Energy (the stuff that makes your 'puter run) vs. Environmentalism

[KillerMuffin]

Finland is about to build the first nuclear (NUKE lee ur) power plant in Western Europe since France did it in 1991.

Predictably, environmentalists are hot about it. But hey, Kyoto is better than nothing, right? -- Sorry, couldn't resist a bit of slanted bias.

To the actual real point. We've got to have electricity, there's no doubt about that. If you were here, you'd remember the howling about brown outs from California last year. It's going to be as bad this year. Of its top ten instate utility power suppliers, California currently has 2 nukes, 6 natural gas power plants, 1 hydro plant, and 1 run off of a geyeser. India has already lost over 1,000 people in a heat wave.

The bad part is that diesel, coal, and natural gas plants create emissions and alternative energy sources just aren't developed enough to deal with the demand yet.

What do you think? Do you think nukes should be built to address the problem until alternative energy sources can be developed enough to handle the demand for energy? Are there alternatives that aren't understood? If there are, how could they be implemented in places like Finland or California or anyplace that has to reduce emissions?

Link:http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=worldnews&StoryID=1008468

 

[huskie]

My vote (and personal investment) is with Hygroden fuel cells. keeping fingers crossed, anyway?

 

[JazzManJim]

Of course we should build nuclear power plants. The way plants are built, maintained, and run in the United States make them the safest, and most efficient souce of energy feasible today. Yes, they produce radioactive waste. Yes, we're going to have to deal with it. But we should work on that plan while we're building the plants and while we're using the plants. The scare that my country has toward these plants has verged on insanity for a long time now. California's easily the worst right now.

I'm seeing this as an absolute no-brainer.

 

[koalabear]

Of course we should build nuclear power plants. The way plants are built, maintained, and run in the United States make them the safest, and most efficient souce of energy feasible today. Yes, they produce radioactive waste. Yes, we're going to have to deal with it. But we should work on that plan while we're building the plants and while we're using the plants. The scare that my country has toward these plants has verged on insanity for a long time now. California's easily the worst right now.

I'm seeing this as an absolute no-brainer.

1. It takes 20 years to build a nuke the way we do.
2. Nukes create waste for other generations, and no feasible way to get rid of the waste.
3. Is the USA the safest in operating Nukes or the best at hiding mistakes. Vist Monroe Michigan, the site of the Enrico Feri 1 reactor, Enrico Fermi 2 is right next to E.F.1. Whose reator core now rest deep in the core of the earth after killing off Lake Erie life with a meltdown. Did any of you read about that?
4.The republicans run Bechtel Inc., the largest construction company in the world. They build nukes, yes more will be started now that W is in the White House. Reagans Cabinet was the Bechtel Board of Directors, Papa Bush is on it too.

I don't mind, I make money on construction.

 

[RastaPope]

Windmills. All over.


And hyrdro-electic damns up and down the coast...Like little horizontal windmills about a half mile from the shore...

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Building the plant isn't the problem..it's the "political" preliminary reports that that the largest amount of time. A nuclear power plant is actually a fairly simple device.

Windmills and other "alternative" sources aren't mature enough yet to be practical solutions for energy use large scale use. They can help, but they can't power Los Angeles for example (there are already thousands of them out near Palm Springs)

The problem with nuclear plants right now is the storage of the waste. In relative terms, the waste is very small for the power generated, but it is very toxic and has to be stored in a very safe place. The US government spent billions building a waste storage site in Yucca mountain near Las Vegas but there's a big political uproar about actually using it now. The engineering is done and it's the safest, best that we (the US) can do. However, after the billions of dollars were invested, now some of the politicians of Nevada are arguing successfully against actually using the facility.

Right now, all the waste is piling up at the various generation facilities around the country and it's not nearly as "safe" as Yucca mountain.

Until we can solve the political issue about waste storage, it is probably not smart for us to build anymore nukes. The only other viable alternative is to build more high-polluting gas/oil generators.

