I want FREAKING nuclear power.
Everything is better when it's "freaking."
I want some ice cream.
vs.
I want some freaking ice cream!
I want to play some X-Box.
vs.
I want to play some freaking X-Box!
So while we do have more nuclear power than we did in 1973, shouldn't all of the coal in this chart be replaced with nuclear power?
I want to know where the environmentalists are on this since global warming is obvious a bigger threat than nuclear waste.
10 comments:
Of course the amount of coal in use should be reduced by switching to nuclear power, but in this case, the environmental movement wants the best of both worlds; they want "clean" energy AND no nukes/fossil fuels/whatever.
If one attempts to explain that their European cuddlebuddy France derives the majority of its electricity from nuclear power, the subject will be changed. If you were to point out that nuclear reactors (even the current generation) are far, far safer as a power source than coal, once mining et al. is taken into account...the subject will be changed. If a person were to say that a branch of the Federal government has safely operated nuclear reactors since 1958 with trained high school graduates...well, guess what?
Given that knee-jerk (emphasis on the "jerk")opposition from this pressure group is severely constraining research into new generation reactors, combined with a heavy does of SImpsons-inspired NIMBYism, I don't foresee many new reactors coming online in the near future.
There is nowhere to store the waste. And even if there was, nobody wants it transported through their town. People don't like nuclear power since there is an immediate threat to their safety - similar to why people are afraid to fly but not to ride in a car when we all know riding in a car is more dangerous than flying. Same is true for global warming. - nobody views it as an immediate threat. This will prove to be a bigger economic/social evil than nuclear power ever was. In fact, I believe it has been for the past 3 years...at least.
"So while we do have more nuclear power than we did in 1973, shouldn't all of the coal in this chart be replaced with nuclear power?"
No, because coal is cheaper.
http://www.neis.org/Nuke%20News/Clippings/What%20Does%20it%20Cost.shtml?AID=/20060217/NEWS/602170330&SearchID=73236151832506
"I want to know where the environmentalists are on this since global warming is obvious a bigger threat than nuclear waste."
My message to the environmentalists is to Think Globally, Act Locally, and Screw You Royally. They can drive their hybrids and drink their Fair Trade coffee, and I'll just settle for being right instead. Actually, I'll be freaking right.
Freaking nuclear waste would not be a problem if not for Freaking Jerry Ford and Freaking Jimmy Carter who banned reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel in the Freaking United States in Freaking 1976. If we reprocessed spent fuel (like Japan, France, and England), we would get 80% more energy per ton of pitchblende mined and we would only have 3% of the Freaking waste we have today. Actually, coal is the best alternative fuel for producing electricity to nuclear. Oil and natural gas can be used more efficiently directly in the transportation and production sectors of the Freaking economy than coal, hydro, or nuclear unless you are building submarines or aircraft carriers of live on a Freaking water fall. Oil and natural gas should be Freaking banned from being used to generate any Freaking electricity.
The saddest part of the whole argument is what the Freaking negawatt people see as the perfect society. Slow, safe, egalitarian people in clean colorful clothes and hygienic and healthy surroundings talking peacefully, respectfully interacting, and driving electric cars to the local strip mall. Freaking leaping lizards Batman, that’s a High energy society!! WTF!! Low energy societies look like Guatemala, Africa, and the Aborigines of Australia; dirty, smelly, dangerous, and diseased. Dr. Jarad Diamond wrote Guns Germs and Steel examining the question on why the lighter skinned people have everything and the darker skinned people have nothing. He makes the case that it was the luck of the draw; that lighter skinned people evolved in areas that had more domesticable crops and animals. I disagree, it is more fundamental than crops and animals; it is about energy. Having more crops and animals just makes more energy for society and allows it to evolve, since the industrial revolution it is absolutely about energy. While doing more for less is always good, doing more for more is essential for growth and growth is essential for survival. I don’t know if the negawatts are Freaking Stupid, Freaking magical thinkers, or like my Freaking governor, Tim Pawlenty, just Freaking evil. In the words of Guy of Tripoli at the Battle of Acre, “Freaking God help us, we are all Freaking dead now.” I want my Freaking ice cream. I want my Freaking X-box. I want my Freaking county western music… If I wanted to live a Freaking low energy existence, I would move to Freaking Darfur.
