"Zoot Katz" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
<buck>
> >> >I think that if we can get beyond the over-regulation of the nuclear
> >power
> >> >industry, then we might be able to make the move to more electric
powered
> >> >vehicles.
> >>
<zk>
> >> I was expecting that from you. You keep pushing this **** without
having
> >> yet figured out how to dispose of its byproduct which is the deadliest **** found on this
> >> planet.
<buck>
> >Touch a nerve, did I? I like how I have become personally responsible for the presence of all
> >nuclear plants on the planet.
>
> Not at all. But you're the one who ALWAYS brings up nuclear power as the answer for our energy
> needs. I feel you've a vested interest in it. Remove the subsidies given to the nuclear plants
> and then compare the cost. Wind, solar, and nuclear power received approximately $150 billion
> in cumulative Federal subsidies over roughly 50 years. Of that, roughly 95 percent went to
> nuclear power.
OK, let's put a big WHOA!! on that one. A quick Google search brings up 7 hits with me as author and
"nuclear power" as the phrase of interest. Of those, there are only three unique threads discussing
power, and this is one. The same phrase search without an author picks up 110 hits. I'm hardly the
one that "ALWAYS" brings it up.
I have no vested interest in nuclear power other than as a consumer. As for your subsidy question,
let's standardize those numbers by gigawatt-hours of electricty produced. Since you didn't provide a
link to your source, I have to believe they are suspect. Please note that I try hard to provide
references to any numbers I produce. I guess it's the scientist in me - never quote a statistic
without a citation.
> Nuclear waste is deadly and will remain so for hundreds of thousands of years. There is no
> permanent nor safe way to contain it. Mining, uranium enrichment and transportation all require
> the use of fossil fuels so saying there is no CO2 produced by nuclear power is, well. . . a lie.
Please don't infer that I said anything about nuclear power not directly or indirectly producing
CO2. I have said nothing of the sort. But since you bring it up....
Every technology has an investment cost. Those that proclaim that the electric car is the answer to
our problems (or Segways, for that matter) are deluding themselves. There are investments in
materials, manufacturing, and generating electricity - all which exact an environmental cost.
As for taking care of nuclear wastes, you obviously didn't read the material I linked to. They are
coming up with ways to detoxify and minimize the amounts of radioactive waste. As research and
technology advances, we will find better ways of getting rid of it. Considering the amounts of
energy (and environmental degradation) that go into providing fuel for other types of electrical
generation, I think nuclear is the better way to go.
> > But it is no worse than any of the alternatives. Hydro-electric is damaging to ecosystems.
>
> No more than uranium and coal mining. A reactor leak or an oil spill has a global impact.
An oil spill has a global impact? A reactor leak does too? Sheesh, show me some evidence for those
claims. The amount of waste from uranium and coal mining are certainly higher than other forms of
electrical generation, but uranium is the lesser of the two evils. "A 1000 MWe light water reactor
uses about 25 tonnes of enriched uranium a year, requiring the mining of some 50,000 tonnes of
uranium ore. By comparison, a 1000 MWe coal-fired power station requires the mining, transportation,
storage and burning of about
3.2 million tonnes of black coal per year." (
http://www.uic.com.au/wast.htm)
> >Wind is impractical and kills birds.
>
> ********, plain and simple! You've been sucked in or you're being deliberately disingenuous. A 2
> year study of 7000 turbines resulted in 182 dead birds. Cars or cats alone kill more birds in a
> day. That the smoke stack huggers and nuke mutants have hit on this is the surest sign that the
> technology works! Wind farms can be built and brought online within 6 months of approval. All the
> parts can be mass produced providing an economy of scale you'll never see with coal, gas or nuke
> plants. Add the fact that they're more readily acceptable to consumers than any nuclear plant and
> you'll see why it's the fastest growing segment of the energy industry.
I stand by my assertion that wind generation is impractical. Maybe it doesn't kill as many birds as
some suggest (I was taking my information from the site I quoted), but it does have an environmental
impact. It is also an unsteady source of energy. It could be stabilized by adding batteries into the
mix, but those exact an environmental cost as well.
The only difference between the acceptability of the different technologies is the amount of
experience people have with them. This is all about perceived, actual, and relative risk. Many
people perceive cycling as a particularly risky activity but the actual risk is really low,
especially when compared to other activities. The perception of risk changes with exposure. That's
why people who drive cars think of it as a relatively riskless activity, but in fact it is much
riskier than cycling. Acceptability to consumers is a function of education, and the
environmentalists have been crying wolf about the risks of nuclear facilities, playing on the fears
of the populace.
