Coal is here to stay! Love it or hate it, your choice!

 

Why all this resistance to a potential change in energy production? I assume you have a vested interest in coal?

 

I personally have no problem with coal, I am just wondering why people are talking about going to "cleaner" energy without seriously discussing nuclear power.

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.

 

I agree we need other sources or energy and to me, nuclear is a no-brainer. As for wind turbines being an eyesore, I have to disagree. I was driving on I-20 recently in the Sweetwater/Abilene, TX area. There are several wind farms with hundreds of tubines in this area. I always look at how graceful they are. The fans move so slowly, it is hard to imagine just how much work they are doing. They are sitting on useless land that is infested with rattlesnakes and much to rocky and hilly to ever serve any other purpose. They contribute greatly to the local economy, not just in jobs, but in tax revenue, as they greatly increase the valuation of this otherwise useless land. To me the wind turbines are no more of an eyesore than the skyscrapers and tall buildings that create the skyline of every city and town in America.

Nuclear is where we should be.

 

Wind energy is not even remotely realistic right now. There are no people where all the wind is. To get wind turbine-generated electricity to places where people are, you require high-power transmission lines with capacity above 270kV. There are almost no 270kV+ transmission lines, right now, anywhere in the middle of the country, where all the wind is. Estimates range from $3T to $10T in terms of the cost associated with constructing those lines.

 

It really is as simple as that.

 

Nuclear reactors can be constructed closer to existing transmission lines with capacity to convert electrical grid power. Reactors cost money too, but primarily in construction only, because using only one site, there is much less expensive red-tape in terms of zoning, right-of-way acquisition, environmental impact, etc.

 

Build the stupid reactors, its a no-brainer.

Nuclear is where we should be.

 

Wind energy is not even remotely realistic right now. There are no people where all the wind is. To get wind turbine-generated electricity to places where people are, you require high-power transmission lines with capacity above 270kV. There are almost no 270kV+ transmission lines, right now, anywhere in the middle of the country, where all the wind is. Estimates range from $3T to $10T in terms of the cost associated with constructing those lines.

 

It really is as simple as that.

 

Nuclear reactors can be constructed closer to existing transmission lines with capacity to convert electrical grid power. Reactors cost money too, but primarily in construction only, because using only one site, there is much less expensive red-tape in terms of zoning, right-of-way acquisition, environmental impact, etc.

 

Build the stupid reactors, its a no-brainer.

 

I am completely with you. :thumb:

What is the cost to build a nuclear power plant?

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.

 

 

A couple of answers to these questions:

 

Newer reactors can actually process waste from older reactors as fuel, further reducing the amount of active waste left over when done. Also recent experiments with fusion technology (although years off still) gives us the potential of using waste from reactors as fuel for a fusion reactor using laser excitation of the waste to produce the plasma necessary for fusion. Again it is years off, but if we went nuclear the impetus to do that would increase dramatically.

Nuclear power is not only the best option, it's the only viable option at this point, IMO.

 

Certainly there's risk, but isn't that true with most things.

 

US Supercarriers are powered by nuclear reactors. They can stay at sea for 25 years before refueling.

 

As noted, its safer today than in the past and it can provide the necessary energy. A meltdown is a huge disaster, but on the flipside, its a pretty clean source when all goes well.

Nuclear power is not only the best option, it's the only viable option at this point, IMO.

 

Certainly there's risk, but isn't that true with most things.

 

US Supercarriers are powered by nuclear reactors. They can stay at sea for 25 years before refueling.

 

As noted, its safer today than in the past and it can provide the necessary energy. A meltdown is a huge disaster, but on the flipside, its a pretty clean source when all goes well.

 

And some reactor types don't melt down.

Nuclear is where we should be.

 

Wind energy is not even remotely realistic right now. There are no people where all the wind is. To get wind turbine-generated electricity to places where people are, you require high-power transmission lines with capacity above 270kV. There are almost no 270kV+ transmission lines, right now, anywhere in the middle of the country, where all the wind is. Estimates range from $3T to $10T in terms of the cost associated with constructing those lines.

 

It really is as simple as that.

 

Nuclear reactors can be constructed closer to existing transmission lines with capacity to convert electrical grid power. Reactors cost money too, but primarily in construction only, because using only one site, there is much less expensive red-tape in terms of zoning, right-of-way acquisition, environmental impact, etc.

