Re: Nuclear power

Page 1 of 2  
Do anybody believe the US could produce the electricity we need from renewable sources? Nuclear plants produce electrically at the lowest cost per kilowatt hour. The rest of the word in years ahead of the US in nuclear
power.
mike hunt
wrote in message

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
At best we would be lucky if bio-energy, solar energy, wind energy and other renewable sources of electricity could supply 15% of the power needs of the US. We have one choices if we want to replace just the 50% of our electricity that is currently produced with coal and that is nuclear power. Countries like France and Japan produce much mope of their electricity with nuclear power today. But you are correct nuclear power is a political problem to be over come if we are to even catch up with the rest of the world.
mike hunt

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jeff wrote:

(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fuel_shares_world_electricity_generation.png )
Jeff, I believe that Mike is correct on this issue. Rather than rely on a graph report from an internet encyclopedia, I went straight to a report from "Energy Information Administration (EIA) Official Energy Statistics From the U.S. Government", entitled "Net Generation by Energy Source by Type of Producer" and found that in 2004, coal generated electricity accounted for 1,978,620 (Thousand Megawatthours)of a total 3,970,555 (Thousand Megawatthours) of electricity. That shakes out to 49.8% in my mathbook. That's a lot closer to Mike's 50% figure than your (and Wikipedia's) 40%. So swallow your pride and concede that Mike is right on this issue.
Here's the link, see for yourself:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat1p1.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

Thanks for pointing out that I was wrong and providing a good source.
But, I don't see why I would have to swallow my pride when I admit that I was wrong. The only way I will never be wrong is if I don't ever say or type anything.
Jeff

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jeff wrote:

Jeff, I mistook you for one of a number of newsgroup members who find it necessary to disagree with Mike or Mike-bash at every opportunity. You're right - no need to swallow your pride. You merely quoted from an inaccurate source. Most Mike-bashers don't provide sources, so I should have realized that you weren't one. My apologies.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The problem. that those that believe bio-energy, solar energy, wind energy and other any other renewable sources could supply anywhere near the electricity used in the US, have is they have no concept of the total annual electrical use in the US or the amount that its increases annually.
The best we can expect from bio-energy, solar energy, wind energy and other renewable sources is that they can be used to produce third stage generation to help in the annual increase Do a search of the amount of first, second and third stage electrical generation produced in the US.
When you have, let us know if you still believe bio-energy, solar energy, wind energy and other renewable sources of electricity could supply even the third stage generation yet alone the first. Over 50% of the first stage electricity generated in the US is produced by coal, not oil, and 20% is produced by nuclear power ;)
mike hunt

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 5 Apr 2006 18:35:27 -0400, "Mike Hunter"

As long as our reactors are not trying to catch up with Russia's in the race to the center of the earth....
If it were not for the accidents, we might have gone that route. But every accident gave the anti-nukers something to scream about. Nothing can be guaranteed perfectly safe, but there is a world of difference between losing a jumbo jet due to a safety problem and losing generations to a meltdown ala Chernobyl. And it isn't like the US has not come close on more than one occasion.
--
Spike
1965 Ford Mustang Fastback 2+2, Vintage Burgundy
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Oh, come on. Each and every "close call" at a reactor in the U.S. has been handily dealt with by the multiple redundant safety systems at each plant. The perception that the things are not safe is being fostered by lying enviro wackos. The comparison to Chernobyl is completely BS, since the Russians didn't even put their reactors in a containment building.
mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I would describe the events on Three Mile Island as "handily dealt with." IIRC, there was a near meltdown.
There was no way for the reactor operators to know that there was a low level of water in the reactor.
The Nuclear Regulartory Commission was not notified of the accident until 3 3/4 hours it began.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html
Jeff

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nor do the use heavy water reactors, theirs are graphite cooled . ;)
mike hunt

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

No matter what... you still have some serious toxic waste to deal with even without an accident... and that stuff doesn't break down in 50 years. With hydro there is no real byproduct to worry about. Same with geothermal. Wind and wave power have no byproduct. You can burn garbage and filter the particulates out. Same with coal. And non of those is apt to cause your great grandchild to be born with an extra arm growing out of it's forehead. On the other hand, if you decrease the global population by 50%, even maintaining the same power to people ratio, you're still using half the resources presently used.
--
Spike
1965 Ford Mustang Fastback 2+2, Vintage Burgundy
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(...)

There is a huge environmental damage to worry about. In many cases, new lakes are formed, created major ecological changes.

With wind power, there is a problem with birds flying into the blades, killing them.

Actually, there is more radiation released from coal than is released from a nuclear power plant. The coal contains small amounts of radioactive material that is released when the coal is burned. Not to mention, the huge amounts of CO2 released.

Depends on which people are decreased. If you decrease the population in Africa, South America and Western Asia, you're not going to reduce the use of power nearly as much than if you decrease the population in Europe, some parts of East Asia and North America. The use of energy is not equal in all parts of the world.
This map shows what I mean:
http://apella.ac-limoges.fr/lyc-perrier-tulle/europ/geography/docgeo/maps/world-night-sky.jpg
Jeff

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

People don't generally die from exposure to lakes

That has since been greatly reduced by a variety of gimmicks which drive birds away from the blades, in much the same way airports do.

True as long as the nuke plant does not allow anything to be released. That still does not cover the waste products which must be stored someplace (hey, how about YOUR back yard?). A single volcano outdoes any coal plant, and three volcanoes equates to more than all the autos, factories, etc in toxins released each year.

While that is accurate at present, at the rate those populations are increasing, that will not be true for long. As for my observation, I was not specific on any populace, but rather on a world basis.

--
Spike
1965 Ford Mustang Fastback 2+2, Vintage Burgundy
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But wildlife does.

But not eliminated.

References to back your claims, please.

Doubling the number of people who use almost no energy will have very little effect on the amount of energy used.
Doubling the number of people who use a lot of energy, like the people in the US, will have a large impact in the amount of energy used.
The problem is not just the number of people, but the amount of energy some groups of people use compared to others.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
My friend you need to stop posting on this subject. You obviously have little or no knowledge of the operation of nuclear reactors in the US.
mike hunt

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 8 Apr 2006 13:58:49 -0400, "Mike Hunter"

Hmmmm. A difference of opinion elicited such a reaction? I think, having watched the development of reactors in this country from the beginning, I have sufficient knowledge. Having had specialized training with regard to the handling of fission materials, I believe should also count for something. But, hey, if the answer is to silence anyone with a different view than yours.... I will repeat, I am not AGAINST nuclear power, nor do I deny that advances in safety have not been made. I would prefer something which is clean. Nuclear FUSION, if it were possible to contain would be far preferable.
--
Spike
1965 Ford Mustang Fastback 2+2, Vintage Burgundy
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.