I wish another technology would come along, but we haven't seen it yet. Hydrogen cells are promising, but are not quite ready for prime-time yet.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Lots of good progress is being made to use hydrogen cells for automobiles. You put hydrogen in your gas tank and the by product (exhaust) is pure water. However, woe to those who get into an accident driving a Hydrogen Cell car because the compressed hydrogen is very explosive (boom).

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Dams are good..but they have their own set of problems (In Calf I don't think that there are enough waterways to generate the power needed..but I'm just guessing on that). Lots of environmentalists complain about the dams because of the environmental havoc they cause not the least of which are the salmon runs. Even in the places where special salmon "slides" have been built, the salmon are disrupted and are decreasing rapidly. (National Geographic Article sometime over the past 2 years).

 

[newmember]

nuclear is better....after all if accident happens then everything will be cleaned up and it will start all over again

 

[RhumbRunner13]

Koala.......

"Unit 1 of the Fermi Nuclear Power Station, located in Monroe, Michigan, started operating August 23, 1963, almost 10 years after groundbreaking. It was owned and operated by a consortium of 34 public utilities and equipment manufacturers known as the Power Reactor Development Company (PRDC) with Detroit Edison as the leader of the project.

Fermi 1 was built to generate steam for the production of electricity by using uranium as its atomic fuel -- while, at the same time, produce an inexhaustible supply of fuel in the form of plutonium, which also could be used to fuel nuclear reactors to generate electricity. Fermi 1 was a fast-breeder nuclear reactor and despite its experimental nature, the only one of commercial size in the world.

On October 5, 1966, a piece of metal broke away from the inside wall of the reactor and blocked the flow of liquid sodium through the core of nuclear fuel, causing the fuel to overheat and begin melting. Damage to the reactor and fuel assemblies took about four years to repair, after which the plant operated intermittently for only a few months. September 22, 1972, turned out to be the last operating date of Fermi 1. Employees at the plant continued to hope, expect and anticipate that PRDC would purchase additional uranium fuel to continue plant operation. However, the decision to decommission the plant was made November 27. The official decommissioning date was December 31, 1975.

Fermi Unit 1 is currently in long-term storage. Its fuel was shipped from the site in 1973. Detroit Edison Co., operator of the plant, currently plans to dismantle Unit 1 when Unit 2's operating license expires in 2025.

Non-radiological work under way at Unit 1 in April, 1998, includes the removal of asbestos that currently surrounds the equipment."

Your presentation of Fermi 1 seems a little shrill in light of what I can find! The difference between "meltdown killing Lake Erie life" and "causing the fuel to overheat and begin melting" is vast!

As to your contention that "Nukes create waste for other generations, and no feasible way to get rid of the waste." is also somewhat misleading. Several proposals have been made for safe disposal of waste but anti-nuk forces are willing to mislead and lie about the safety of such plans to attain their goal of stopping any further construction of new plants.

You seem to be doing it here as well!

Rhumb

 

[JazzManJim]

Until we can solve the political issue about waste storage, it is probably not smart for us to build anymore nukes. The only other viable alternative is to build more high-polluting gas/oil generators.

To me, it's a matter of those folks in power not being blunt enough. It is a case of "build the plant or get browned out or worse in the summer. You choose.". Then let the people choose which one they want. They got a taste of what it could be last summer, and stupid state governmental action nearly drove three power companies out of business.

But, as far as waste goes, we have a fairly efficient means of getting rid of it. It can pretty simply go as payload on a shuttle launch and be directed toward the Sun. It's been suggested by far smarter folks than I but, for some incredible reason, hasn't even been tried. I suspect that most opposition to Nuke Plants isn't because of a rational reason, but for some sort of strange little political agenda. Right now, there's no compelling reason we aren't building Nuke Plants where we need them.

 

[RhumbRunner13]

Lots of good progress is being made to use hydrogen cells for automobiles. You put hydrogen in your gas tank and the by product (exhaust) is pure water. However, woe to those who get into an accident driving a Hydrogen Cell car because the compressed hydrogen is very explosive (boom).

