Outside Bend Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 I cannot stress it enough. Nuke plants today are not what they used to be. If we want to be energy independent in the next 100 years, it's going to be through the use of some sort of nuclear technology, be it Thorium MSRs, or even fusion power, which has been 20 years away for the last 50 years. Solar and wind only give you so much bang for you buck. Neither can be counted on to provide peak power on demand, and both can let you down when you need them most, as there is no efficient way to store the power produced when they're generating at full capacity. On hydroelectric dams, fossil fuel powered plants, and nuke plants, you can up the juice when you need it. I'd much rather see our money invested in technologies that are proven to be practical, rather than chasing after the pipe dream of turning pixie dust and unicorn farts into cheap, reliable power sources. So investment and research has made nuclear technology safer and more reliable, but investment and research into renewable energy won't overcome the present-day issues. I guess that's the problem I'm having with a lot of the pro-nuclear discussion- a lot of the arguments seem pretty arbitrary. Don't trust the government to do something right, unless it's about the placement, defense, and storage of radioactive waste. Nuclear technology has advanced in the last 40 or so years, but wind, geothermal, & solar technology won't advance in the next 40 years or so. Truth is there have been rapid advancements in renewable technology even in the last decade- from more efficient homes, appliances, solar cells and other equipment to less intrusive means of collecting solar energy. You may think it's impractical, but the reality is many nations are capitalizing on their renewable energy assets, and capitalizing on American's sloth towards renewable energy development. There's a technology vacuum which will be filled- if not by us, then by China or Germany. The cost of renewables is too expensive, and those expenses will be passed on to consumers. But developing domestic uranium supplies, environmental costs and cleanup, building reactors, building waste storage sites, and security of nuclear plants and waste sites- those costs will no doubt be passed on to consumers. If we can reduce current electricity consumption through making homes more efficient- better insulation, more efficient appliances, exploitation of solar and geothermal energy sources right there on the property- then there's no NEED to build more nuclear plants. There's no NEED to deal with protection of nuclear sites, or dealing with radioactive waste. There's no NEED to pass those costs onto consumers- whether you're paying for more insulation or paying for the construction of a cooling tower- you're still paying. And you're paying for something that doesn't even really benefit you- solar cells on the roof and high-efficiency appliances directly up the value of your property- having a nuke plant in the backyard doesn't. It's economics- you reduce electricity demand through energy conservation, and you won't NEED greater supply. Sorry for the soapbox. <{{{><
flytyer57 Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 So where are we supposed to be getting all the uranium etc. to power these nuclear plants? Right now it looks as if Kazakhstan is the worlds leader in uranium mining. That again is in the same region in which we are currently fighting a war for oil and gas. Shall we continue our wars for energy or should we find alternative sources we can produce right here in the USA? There's a fine line between fishing and sitting there looking stupid.
kevthebassman Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 Thorium is much more abundant than Uranium. According to wikipedia, it's about as widespread as lead, with India and Australia (both friendly democracies) having major reserves. If we can use lead to plink at tin cans and weight our trot lines, I imagine we can swing a way to use Thorium for our power plants.
duckydoty Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 Where are all the fishing reports? A Little Rain Won't Hurt Them Fish.....They're Already Wet!! Visit my website at.. Ozark Trout Runners
Outside Bend Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 Thorium is much more abundant than Uranium. According to wikipedia, it's about as widespread as lead, with India and Australia (both friendly democracies) having major reserves. If we can use lead to plink at tin cans and weight our trot lines, I imagine we can swing a way to use Thorium for our power plants. There's a big difference an element's general abundance in the crust and whether it exists in concentrations that make mining operations profitable. Even still- it's a finite resource, a short-term fix. With a billion folks of their own to take care of, and US business track record (Bhopal), I'm not sure how willing India would be to divest itself of energy resources. <{{{><
Tim Smith Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 Where are all the fishing reports? In the fishing report links. But since you asked...Here's one.
Wayne SW/MO Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 Nuclear technology has advanced in the last 40 or so years, but wind, geothermal, & solar technology won't advance in the next 40 years or so. Truth is there have been rapid advancements in renewable technology even in the last decade- from more efficient homes, appliances, solar cells and other equipment to less intrusive means of collecting solar energy. You may think it's impractical, but the reality is many nations are capitalizing on their renewable energy assets, and capitalizing on American's sloth towards renewable energy development. There's a technology vacuum which will be filled- if not by us, then by China or Germany. All of the alternatives that you mention have severe limitations. If you, and many others, believe that we are in a race to save the planet from ourselves, why would anyone want to fore go proven generation methods? Hydroelectric, coal, natural gas and nuclear are proven and able to meet demands. Hydro is limited by location and weather. Coal is dirty, and if scrubbing technology makes it clean we have to store co2. Natural gas limits co2 discharges, but increases gasses that can be worse. Nuclear is more viable and research indicates that it can probably be more stable yet. Solar and wind are not new by any stretch of the imagination, but the limitations have loomed over them like a black shadow, pun intended. You're right about countries capitalizing on our technology. China is presently building 27 nuclear plants and Russia 11! Today's release is tomorrows gift to another fisherman.
Justin Spencer Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 Is there a suitable place in the US for a Three Gorges Dam type project. I know it would never be allowed because it would displace too many people who live in the flood prone areas near major waterways, but the TGD (from what I have read) can produce the power equivalent to over 18 nuclear power plants. "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
gotmuddy Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 So where are we supposed to be getting all the uranium etc. to power these nuclear plants? Right now it looks as if Kazakhstan is the worlds leader in uranium mining. That again is in the same region in which we are currently fighting a war for oil and gas. Shall we continue our wars for energy or should we find alternative sources we can produce right here in the USA? That is hilarious. Have you checked out where it is on a map?? everything in this post is purely opinion and is said to annoy you.
flytyer57 Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 That is hilarious. Have you checked out where it is on a map?? There's a fine line between fishing and sitting there looking stupid.
Recommended Posts