|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Al Gore propses America gets 100% of its energy from renewable resources by 2018 [Re: zouden]
#8726827 - 08/04/08 10:06 PM (15 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Good point! Im not sure its 'obvious' nuclear is better, we certainly need to see some cost/benefit analysis to be certain. Numbers FTW. (any actuaries on the board? )
|
ScavengerType
Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
|
Re: Al Gore propses America gets 100% of its energy from renewable resources by 2018 [Re: DieCommie]
#8727383 - 08/05/08 01:25 AM (15 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Hmmm that wouldn't be difficult to calculate, I have taken statistics and economics courses, but on the other hand just gathering the data would be real time consuming. If I was producing a paper on the subject of power I'd consider it, but I'm not doing it for you guys.
-------------------- "Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?" "The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything." - Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now. Conquer's Club
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 6 months
|
Re: Al Gore propses America gets 100% of its energy from renewable resources by 2018 [Re: ScavengerType]
#8727403 - 08/05/08 01:31 AM (15 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah that's some pretty involved research. But surely it's been investigated before and tabled up into a 300-page PDF on some government website.
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 8 days
|
Re: Al Gore propses America gets 100% of its energy from renewable resources by 2018 [Re: zouden]
#8727568 - 08/05/08 04:13 AM (15 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
> If coal power plants had to pay for the pollution they spew into the atmosphere they'd be a lot more expensive and it would immediately be obvious that nuclear is a better solution
If nuclear plants had to pay for their long term pollution costs, they'd be exorbitantly expensive and nobody would be able to afford power from them.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 6 months
|
Re: Al Gore propses America gets 100% of its energy from renewable resources by 2018 [Re: Seuss]
#8727621 - 08/05/08 04:50 AM (15 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I'd say they do have to pay; they have to collect and dispose of and keep track of all the waste that comes out, since none of it is thrown into the atmosphere.
And if I had to keep the waste I produce from my own electricity use in my own backyard, I'd rather have the nuclear waste than the coal waste. I'm not sure of the exact figures but in terms of mass and volume there's much less waste produced by nuclear power. And coal waste is radioactive too.
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 8 days
|
Re: Al Gore propses America gets 100% of its energy from renewable resources by 2018 [Re: zouden]
#8727637 - 08/05/08 05:04 AM (15 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
> I'd say they do have to pay
Nope. Taxpayers pay the costs, not nuclear power plants. Take a look at the number of EPA superfund sites that are related to the nuclear industry. Take Yucca Mountain for example; so far it has cost the US taxpayer over 4 billion dollars and nothing has been done! By the time it is completed, the cost is expected to exceed 60 billion dollars. With the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1983, the taxpayers will only be responsible for around 30 billion of the cost.
Nuclear energy is insanely expensive in the long run, but fairly cheap in the short. I guess I shouldn't really care; by the time the long term expenses come due I will be dead; yet one more reason to be glad that I never had children.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 6 months
|
Re: Al Gore propses America gets 100% of its energy from renewable resources by 2018 [Re: Seuss]
#8727651 - 08/05/08 05:24 AM (15 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Mind you I'm glad that nuclear power plants aren't run like a for-profit company, with shareholders demanding ever bigger profits...
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 8 days
|
Re: Al Gore propses America gets 100% of its energy from renewable resources by 2018 [Re: zouden]
#8727715 - 08/05/08 06:17 AM (15 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
> Mind you I'm glad that nuclear power plants aren't run like a for-profit company, with shareholders demanding ever bigger profits...
Why do you think they are not? Look up Entergy and Amergen, two of the biggest players in the nuclear power plant game.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entergy
Quote:
Entergy Corporation NYSE: ETR is an integrated energy company engaged primarily in electric power productions and retail distribution operations. A member of the Fortune 500, Entergy, headquartered in New Orleans, owns and operates power plants with approximately 30,000 megawatts of electric generating capacity, and it is the second-largest nuclear generator in the United States. Entergy delivers electricity to 2.7 million utility customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. Entergy's revenue was more than $11 billion in 2007 and it employs approximately 14,300 people according to its 2007 Annual Report.[1] In 2007 Entergy and its charitable foundation awarded more than $14.5 million in grants. [2]
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 6 months
|
Re: Al Gore propses America gets 100% of its energy from renewable resources by 2018 [Re: Seuss]
#8727720 - 08/05/08 06:24 AM (15 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Okay, now I'm scared.