Just interested, LTGR, where do we get all this Hydrogen?

Rhumb

 

[sexy-girl]

we could build some super large solar energy collectors on the moon and beam the energy down to earth using microwaves and then covert that into electricity ... this is actually possible with our present technology ... although i know it will never happen


i thought california's main problem isn't that they have a lack of electricity but they sell there electricity onto other states


i think americans main electricity problem is to do with mismanagement and a lack of energy sharing ... england can actually draw power from france if we need too (we settle the bill later i presume ) ... i dont understand why america cant share electricity within the various states

 

[Skibum]

The amount of electricity needed to generate the hydrogen used in a fuel cell exceeds the amont of energy the fuel cell is capable of producing. That is a result of the inability to create a perfectly efficeint fuel cell. Fuel cells are like a battery. They are a place to store energy for use in moble applications like vehicles or portable generators. They will never be as efficeint as the plants that charge them.

 

[ksmybuttons]

I would like to hook my computer up to a treadmill which could be attached to a generator. That way I could post and get a little exercise, too.

I am concerned with Nuclear Power in that we know the consequences of a meltdown and our inability to disarm it.

Our earth is already paying the consequences of decisions that have been made not taking into account the end result.

I don't think we need anymore of those poor choices.

I don't have an answer, but I think it is important to conserve and have creative minds work on alternatives to environmentally hazardous energy.

 

[RhumbRunner13]

Good thoughts SG.....

we could build some super large solar energy collectors on the moon and beam the energy down to earth using microwaves and then covert that into electricity ... this is actually possible with our present technology ... although i know it will never happen


i thought california's main problem isn't that they have a lack of electricity but they sell there electricity onto other states


i think americans main electricity problem is to do with mismanagement and a lack of energy sharing ... england can actually draw power from france if we need too (we settle the bill later i presume ) ... i dont understand why america cant share electricity within the various states

As to your first paragraph, it's "Possible" but the energy recieved would be infinitesimal compared to that expended to produce energy.

As to sharing power you are completely correct and describe exactly what is done in the US, with the exception that California buys power from Oregon, Nevada and Arizona. Their problems started years ago with environmentalists stopping any expansion of power plants. Then their legislature developed a plan to limit price increases on electricity to the consumer, whom had no encouragment to conserve because power was cheap. Last summer it all came to a head. A few generators went down for and due to maintenance. Neighboring states were at their limit to provide power. The results were as expected. It might be noted that the anticipated rate increases to CA consumers would have brought them up to a little over the "norm" being paid throught the country.

There is a saying here from a motor oil commercial, "You can pay me now, or you can pay me later!"

Rhumb

 

[KillerMuffin]

But, as far as waste goes, we have a fairly efficient means of getting rid of it. It can pretty simply go as payload on a shuttle launch and be directed toward the Sun.

Actually, we have a more efficient method. The rods are recycleable.

 

[sexy-girl]

actually rhumb the power would be plenty for the whole planet ...here is the full article



If a physicist in Houston has his way you'll be able to say good-bye to pollution-causing energy production from fossil fuels. In the April/May issue of The Industrial Physicist Dr. David Criswell suggests that the Earth could be getting all of the electricity it needs using solar cells -- on the moon.

In the article Criswell proposes a Lunar Solar Power (LSP) System, using arrays of solar cells on the lunar surface to beam energy back to Earth. Criswell estimates that the 10 billion people living on Earth in 2050 will require 20 Terrawatts (TW) of power. The Moon receives 13,000 TW of power from the sun. Criswell suggests that harnessing just 1% of the solar power and directing it toward Earth could replace fossil fuel power plants on Earth.

"The lunar operations are primarily industrial engineering," says Criswell. He and Dr, Robert Waldron first described LSP in 1984 at a NASA symposium on Lunar Bases and Space Activities in the 21st Century. "Adequate knowledge of the moon and practical technologies have been available since the late 1970's to collect this power and beam it to Earth. The system can be built on the moon from lunar materials and operated on the moon and on Earth using existing technologies," reducing the expenses associated with transporting materials to the moon. He adds that LSP would be even cheaper if parts of the production machinery are designed to be made of lunar materials.

