what is happening in Japan is a big wake up call to the dangers of nuclear power plants. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| How many more centuries is it until it's safe to live near Chernobyl? |
People live there now, and no noticeable increase in their risk of cancer has been found. I'm not sure about birth defects, though; have any of these people gotten pregnant since they moved back in? |
Only a few hundred people, mostly old, live in the Zone of Alienation (30 km). I suppose it could just be irrational fear that keeps out the tens of thousands who used to live there. It's probably just superstition that makes doctors and dentists leave the room and bring in lower paid lab assistants who wear lead aprons to give x-rays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MacLean
Joined: 14 Feb 2011
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nuclear meltdowns are not pleasant things. But they happen so extremely rarely that they are not a major concern. If run properly, with safeguards, they are an extremely efficient and environmentally sensitive source of energy. Using the Soviet's reactors (and safety culture) as an example doesn't say very much. How many meltdowns have we had in Australia, Germany or the UK. Zero! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unposter
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
When it comes to nuclear energy, it is not a question of whether or not there will be a meltdown, it is merely a question of when.
No one expected an earthquake the magnituted that happened in Japan but it happened.
The risks are so great with nuclear energy, you always have to expect (and be prepared for) the unexpected. And, that is quite expensive!
Again, when there are so many good, alternative energy sources such as wind, water and sun...why play with nuclear? It doesn't make any sense to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Unposter wrote: |
| There are plenty of better ways to produce electricity than nuclear power. Wind and Solar jump to mind. |
I know five years is a long time when it comes to technology, but it was about that long ago when I last researched wind and solar energy and found that both were still energy inefficient. The energy involved in gathering the raw materials for the turbines and panels, processing those raw materials, cobbling them together, shipping the finished product, setting it up, and, the real kicker, maintaining it was more than they could produce. Has this changed?
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| It's probably just superstition that makes doctors and dentists leave the room and bring in lower paid lab assistants who wear lead aprons to give x-rays. |
Maybe the same superstition that makes them send in the assistants to clean my teeth? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unposter
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 7:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Geldegoat,
I haven't heard such things but I would be curious where you got that information. I am more than willing to listen (or read).
I have read similar things about nuclear energy. Building a nuclear power plant is extremely expensive and of course maintaining it is too. And, if there is a serious problem, you are talking hundreds of millions of dollars to billions of dollars in clean up. It cost 384 million dollars to clean up after problems at Crystal Rivers, Florida in 1996, for example. The estimate expenses at Chernobyl were well over a billion.
Anyway, some of these economic issues are not so simple. What are you going to count as an expense? Are you going to count all the expenses that go into a meltdown if that were to happen? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 7:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Ya-ta Boy wrote:
It's probably just superstition that makes doctors and dentists leave the room and bring in lower paid lab assistants who wear lead aprons to give x-rays.
Maybe the same superstition that makes them send in the assistants to clean my teeth? |
Ummm...are you saying that radioactivity is safe and...I don't know, should be added to all Baskin Robbins 31 flavors to enhance the pizzazz of ice cream? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sector7G
Joined: 24 May 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 9:38 am Post subject: Re: Fringe Loony Green Industry Hyping Nuclear Power Fear |
|
|
| Menino80 wrote: |
The airlines are a bunch of extremist environmentalist wackos. |
Just curious, Menino80. What is your criteria for labeling someone as fringe, loony, extremist, or wacko? By that I mean is there anyone with an opposing view on this issue that you would characterize as a "concerned citizen"?
| Menino80 wrote: |
What we need is less regulation of the nuclear energy industry to create a market-based price mechanism to determine who does and does not get radiation-based cancers.
Bootstraps, cream rises to the top, a rising tide lifts all boats, regulation leads to cancer. |
Right, we saw what happened with deregulation and how lack of oversight worked with the financial institutions. Only the worse financial crises since the Great Depression. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Menino80
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Location: Hodor?
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 11:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Tongue was in cheek, I was mocking those who tried to frame the Fukushima situation as Statist hype from thieving redistributive socialists (still in cheek).
The airlines are one of the most price-responsive industries around. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OneWayTraffic
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Unposter wrote: |
There are plenty of better ways to produce electricity than nuclear power. Wind and Solar jump to mind.
I personally hope that what is happening in Japan is a big wake up call to the dangers of nuclear power plants. |
Define "better."
A large nuke plant can put out 4 Gigawatts of power. This is available 24/7 with capacity factors of 90% or more(Capacity factor is the fraction of actual output to potential output.)
To produce the same amount of power with 20% efficient solar cells (roughly the most cost effective option with current technology) in a place with moderate amounts of sunlight (250 Watts per meter averaged over a whole year) would require 80 million square meters of land. That's an area of land 9 kilometers to a side, that can't be used for anything else. The peak output of this array would be roughly 20 Gigawatts, which at a current installed price ballpark of $5 a watt would cost 100 Billion dollars. This array would generate power mostly at midday, rather than when it's needed. So energy storage options would be required, greatly increasing the cost.
Wind suffers from the same Capacity and scaling factors. A lot of turbines (at 1-2 MW each) are needed to replace a 4GW power station, and then one needs to consider that the wind is unpredictable and 30% capacity factors are quite common.
So no I don't think we'll ever see solar and wind replace nuclear or coal for baseload generation. The energy sources themselves mitigate against large scale deployment. To make it work, we need solar panels in space, wind turbines in the jetstream or a way to store energy cheaply and efficiently. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