Well, not really. It takes a lot to scare me
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
pothead_bob
Resident Pothead
Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 4 years, 16 days
|
Re: Al Gore propses America gets 100% of its energy from renewable resources by 2018 [Re: Seuss]
#8727999 - 08/05/08 08:46 AM (15 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Nope. Taxpayers pay the costs, not nuclear power plants
Where'd you get this from? While it's true that taxpayers have been paying, utilities have also been required to pay in one tenth of a cent per kWh generated. As of 2005, utilities have already paid in 25 billion dollars.
http://www.atomicinsights.com/AI_03-27-05.html
If you don't lik Yucca Mountain, blame the government. They should have thought it through more. Now the government is actually going to end up owing utilities because its been squandering the money they've been paying in. The nuclear industry should be reprocessing waste like France does, but Carter said no like a fool.
So what we have here, is coal doesn't pay jack for destroying the environment and nuclear does. If carbon sequestration was required, the price of using coal power would double. Coal is getting a free ride right now.
Quote:
I'd rather have the nuclear waste than the coal waste
Same here. Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant, for example, has over thirty years worth of nuclear waste stored in a fuel storage pool inside the containment building. They didn't even have to start using dry cask storage yet.
Then consider that a coal plant typically emits 100 times the radiation of a nuke plant, I'm glad I don't live near a coal plant.
-------------------- No knowledge can be certain, if it is not based upon mathematics or upon some other knowledge which is itself based upon the mathematical sciences. -Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519) Speak well of your enemies. After all, you made them.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 8 days
|
Re: Al Gore propses America gets 100% of its energy from renewable resources by 2018 [Re: pothead_bob]
#8729094 - 08/05/08 01:36 PM (15 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
> Where'd you get this from?
History.
> They didn't even have to start using dry cask storage yet.
Wow, talk about spin. Change "we don't know what to do with this crap... nobody will take it, so we leave it where it is" to "we have so much space that we don't need to worry about it yet".
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
pothead_bob
Resident Pothead
Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 4 years, 16 days
|
Re: Al Gore propses America gets 100% of its energy from renewable resources by 2018 [Re: Seuss]
#8729264 - 08/05/08 02:09 PM (15 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Wow, talk about spin. Change "we don't know what to do with this crap... nobody will take it, so we leave it where it is" to "we have so much space that we don't need to worry about it yet".
Honestly, I don't know what your talking about when you say "spin". I never said we don't know what to do with this crap and I'm not sure of anybody else who did that knows anything about nuclear power. There is plenty of space on site at nuke plants for storing waste, but it's not a long term solution. The point was that nuke plants produce a lot less waste than coal-fired plants.
Storing on site isn't a long-term solution, so reprocess it. It's the US govt that prevented them from doing so. You get more energy out of the depleted fuel and a bunch less high-level waste that degrades way faster than it does in its current form.
It's the government screwing around that is causing these problems. The government promised an operational repository by 1998 and now, the utilities are left holding the empty bag for the last 10 years. People would be better to complain to their representatives instead of coming down on nuclear power.
You say you got your idea that utilities don't pay towards the repository from history. I'd say you should probably invest in a new history book.
Renewable energy sources have their place and fusion is pretty much a pipe dream right now. There's no reason nuclear shouldn't make up a sizeable portion of our energy production until other clean energy sources can be made a reality.
-------------------- No knowledge can be certain, if it is not based upon mathematics or upon some other knowledge which is itself based upon the mathematical sciences. -Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519) Speak well of your enemies. After all, you made them.
|
ScavengerType
Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
|
Re: Al Gore propses America gets 100% of its energy from renewable resources by 2018 [Re: pothead_bob]
#8731753 - 08/05/08 11:31 PM (15 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
But coal plants produce much fewer Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dwellers. The reality is that nuke waste is a problem, but the biggest problem is nuclear incidents and the sky high cost of finely manufactured and examined/tested parts for the plants that keep things from going thata way. Even with all the best parts a single human error could result in a major catastrophe.
