Why are we as Americans not clamoring for the use of nuclear power as a means to fight "climate change."

 

When it comes down to it, no amount of geothermal, wind or solar power is going to be enough to replace the kind of power on a consistent basis that coal generate.

 

Looking at the situation there are numerous problems with the most popular "green" energy source at the moment. The talk of the day, of course, is wind power and wind turbines. Wind turbines are essentially eyesores that have potential consequences that really have not been talked about. Air and Wind currents affect weather patterns, bird migrations, seed pollinations and so on. People aren't discussing the potential effect that these massive turbines will have on the aforementioned items.

 

On top of that, wind turbines do not offer the kind of "on demand" control of power that other sources do. The peak hours of demand often do not coincide with the peak hours of power generation. You are probably thinking "Well what about batteries?" the problem you run into with batteries is that you need something that can be charged and discharged quickly without causing considerable damage to the battery. At this point in time said batteries do not exist and the attempt to use any other type would end up being prohibitively expensive.

 

Nuclear power does not have that problem. The United States has some of the largest deposits of Uranium in the world and we have the means to access it. Pebble bed reactors, which I have discussed ad nauseum, are safe, controllable and lead to far less and more manageable waste. They have no pressurized steam and if left unattended will go into a neutral state thus preventing meltdowns. Further safety to the passive system can be added in the form of the control rods that are common in most nuclear reactors today.

 

So I ask you, why are we not talking about Nuclear power as a viable option?

 

Are we still in the shadow of Chernobyl? If so then it is a shame.

Here's my chance to criticize you! :lol:

 

No, I agree with you. But despite discussing it ad nauseum, you still haven't answered my questions posed in October 2008:

Thanks a lot. One question (2-part), at the moment:

 

1) One concern about nuclear is that I have heard that there is waste products associated with it. Is there an (environmentally-sound) way to:

A) Assure that the waste can be disposed of (and not break down whatever container it is in?

B) These graphite pebbels are strong enough to not get "eroded" (or whatever the correct term would be) by these nuclear elements?

 

P.S. I am sure the above is riddled with multiple errors in terms of scientific terminology. Good luck getting through it, and feel free to correct and/or ridicule me.

 

Neither of the questions may have any relevance, but then you can take a shot at me.

Here's my chance to criticize you! :lol:

 

No, I agree with you. But despite discussing it ad nauseum, you still haven't answered my questions posed in October 2008:

 

 

Neither of the questions may have any relevance, but then you can take a shot at me.

 

 

I had forgotten ALL about those! Let me do some research on it now that the semester is over, and I will get back to you. :thumb:

I hate to use France as an example but France has a huge nuclear power program with maybe 25-30 reactors? I'm not sure on the numbers but several have ben built this decade with more coming and they have had no chernobyl issues.

FWIW, the reasons why nuclear are generally not discussed, IMO, is because the run-of-the-mill voter never supports anything that is somewhat different at all. I think the run-of-the-mil R thinks "forget the environment, more drilling solves everything!" and the run-of-the-mill D thinks "save the environment, all energy is bad!"

 

Personally, I'm a huge radical- if I were President, I'd probably abolish the IRS and the Federal Reserve! Supporting nuclear is like nothing for me! :lol:

FWIW, the reasons why nuclear are generally not discussed, IMO, is because the run-of-the-mill voter never supports anything that is somewhat different at all. I think the run-of-the-mil R thinks "forget the environment, more drilling solves everything!" and the run-of-the-mill D thinks "save the environment, all energy is bad!"

 

Personally, I'm a huge radical- if I were President, I'd probably abolish the IRS and the Federal Reserve! Supporting nuclear is like nothing for me! :lol:

 

I also think that most Americans think of Chernobyl and fear something like that would happen here.

 

For what it's worth anyone using an example of Soviet engineering as a model for potential disaster is reaching. Their safety standards were far FAR lower, their regulations were dramatically less and the people in charge of running the plants were not actually nuclear engineers.

I think part of the issue is that the common citizen understands so little about nuclear energy as it is. It's hard to endorse such a practice when most of us were raised to fear it.

I think part of the issue is that the common citizen understands so little about nuclear energy as it is. It's hard to endorse such a practice when most of us were raised to fear it.

 

:thumb: You nailed it. You only hear about the extremely small percentage of issues (3 Mile Island, Chernobyl), but never hear that there has never been a death in the US from a nuclear power plant incident and that France has no issues.

 

When you hear the term 'nuclear', the first thing many think of are bombs and destruction not efficient energy production.

 

Considering how much damage we are being told that coal fired plants are doing to the environment, there is far less nuclear waste and it can be contained in a smaller area instead of spreading out over the entire world and destroying the planet (as we are told is happening through 'global warming'). I just wish that our government officials on both sides would listen to the real experts on the matter and not fear mongerers (eg. Al Gore anyone).

