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

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:

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

Nor do the use heavy water reactors, theirs are graphite cooled . ;)

mike hunt

Thank you. Apparently Michael is not as familiar with the history of the nuclear power developments and both it's successes and failures.

I am not against nuclear power. If it goes wrong, we'll all glow together when we glow :0) Hopefully, sometime in the future, a new source which does not have the side effects of nuclear fission will be developed/harnessed.

Personally, I would lean more toward reducing the need for more power. That is, if the globe had far fewer people, there would be far less need for the resources being depleted. Population control is, in my opinion, a far more serious problem than more power production.

At the rate they are increasing the populations of India and China, the earth is going to fall over sideways from the excess weight on that side of the globe. The we'll all have to go buy new wardrobes to meet the needs of the climate change LOL

Graphite is a moderator. It absorbs neutrons, which prevents the nuclear fission from spreading, effectively stopping the nuclear reactor.

Water was used at Three Mile Island for cooling the reactor. If you read the report from the NRC, you will see what I mean.

Jeff

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

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:

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

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.

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.