 

Build the stupid reactors, its a no-brainer.

 

Agree entirely. And if one will fit in my backyard, I'll sign the papers this afternoon.

Nuclear is where we should be.

 

Wind energy is not even remotely realistic right now. There are no people where all the wind is. To get wind turbine-generated electricity to places where people are, you require high-power transmission lines with capacity above 270kV. There are almost no 270kV+ transmission lines, right now, anywhere in the middle of the country, where all the wind is. Estimates range from $3T to $10T in terms of the cost associated with constructing those lines.

 

It really is as simple as that.

 

Nuclear reactors can be constructed closer to existing transmission lines with capacity to convert electrical grid power. Reactors cost money too, but primarily in construction only, because using only one site, there is much less expensive red-tape in terms of zoning, right-of-way acquisition, environmental impact, etc.

 

Build the stupid reactors, its a no-brainer.

 

Agree entirely. And if one will fit in my backyard, I'll sign the papers this afternoon.

 

 

I'll line up for that too!

I'm the same way as you. I'd be no more reluctant to have a nuke plant next to me than I would a coal burning plant. There are nuke plants that have worked very well for a long time in the States. I believe I was told that nukes have provided a significant percentage of electricity in South Carolina for quite some time. The problem with nuke construction is not the safety aspect: it's the construction costs and the cost and time involved in getting federal approval isn't it?

Id love to see more nucs built asap !!

IF the American people were truly educated on the difference nuclear power could create (and it all seems to be positive from what I have read and heard), the choice would be easy. But when is the last time you heard anyone in Washington really talking up nuclear power? The word 'nuclear' has a negative connotation to most Americans and since those in DC only believe we listen in soundbytes, .... they don't even like to utter the word 'nuclear' unless it is in regards to a foreign country using the technology for bombs.

 

Nuclear power would be: cheaper, more efficient, better for the environment, etc. But sadly, I don't see it happening.

 

Instead, our experts in Washington would rather tax coal fired generation plants to the point of bankruptcy as many of their customers would not be able to afford their bills with the Cap & Trade proposal that has been discussed. And do you know who will make the money from that system? Not the coal plants, or the coal miners, not to regular US citizens, ... but the government & the traders of the credits. The cost will passed on to all of us.

IF the American people were truly educated on the difference nuclear power could create (and it all seems to be positive from what I have read and heard), the choice would be easy. But when is the last time you heard anyone in Washington really talking up nuclear power? The word 'nuclear' has a negative connotation to most Americans and since those in DC only believe we listen in soundbytes, .... they don't even like to utter the word 'nuclear' unless it is in regards to a foreign country using the technology for bombs.

 

Nuclear power would be: cheaper, more efficient, better for the environment, etc. But sadly, I don't see it happening.

 

Instead, our experts in Washington would rather tax coal fired generation plants to the point of bankruptcy as many of their customers would not be able to afford their bills with the Cap & Trade proposal that has been discussed. And do you know who will make the money from that system? Not the coal plants, or the coal miners, not to regular US citizens, ... but the government & the traders of the credits. The cost will passed on to all of us.

 

To be fair, the lobbyists of the coal industry are every bit as culpable in this as the government. The coal industry has no desire to see a shift to nuclear energy.

To be fair, the lobbyists of the coal industry are every bit as culpable in this as the government. The coal industry has no desire to see a shift to nuclear energy.

 

This is a major reason why we are not further along with nuclear energy than we are. :thumb:

I completely agree that nuclear is the way to go and specifically fusion technology research and development. Fossil fuels will run out eventually, some predict our demand will outpace supply in 10-30 years. If nuclear (fission) energy was used to replace all fossil fuels at the current usage rate the existing uranium deposits would only last approximately 30-40 years. Nuclear fission technology using deuterium and/or lithium is estimated to last 3000 years minimum. I think wind, solar, and hydroelectric power are viable supplemental energy sources, but none provide a realistic alternative for transportation needs. Probably the most viable long term solution for transportation is hydrogen fuel cells with the hydrogen extracted using nuclear energy or hydroelectric energy. Obviously these technologies are only in development or theoretical design, but waiting until global energy use exceeds fossil fuel supplies is a receipt for global crisis the likes of which we have not seen.