 

There are alternatives, but those who manufacture power would LOVE nothing better than to provide cheaper and environmentally friendly power. They would LOVE to use wind, but in most states (like KY) it will not work. They would LOVE to use hydro, but in most places in the US (like KY) there isn't enough of it. They would love to use solar, but until the technology improves drastically, it won't generate enough. The places where wind would work the best is off the coasts and in the 'wind corridor' which runs from Texas to Canada. On the coasts, those folks don't want to look at the windturbines out on the water (but they want cheaper electricity), .. in other words 'not in my backyard'.

 

Most electric companies, cooperatives, municipal utilities and investor owned utilities alike are offering programs to encourage people to use LESS electricity. How many businesses are telling their customers 'We want you to use less of our product?' They understand that the need is growing faster than production and the next step will be even higher rates and rolling blackouts. If we don't see some changes, that is what is coming and sooner than we think.

I think part of the issue is that the common citizen understands so little about nuclear energy as it is. It's hard to endorse such a practice when most of us were raised to fear it.

 

Absolutely. FWIW, I hit in HUGE in my physical science and chemistry classes.

:thumb: You nailed it. You only hear about the extremely small percentage of issues (3 Mile Island, Chernobyl), but never hear that there has never been a death in the US from a nuclear power plant incident and that France has no issues.

 

When you hear the term 'nuclear', the first thing many think of are bombs and destruction not efficient energy production.

 

Considering how much damage we are being told that coal fired plants are doing to the environment, there is far less nuclear waste and it can be contained in a smaller area instead of spreading out over the entire world and destroying the planet (as we are told is happening through 'global warming'). I just wish that our government officials on both sides would listen to the real experts on the matter and not fear mongerers (eg. Al Gore anyone).

 

There are alternatives, but those who manufacture power would LOVE nothing better than to provide cheaper and environmentally friendly power. They would LOVE to use wind, but in most states (like KY) it will not work. They would LOVE to use hydro, but in most places in the US (like KY) there isn't enough of it. They would love to use solar, but until the technology improves drastically, it won't generate enough. The places where wind would work the best is off the coasts and in the 'wind corridor' which runs from Texas to Canada. On the coasts, those folks don't want to look at the windturbines out on the water (but they want cheaper electricity), .. in other words 'not in my backyard'.

 

Most electric companies, cooperatives, municipal utilities and investor owned utilities alike are offering programs to encourage people to use LESS electricity. How many businesses are telling their customers 'We want you to use less of our product?' They understand that the need is growing faster than production and the next step will be even higher rates and rolling blackouts. If we don't see some changes, that is what is coming and sooner than we think.

 

:thumb: Excellent analysis.

I believe there is a nuclear power plant in Madison ,In. that is just sitting there right now. What would a nuclear power plant do to the people that work in coal mines and the economy. The same people that whine about the economy whine about everything. I work in a coal powered power plant and everything is monitered under state and federal regulations. Once again your elected official is trying to show his power and rather than help the non-working man would put numerous people out of work.

I believe there is a nuclear power plant in Madison ,In. that is just sitting there right now. What would a nuclear power plant do to the people that work in coal mines and the economy. The same people that whine about the economy whine about everything. I work in a coal powered power plant and everything is monitered under state and federal regulations. Once again your elected official is trying to show his power and rather than help the non-working man would put numerous people out of work.

 

There is no nuclear plant in Madison, In. There are the remnants of 20% completed nuclear plant in Mt. Washington, IN, called Marble Hill. The plant was built in the late 70s, early 80s, but was never finished due to going WAY over budget for the whole project with only a portion completed. In addition, the concrete in the containment buildings wasn't poured correctly and would have been too weak to be of protection in an explosion. One of the employees exposed attempted coverups for the shoddy work. This is part of the nuclear science unit I teach to my Chemistry II students.

 

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

 

http://www.abandonedonline.net/index.php?catid=179

 

http://wikimapia.org/1361663/Marble-Hill-Nuclear-Power-Plant-Abandoned

This place went into service a couple of years before I moved to Kentucky. It's not terribly far from where I grew up.

 

Never gave it a second thought as to its safety.

 

 

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

I believe there is a nuclear power plant in Madison ,In. that is just sitting there right now. What would a nuclear power plant do to the people that work in coal mines and the economy. The same people that whine about the economy whine about everything. I work in a coal powered power plant and everything is monitered under state and federal regulations. Once again your elected official is trying to show his power and rather than help the non-working man would put numerous people out of work.

 

 

People would need to be employed in the mining of uranium, the processing of it and the manufacture of the parts needed to run the plants. You get the benefits across the board. Not even taking into account the manufacture of the pellets and so on. It would be a shift, more or less making the skills for coal processing and mining obsolete and restructuring to a more efficient and cleaner means of getting energy.

 

That said if we still wanted to use petroleum as the means of powering our vehicles we could start using coal in coal gassification plants that produce usable fuel for cars, fertilizer and excess carbon can be pumped into the ground to further enrich the earth.

 

Coal miners wouldn't necessarily be out of a job in that case.

Good points from everyone but I don't see the U.S. getting away from coal. If it ain't broke don't fix it.