-------------------- "Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?" "The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything." - Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now. Conquer's Club
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 8 days
|
Re: Al Gore propses America gets 100% of its energy from renewable resources by 2018 [Re: pothead_bob]
#8732297 - 08/06/08 03:46 AM (15 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
> Honestly, I don't know what your talking about when you say "spin".
You claimed "They didn't even have to start using dry cask storage yet." with reference to SFRs in the SFP. This is spin, because you are misrepresenting the situtation.
1) SFRs must spend twenty or so years in the SFP before they are safe enough to move. It isn't that they don't have to start using dry cask storage yet, but that they cannot, because the pollution is too dangerous to approach. It takes a decade or two before the pollution is safe enough to handle to store!
2) I have yet to speak with a nuclear plant manager that wouldn't give an arm and half a leg to be rid of the waste in their SFP.
3) We have to spend energy to cool the SFP... something most people don't know. Nuclear waste starts to cost money the moment it is born. How much money does it cost to keep the SFP cool for the life of the reactor, plus another twenty years? Then add the cost of reprocessing. Then add the cost of long term (hundred thousand years or more). Don't forget the cost of transportation. Oh, and because this stuff is nasty, we also need security from terrorists and the like... another expense.
The spin comes from pretending that nuclear plants don't have to move the spent fuel rods when in reality they can't move the spent fuel rods because it is too dangerous!
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 6 months
|
Re: Al Gore propses America gets 100% of its energy from renewable resources by 2018 [Re: Seuss]
#8732303 - 08/06/08 03:50 AM (15 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
If the waste still needs to be cooled then it there must still be energy to be taken from it...
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
pothead_bob
Resident Pothead
Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 4 years, 16 days
|
Re: Al Gore propses America gets 100% of its energy from renewable resources by 2018 [Re: zouden]
#8732641 - 08/06/08 08:07 AM (15 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
yet, but that they cannot, because the pollution is too dangerous to approach
Indian Point was running more than 20 years, like practically every plant in the US. They have every ability to put waste in dry cask now. They don't need to. That's why they don't. Again, no spin here.
Quote:
have yet to speak with a nuclear plant manager that wouldn't give an arm and half a leg to be rid of the waste in their SFP.
Well aparently it's not that big of a problem considering that the NRC has received over 25 applications for combined operating/construction licenses. Sure they want to get rid of the waste. I don't want to work and still get paid my yearly salary. But I, just like the power plant owners/operators, live in reality and they deal with it.
Quote:
We have to spend energy to cool the SFP
You run a pump through a heat exchanger. Not that expensive compared to how much nuke plants make. The average nuke plant makes a million dollars a day from selling power. I think they can manage to pump some water through a SFP.
Quote:
Then add the cost of reprocessing. Then add the cost of long term (hundred thousand years or more). Don't forget the cost of transportation. Oh, and because this stuff is nasty, we also need security from terrorists and the like... another expense.
After you reprocess, you get more energy from the fuel, to make and sell more electricity. And when you reprocess, it doesn't last a hundred thousand years for the waste to become safe. It takes only 40 years to drop the radioactivity by 99.9%. After that it takes about a thousand to make the slow creep back to the radioactivity level of natural uranium. Yes, a thousand years is long, but it's definatly managable. It's the plutonium products that take long to degrade, but with reprocessing, you fission them away.
When you're storing this stuff on site, secruity is not an additional expense because you're already using security to watch over the plant. People always play the terrorist card. Do you know how incredibly difficult it would be to carry a spent fuel assembly out of a reactor facility? They're 12 feet long and would incinerate you the moment you took them out of the fuel pool due to their radioactivity. It would take more than a small army to get radioactive waste out of a facility with even a small security force in place.
-------------------- No knowledge can be certain, if it is not based upon mathematics or upon some other knowledge which is itself based upon the mathematical sciences. -Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519) Speak well of your enemies. After all, you made them.
|
|