You still haven't addressed the issue of the amount of turbines required to generate enough
electricity to make them work for the majority of the world.
> > Solar requires greater energy input to create the cells than they can
generate over their
> >lifetime.
>
> Photovoltaic arrays easily pay for themselves over their service life and there are new
> technologies being developed which bring down the cost per kilowatt. The cladding materials
> typically used on skyscrapers are more expensive than PV panels. The oldest PV systems have been
> producing electricity everyday for over 50 years and are still working.
Here's a quote from a study which compares the relative lifetime impact of different technologies
for generating electricity: "Comparing all the life cycles across impact categories (Figure 2-3-10)
shows that in these four categories the PWR (pressurized water reactor - nuclear powered)
electricity cycle has the lowest impact. The fossil fuel-derived electricity contributes most to the
greenhouse effect, while oil and coal have the largest impact on acidification. Of the fossil fuels,
natural gas-fired power stations (not CCGT) have the lowest impacts in all categories except for
resource depletion where the larger coal reserves relative to oil and gas reserves mean that
coal-fired electricity has the lowest impact in this category. The not-insignificant impact of
photovoltaics is also demonstrated, although these result to a large extent from the impacts of
current methods of electricity production and (except for acidification) are much lower than fossil
fuel-fired electricity generation" (
http://www.rcep.org.uk/studies/energy/98-6067/michaelis.html)
>
> >Geothermal is only available in areas that are geologically unstable.
>
> Bad places to put nuclear plants too, though it's been done. But so what, we just move the power
> to the grid like any other facility.
Hehe, poor planning is alive and well in all realms.
> > >Wave generators distrupt the near-shore environment. Fossil fuels
> >generate more pollution.
> >
> >Should we all just give it up, move to a more tropical environment and
give
> >up technology?
> >
> Crash a jetliner into a reactor dome and another into a windmill. Now go pick up the pieces. You
> have to be insane to believe nuclear power is a sound investment.
And what are the real risks of this happening? According to the NRC, these are located well outside
of major population centers, even outside of small population centers. The risk to human life is
small. Let's also not forget that these things are designed to contain an out-of-control reaction.
Sure, some terrorist could ruin our day, but the risks of that really happening are really small. I
guess I must be insane. I support a technology that produces little waste, produces lots of energy
consistently, can do it in a relatively small space and with little risk at a low cost.
> >> You must be happy the Shrubby-dub signed a bill permitting all those
old
> >> plants, you know - the ones scheduled to shut-down as they reach the
end
> >> of their service lives because they're starting to crack, to stay online. WOOHOO! Aren't we
> >> lucky!
> >
> >If they don't stay online, then where are we going to get our energy
from?
>
> If they were all removed from service today it would hardly be noticed. Efficient appliances
> can save four to five times more energy than all the nuclear plants produce and at a fraction
> of the cost.
Now who is full of BS? The U.S. Department of Energy indicates that nuclear power generates 20% of
our electricity. If we could get EVERYONE to replace their appliances at the same time with
affordable energy-efficient appliances, we MIGHT be able to equal the generating capacity of the
nuclear facilities. But four to five times? HAH! At a fraction of the cost? Nuclear is the cheapest
method for generating electricity according to the article I cited earlier.
> >We need new plants using new technologies which have proven to be safer
and
> >less wasteful in other countries.
> >
> >> The sun is as close as anybody should live to a nuclear reactor.
> >
> >According to the latest geological theory, we might be living on top of
one
> >giant reactor. The center of the earth may not be the big ball of nickel like we were taught in
> >middle school.
> >
> >Even more interesting - some of the latest technologies are very
effective
> >at reducing waste toxicity and volume. Go check it out for yourself:
http://www.cmt.anl.gov/
> >
> It's all R&D now. Just pie in the sky and plain old guessing. Who has 500,000 years to see if it
> really does work?
Nope. Some of it is in use. I'll use your typical tactic and just say it is true without providing
any evidence. Alright, I'll step back and say that there is/was a processing plant in Massachusetts
at which one of my relatives worked until he decided that Texas life was better and moved back home.
There are advantages and disadvantages to all technologies for energy generation. Some exact a
smaller toll on our world, but are less reliable and take up more space (which is, in and of itself,
an undesirable thing). Some have greater risks, but the risk is insignificantly small compared to
the payback.
I liken this to the choice between steel, aluminum and titanium bikes. There are different reasons
for choosing each and none are the perfect material for all riders.
-Buck