Freaking A
Hey Ryan, You are Freaking wrong. Coal is NOT Freaking cheaper. The U of C’s costs were based upon new construction and 2003 fuel costs. These have changed. See:
http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/reliableandaffordableenergy/graphicsandcharts/uselectricityproductioncostsandcomponents/
by doing some math you can figure out the cost of construction they used to get their numbers. Freaking 60% of the cost of a nuclear power plant is in meeting the regulatory requirements. Global warming will kill (Freakingalegedly) 95 million people in the next fifty years, based upon how many people nuclear power generation has killed in the last fifty years what is your Freaking choice? Chernobyl, of course, was NOT a power-generating reactor but was making plutonium for bombs. As the Captain says, “There are liars, damned liars, and people who manipulate numbers.” Take a drive up to Becker, Minnesota and tell me about coal fired power plants. By the way, Minnesota has a law against building nuclear power plans. Isn’t that Freaking something? Almost as good is the operating cost of a windmill is 7.5 cents per KWH and the Freaking fuel is free.
Megan, riding in a car is NOT more dangerous than flying. It would be seem that way if you drank the Freaking airline Kool Aid and looked at passenger miles but I don’t take risks based upon miles, I take risks based upon hours endured. Based upon the time spent flying vs. the time spent in an automobile the flying is ten times more dangerous. It is as dangerous (if it is assumed that the soldiers are in danger Freaking 24/7) as being in Iraq. The extra credit problem. Today, we have stored ‘on site’ the waste generated by 115 nuclear reactors that have operated for the last 25 years. If we reprocess the waste so its volume is only 3% of current, how many years storage do we have given the number of reactors increases to 1,000? Isn’t that something?
My take is that the future will be an electric society and nuclear will be part, if not most of the source of the electricity.
I agree with the poster about breeder reactors and reprocessing. The advantage of nuclear is that we have the pollution in one controlled place, not scattered through the environment. Through reprocessing, the amount of waste could be minimized.
Now, what I'd recommend is a standard proven nuclear plant design which can go through the approval and regulation process ONCE, then can be replicated. You save the cost of design, test, approvals and training relative to a custom build of each plant. Ongoing maintenance and operating costs would be less as well.
However, we also need to improve the electrical grid's reliability, redundancy and capacity. We have to get the power to where it is needed.
Now to the original question, the extremist wing of the enviro-nazis would oppose anything that would allow the USA to economically prosper - largely because they they hate the USA, they just use environment as a weapon for their hate.
Thinking environmentalists, which would include conservatives and moderates (nobody wants dirty air and polluted water) would probably accept it as a best, but not perfect option.
The problem is with the group between the previous groups. Unfortunately many in this group would be unable to thoughfully consider options, since they generally are liberal arts majors and touchy-feely types that do not accept reason well, nor do they have a solid scientific, fact-based understanding. Not only couldn't you educate them, but they'd be very much not be open to the idea in the first place. They don't want to hear it.
I bow to the superior wisdom of "anonymous", as he/she/it/they have made a better case than I could have.
Oh, ok. So nuclear power is cheaper if you don't take the required safety precautions.
I'm not one to think that government regulation is anywhere near efficient since they tend to over-regulate like mad, but you can't disregard the entire cost since there are definitely safety precautions required in nuclear power plants that are a good idea anyway.
"Global warming will kill (Freakingalegedly) 95 million people in the next fifty years, based upon how many people nuclear power generation has killed in the last fifty years what is your Freaking choice?"
Pardon me while I just toss out the no-source global warming apocalypse prediction now.
"Megan, riding in a car is NOT more dangerous than flying. It would be seem that way if you drank the Freaking airline Kool Aid and looked at passenger miles but I don’t take risks based upon miles, I take risks based upon hours endured."
Hah. Is that how you plan your trips? You just pick a duration of travel and then pick whatever means looks best from there? Normal people travel to actually get to a particular place, meaning your total distance traveled is what matters for safety, not how long it takes. Comparing the risk of a ten hour drive with a ten hour plane trip is stupid, because a ten hour plane trip might get you 5,000 miles, while a ten hour drive would by great if you got 700. Unless you don't care where you end up, you should be comparing equal distances.
It might make you happy Cappy to know that a construct/operate permit has been issued for 2 reactors in Texas. Not only because that's 2 more reactors, but because you used to have to get a construct permit, then when you were done building it apply for an operate permit (which you weren't guaranteed to get, and made people hesitant about building billion dollar facilities). Holy cow, a bureaucracy streamlined itself instead of making itself bigger - makes sense since it's the only one run by engineers. Also, the TVA decided to finish a reactor that they've had a construct permit on for over 25 years.
Some very good comments have been made here. Oil/Nat. gas should be right out of the generation equation. We should use coal, we've got loads of it, and can burn it pretty clean now. Fuel cycle is spot on, but how do you convince people who think Gore is a scientist that making plutonium is a good thing? I think that's always been my greatest gripe with Carter - he was one of the worst presidents ever, but he really pushed for limiting the fuel cycle. That means not only was he a bad president, he was a bad nuclear engineer, and he was supposed to be trained in that!
Post a Comment