The LSP system consists of 20-40 lunar power bases, situated on the eastern and western edges of the moon, as seen from Earth. Each power base has a series of solar cells to collect energy from the sun, which is sent over buried electric wires to microwave generators that convert the solar electricity to microwaves. The generators then send the energy to screens that reflect the microwave beams toward Earth, where they are received by arrays of special antennas strategically placed about the globe. "Each antenna converts the microwave power to electricity that is fed into the local power grid," says Criswell.

"LSP is probably the only option for powering a prosperous world within the 21st century," says Criswell. "However, it does require a return to the moon." The system depends on some human occupation of the moon to build and run the lunar bases, but Criswell also sees this as an opportunity. "Once we are back and operating at large scale then going down the various learning curves will make traveling to the moon and working there 'routine.'"

 

[Skibum]

There are some technical problems with transmitting power by microwave. The size of the receiving antenna would probably have to be almost as large as the solar collector. And any bird or plane that flew through the transmission beam would be fried.

These problems are solvable, but I don't believe it has been done yet.

 

[Azwed]

Just interested, LTGR, where do we get all this Hydrogen?

Rhumb

Hydrogen is the most abudunt element in the universe.

 

[Azwed]

Hydrogen Fuel cells make electricty. They work off the inverse reaction to running large amounts of electricity through water that seperates the Hydrogen from the Oxygen. Hydrogen and oxygen combine through a fairly complicated process that produces electricity and water vapor.

The problem is that right now the process is a little to inefficent for mass production and the fuel cells are very, very heavy. We have several fuel cell powered cars in our engineering design project teams. One is a 97 chevy lumina that normaly weighs about 3500 lbs. The fuel cell version weighs over 5000 lbs.

 

[Weird Harold]

The problem with nuclear plants right now is the storage of the waste. In relative terms, the waste is very small for the power generated, but it is very toxic and has to be stored in a very safe place. The US government spent billions building a waste storage site in Yucca mountain near Las Vegas but there's a big political uproar about actually using it now. The engineering is done and it's the safest, best that we (the US) can do. However, after the billions of dollars were invested, now some of the politicians of Nevada are arguing successfully against actually using the facility.

Right now, all the waste is piling up at the various generation facilities around the country and it's not nearly as "safe" as Yucca mountain.

Wrong!

The government spent billions studying Yucca Mountain trying to prove that it's a safe place for nuclear waste -- in spite of the earthquake fault line that runs trhough it.

If congress overrides out governor's veto, there's still billions that needs to be spent to build a storage facility, and transporting all of the waste to the site -- through YOUR backyard as well as mine.

There are salt mines in New Mexico (among other places) that are geologically better places to store nuclear waste. Yucca Mountain is only attractive because it's close to the nuclear test site which is already radioactive -- on the surface and deep underground from bomb testing.

 

[weed]

So shoot down enough sun and moonbeams for me to keep Lit alive in my pc terminal and keep the nukes away until they've got it perfected.

I sure as hell don't want any chance of a meltdown in my backyard (or anywhere for that matter) but don't give up hope of improving nuclear technology.

Ideally, we should find the power in the wind, the water and the sun but such would require commitment by the world.

 

[RhumbRunner13]

No arguements Az...

"Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe."

But other than in deep space we can not find it in H2 form. To attain hydrogen in bulk on Earth we must generally separate it from it's compound with oxygen (water), as you pointed out in your second post, that requires far more energy than any method of recombination will produce. If we could find a way of producing more energy from the recombination than required for the separation, we will have "a perpetual motion machine". Sorry that's a phyisical impossibility!

Rhumb

 

[RawHumor]

Re: No arguements Az...

<snip> we will have "a perpetual motion machine". Sorry that's a phyisical impossibility!

Rhumb

But that hasn't stopped people from trying to patent them.