Re: Nuclear power

I see how well Iran, Iraq and North Korea are doing with nuclear power.

Of course, the US could produce all the electricity it needs from nuclear power. I beleive there is enough uranium available. However, there are some environmental issues to be cleared up. Plus there are some questions about the perception of nuclear power's safety that have to change before nuclear power would be a viable politically.

In addition, with bioenergy, solar energy, wind energy and other renewable sources of electricity can supply a large amount of power. I don't think they can provide all the power the US uses.

Conservation would help a lot as well.

Jeff

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

Actually, coal makes only 40% of the US power generation

And renewables make up about 18% of the power generation already. According to the above graph, there won't be an increase in renewables in the next 20 years, although wind fars are growing in different parts of the US. I suspect that solar power will become more popular in the coming years, as well.

One thing that is needed is conservation. With more efficent cars and trucks, more efficient computers, LCD TVs instead of CRTs, walking more, etc., we can cut the use of power by like 20%. THat will help end dependence on foriegn oil.

Jeff

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:

I worked in the nuclear power industry for over 20 years and I can tell you that the main reason other nations are ahead in nuclear generation capacity is because of our regulations. Many of the regulations used against nuclear nuclear power plants have been influenced by the environmentalists. While it takes other nations only a handful of years to go from design to generation with a nuke, it takes us over a decade.

As for windmills, they take up lots of open space and the rotating blades set up vibrations in the earth that can be felt for miles. There is currently a shortage of capacity to manufacture materials needed for solar cells so the price for the needed materials is about three times higher than it should be (plus, if you think windmills gobble up real estate, look closer at solar panels)..

We have closed many ref 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: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% "Sometimes, when you're up to your butt in alligators, it's hard to remember that the intial objective was to drain the swamp." ~ Unknown ~

>

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

We have closed many refineries over the years but environmental law has kept any new ones from being built for over two decades. Environmentalists are also keeping us from drilling for known oil reserves in this country (whick are larger than some people are willing to admit. I think that we can thank the enviro-wackos for many of the current (and future) energy problems in this country.

That is exactly what THEY want, energy problems. It will help them make their point.

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

The environuts thrive on controversy to move their agenda and keep the grants coming to do more research. Talk about vested interests. Look at the current report that shows the world is as warm as it was 130,000 years ago, but this time man is the cause. They give no explanation of who was the cause back then.

When I was is college back in the late forties and on up to the mid seventies these same 'scientists' were telling us man made pollution was rapidly heading the world into another ice age. Like today, if we did not follow their advice on how to stop the pollution there would be disastrous results. If we did not bump carbon on the glaciers, over the next ten years. to speed up melting to cool the oceans we would be in another ice age in just 30,000 years.

I was talking to my Congressman years ago and he told me. 'We finally pasted the legislation establishing EPA to protect the environment.' My question to him was, 'Who will protect us from the EPA?'

mike hunt

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.

Ditto on the environuts causing problems Mike; they like to imagine conspiracies at every turn in the road. I worked in the power generation industry for 30+ years and 20+ years was in the nuclear end. When they were talking about deregulating the industry, we told people the truth - it wouldn't save the average person money but they believed the anti-people because they knew we were lying (yuuup, uh huh).

We (my company) were working on fuel cells for the home that would supply heat, hot water and electric power. The consumer would have rented the unit and then paid to run it; it was estimated that the savings to the average person could have been significant. The project died in the late 90's and I'm not sure why.

If these renewable sources are so great, why not ask Kerry and Ted Kennedy and others why they won't allow any windmills to be built near their property in Mass. They seem to have the NIMBY (Not In MY Back Yard) flu but they are very eager to place these units near the homes and businesses of other "less important" and less affluent people. We have more coal in this country than the rest of the world combined but we can't utilize it.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% "Sometimes, when you're up to your butt in alligators, it's hard to remember that the intial objective was to drain the swamp." ~ Unknown ~

Actually we could burn more of our vast coal reserves but the environuts fight every effort to upgrade old, or build new, bituminous coal burning power plants, even though coal can be burned cleanly with today fluidized bed technology. There is also many years of reserves of anthracite coal in eastern Pennsylvania that burns CLEANER the fuel oil with out scrubbers.

mike hunt

We (my company) were working on fuel cells for the home that would supply heat, hot water and electric power. The consumer would have rented the unit and then paid to run it; it was estimated that the savings to the average person could have been significant. The project died in the late 90's and I'm not sure why.

If these renewable sources are so great, why not ask Kerry and Ted Kennedy and others why they won't allow any windmills to be built near their property in Mass. They seem to have the NIMBY (Not In MY Back Yard) flu but they are very eager to place these units near the homes and businesses of other "less important" and less affluent people. We have more coal in this country than the rest of the world combined but we can't utilize it.

Group: alt.autos.gm Date: Thu, Apr 6, 2006, 1:55pm From: snipped-for-privacy@mailcity.com (Mike Hunter) The environuts thrive on controversy to move their agenda and keep the grants coming to do more research. Talk about vested interests. Look at the current report that shows the world is as warm as it was 130,000 years ago, but this time man is the cause. They give no explanation of who was the cause back then. When I was is college back in the late forties and on up to the mid seventies these same 'scientists' were telling us man made pollution was rapidly heading the world into another ice age. Like today, if we did not follow their advice on how to stop the pollution there would be disastrous results. If we did not bump carbon on the glaciers, over the next ten years. to speed up melting to cool the oceans we would be in another ice age in just 30,000 years. I was talking to my Congressman years ago and he told me. 'We finally pasted the legislation establishing EPA to protect the environment.' My question to him was, 'Who will protect us from the EPA?' mike hunt