Al Agnew Posted February 2, 2011 Posted February 2, 2011 There aren't any magic solutions out there. No one technology will replace fossil fuel energy. Nor will we want one magic solution, because that's putting all our eggs in one basket. Solar and wind power have proven themselves to be able to produce electricity at rates that are fairly competitive with other sources, but it's obvious they won't work all by themselves. Nuclear COULD work all by itself, but the up front costs are enormous and the possibility of accidents either at the plant or during transportation and storage of waste, while fairly remote, would be extremely costly. The more nuke plants there are, the greater that statistical possibility of accidents becomes. So while I think nuclear can be a part of the solution, I don't think it's the whole thing, either. There are other technologies from geothermal to ocean tidal, wave, and current, that could work in specific areas. But as I think I said when we talked about this before, I believe the solutions lie at least in part in decentralizing our electric generation. Instead of mega-power plants that serve whole regions, maybe we need to be going in the direction of people, industries, and municipalities being responsible for their own power generation. Maybe besides seeking mega-solutions, we also need to be further developing the technology that will give us reliable, easily maintained household solar power and wind power that ties into the existing grid. That allows cities to generate their own supplemental power from their waste, or if they are in the right areas, from waves or geothermal or wind. That allows industries to use their waste products to generate electricity. That way, the ever present threat of terrorism lessens. Terrorists attacking the regional power grid by attacking the mega plants where the electricity is coming from could plunge whole regions into darkness and drastically damage economies, but terrorists attacking my solar panels won't bother even my neighbors. All energy on earth ultimately comes from the sun, or from the earth's own internal heat. We've been burning ancient sunlight ever since we burnt the first chunk of coal. Sunlight that was soaked up by prehistoric plants. And we've gotten to the point where getting power from ancient sunlight is getting too costly in dollars and in environmental problems, so it's time to start getting serious about using the ever renewable power from present sunlight...not only solar but the wind generated by the weather that comes from the sun, and even the biodiesel that comes from plants soaking up present sunlight. And the heat generated by the earth's own nuclear reactor. Just because so far all those solutions haven't proven themselves to be able to replace the old ways of producing enough megawatts to power whole regions doesn't mean we can't develop the technology to make them viable pieces of the puzzle. Develop them enough to allow them to supplement the existing grid, lessening demand of the grid, buying us time to gradually replace coal fired plants with nuclear or other cleaner or renewable plants.
Mitch f Posted February 2, 2011 Posted February 2, 2011 Actually, it has been since we've had an open cash register door policy with Isreal. Long, long before then my friend "Honor is a man's gift to himself" Rob Roy McGregor
gotmuddy Posted February 2, 2011 Posted February 2, 2011 As usual, you're asking me for information that is readily available at your fingertips if you'd invest about 30 seconds of research. But fine. You want it, you got it. Here are a couple reasons to think twice about nuclear power plants. Accidents DO happen, and people DO suffer as a result of them. How would you feel if that happened to YOUR kid? There are vastly more disturbing images out there...go check 'em out. This brings me back to what I said before: Communists don't give a crap about the people(how ironic). It does not surprise me at all that you would try to compare the horrific tragedy that happened in the Ukraine with US run reactors. "I don't know, how many?" "Well it could, as long as you charge it on sunny windy days. What do we do for electricity at night? Do we have to pay to maintain other forms of generation for night use, or is there some plan I've missed? " .......................................................... I don't know either but I do know it's a step in the right direction. The energy stored in electric cars is DC batteries. You can run a windmill or collect from a solar panel and store it in the batteries. Ain't gotta worry about night time wind or light. Batteries don't last forever and need replaced. The chevy volt under ideal circumstances goes 100 miles on a charge(flat land). There is no doubt in my mind that technology is available to make a car that would do 5 times that figure. everything in this post is purely opinion and is said to annoy you.
troutfiend1985 Posted February 2, 2011 Posted February 2, 2011 Communists don't give a crap about the people(how ironic). What do you mean by this, and what does communism have to do with the US? “The greatest menace to freedom is an inert people” J. Brandeis
gotmuddy Posted February 2, 2011 Posted February 2, 2011 What do you mean by this, and what does communism have to do with the US? China and Russia are both communist countries. Both have a horrible human rights/environmental track record. People on the thread have said repeatedly that if we lead the way others will follow but that is not true. everything in this post is purely opinion and is said to annoy you.
eric1978 Posted February 2, 2011 Posted February 2, 2011 Eric, you're jumping the shark with the Chernobyl pictures. Yes, it's disturbing. The difference, of course, is Chernobyl was built by the Soviets in the 1970's. The Soviets have never had a good record of safety. The reactor was built without any sort of containment structure. Kev, I've already conceded that I'm basically on board with nuclear power, and I'm sure technology has improved to the point that it can be done relatively safely. But still, accidents happen, and I have to say I'd be angry and worried if a plant was built anywhere closer to my home than Callaway (I'm not all that thrilled that Callaway is only about 100 miles due west of me). But all in all, I agree with you that it's a viable energy source, and surely more environmentally friendly than our current policy of anything-goes fossil fuel burning. Let's not pretend, though, that nuclear power comes without a certain amount of risk. Our main focus should be on entirely renewable energy, and only supplemented with nuclear and fossil fuel. This brings me back to what I said before: Communists don't give a crap about the people(how ironic). It does not surprise me at all that you would try to compare the horrific tragedy that happened in the Ukraine with US run reactors. Yeah, because anything US owned and operated is impervious to disaster, right? Like the BP oil spill? Imagine if that was nuclear fallout instead...all over northern Arkansas. Yea! Mutations!
Justin Spencer Posted February 2, 2011 Posted February 2, 2011 If you had the choice would you have a coal fired plant, nuclear plant, or solar plant built within 10 miles of your home. "The problem with a politician’s quote on Facebook is you don’t know whether or not they really said it." –Abraham Lincoln Tales of an Ozark Campground Proprietor Dead Drift Fly Shop
Gavin Posted February 2, 2011 Posted February 2, 2011 Not in my back yard!...Think I'd be fine with a nuclear plant, but not coal fired...too many coal cars running through Webster and messing with traffic as is plus emmissions...Solar...I dont think it offers much bang for the buck. Cheers.
flytyer57 Posted February 2, 2011 Posted February 2, 2011 China and Russia are both communist countries. Russia is no longer communist. There's a fine line between fishing and sitting there looking stupid.
Wayne SW/MO Posted February 2, 2011 Posted February 2, 2011 Russia is no longer communist. But it was when the plant was built and the accident happened. The US has a clean record with the exception of some sloppy, and what should have been criminal, storage. That is hardly a reason to avoid nuclear power generation. We had serious problems in the past with dioxin dumping, but we still seem to demand white toilet paper for some reason? Al I agree 100% that there should be different options for transportation. City buses would seem to be a sure candidate for hydrogen power, wind power could probably feed a train grid, but for the average family I don't see using dirty electric power to power the family car as a step in the right direction, but more like passing the buck. In our society we use electricity 24/7 and generation is the only option we have to do that now. Everywhere we look we see nothing but band-aids, that cure nothing, applied at questionable expense. The government hasn't said that the billions poured into solar and wind will help us to any great degree, but that it will create jobs and make billionaires. OK, they didn't really point out the billionaires it will make. Today's release is tomorrows gift to another fisherman.
Recommended Posts