<< <i>On the other hand, I wonder how many of the fabulously wealthy countries today with huge oil money are diversifying their economies. When oil dries up they will be way up a creek. It appears the Saudis will be furthest up said creek. >>
Don't worry. We'll send them foriegn aid.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
We either start building the coal plants or risk massive population losses.
When someone comes up with some oil then we can slow down on building coal. >>
Unfortunately, coal plants will not be able to quickly save us. While we have a large amount of coal, the problem is the transportation bottleneck. The existing trains that are required to move the coal are already choked up.... and there is little or no room for any more capacity. Plants could be built right near the mines.... but electricity losses occur over distance, so that will also not gain us alot.
We've allowed ourselves to get into this situation. All of us have some blame.... we admired the hummers when they came out, we purchased new homes that are doubled in size that we really don't need, we want the latest computers hand large screen tv's. The philosophy has tended to be to have fun today, and don't worry about tomorrow. Unfortunately, it looks like 'tomorrow' may be crashing upon us.
That being said, I also am disgusted with how our country has been held up by the environmentalist groups. That has prevented us from drilling in Alaska; stopped any building of distillation units, nearly killed the nuclear industry (which by the way is one of the brightest hopes that I can see for power in this country). And the one thing that really gets to me is that we are 'prevented' from drilling in the Gulf in many areas, even when other countries like China and Venezuela (sp?) are drilling away and taking it right in our back yards. How stupid is that????
Right now, there are applications to build 10 - 20 new nuclear plants in this country. Streamline the applications, and lets get started building those. Meanwhile, open up the Gulf to allow the drilling for our country also. And lets start talking a national transportation system of a new generation of trains. Building more tracks will be difficult, with alot of resistance from landowners, etc... but this is an area that I consider highly important for our country. We cannot continue to depend on everyone driving everywhere by themselves all the time like in the past, and need the infrastructure to allow more mass transportation and the ability to move goods (and coal) over long distances.
It's been mentioned on this forum before about the theory of peak oil. If you go to this web site http://www.peakoil.org/ and do some reading, be prepared to be shocked on how our lives may be affected. Unproven theory? Perhaps, and maybe not. One thing I am sensing in our country right now is a sense of urgency. I wonder if we are not being told the whole story... of how we may be in worse shape than we irealize. One reason I say this is the fact about how may wind turbines are going up right now. A very large number. A weekend does not pass that when I am on the road, I see multiple trucks carrying the blades and support structures... seems like a real rush is going on right now to get these constructed. Hmm... why now??
I forget who recently posted this, but 'Peak oil" only refers to 'easily' accessible Oil.
There is most likely many multiples the amount of Oil still in the Earth.
The Oil Shales of Colorado for instance; there's a rumor that Saskatchewan (next to Alberta's Oil Sands) has just as much Oil in their Oil Sands; how about Alaska? There must be plenty of Oil there. Also, deeper drilling technology could provide much more Oil.
Bottom line in my opinion is this.....
Cheap Oil is a thing of the Past.
and,
if we want more Oil, the Environment unfortunately, is going to suffer.
"Gold is money, and nothing else" (JP Morgan, 1912)
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
I was at Lake Powell in Arizona last year and visited a coal plant there. We have the technology to burn coal efficiently and cleanly and this plant was a great example. Our best alternative for electricty generation is nuclear power. I live 15 miles from a nuke plant and my good hunting buddy works there. He has been pulling 6-12's for the past year because there are not enough workers to run the plant. Here is an industry with a HUGE demand for workers, yet we worry about jobs going to Mexico. And, since we cant bury the waste 4 miles deep under a mountain, it sits in castes in the parking lot.
As Tincup stated we have been taken over by the tree hugging, tiedye wearing, soldier haters. I suppose they would rather see grandma freeze to death in her home in Chicago this winter than see a polar bear in a zoo.
Populations suffer massive decline when they exceed carrying capacity. We, Americans, have been promoting the human population growth in areas that are really inhospitable for human life. American drug/medical researchers have extended the average human's life by decades over the past century. Humans have no "entitlement" to live forever, yet we have been forcing this upon the planet.
<< <i>Excellant commentary by Cladking and Tincup.
I was at Lake Powell in Arizona last year and visited a coal plant there. We have the technology to burn coal efficiently and cleanly and this plant was a great example. Our best alternative for electricty generation is nuclear power. I live 15 miles from a nuke plant and my good hunting buddy works there. He has been pulling 6-12's for the past year because there are not enough workers to run the plant. Here is an industry with a HUGE demand for workers, yet we worry about jobs going to Mexico. And, since we cant bury the waste 4 miles deep under a mountain, it sits in castes in the parking lot.
As Tincup stated we have been taken over by the tree hugging, tiedye wearing, soldier haters. I suppose they would rather see grandma freeze to death in her home in Chicago this winter than see a polar bear in a zoo.
Populations suffer massive decline when they exceed carrying capacity. We, Americans, have been promoting the human population growth in areas that are really inhospitable for human life. American drug/medical researchers have extended the average human's life by decades over the past century. Humans have no "entitlement" to live forever, yet we have been forcing this upon the planet. >>
Do you support nuclear plants?
I'm a tree hugging hippie American. I take offense to your commentary in that regard. I oppose war, and stand for peace. I am against the oppression of the people in our country, and abroad.
Nuclear power is Dangerous, it always has been it always will be. Its also less than 2 percent efficient, and must be controlled by a government agency. I'm sorry, we can afford to destroy the world with anymore nuclear testing, or meltdowns. Hydrogen fuel is one of the best things to adopt in this country. Electric power is just as much obtainable at little cost without using oil, or nuclear energy. We have obtained electric power that is clean and is over 100 percent efficient.. Thats right Over unity has been tapped, because of a new understanding for simple physics. I wont argue with you on that either. Over unity has been documented, and is real energy efficiency. Do your own research. I refuse to hold the hands of such uniformed ignorance.
I don't need to debate it, because its a debasement of myself, and the morals of the people who live in this country who would say otherwise. Energy dependent yes, but by using sound morals, ethics, and highly efficient devises. I oppose big oil, and I refuse to argue with ignorance, or an ignorant nation.
We would all be wise to focus not on energy, and take a closer look at the deficit, our banking systems, and exports.
Focus on Africa, and become a commerce rich partner, like china has done, building power plants for them, wile we get rich resources that benefit both nations. A free trade agreement with them would do wonders for this country, and theres.
Humblepie
I have found power in the mysteries of thought.
It is always a question of knowing and seeing, and not that of believing.
Our virtues, and our failings are inseparable, like force, and matter. When they separate, man is no more.
We either start building the coal plants or risk massive population losses.
When someone comes up with some oil then we can slow down on building coal. >>
The Chinese are using huge amounts of diesel fuel because coal is in short supply and they are starting new power plants at the rate of 1 or more a week. A local ethanol plant burns 18 railcars of the stuff every week.
we can take a closer look at energy efficiency, By Having the ability to be energy efficient for ones self. that means personal generator systems, and battery banks. Wind, or solar power, wile getting off the grid, and, or adding to it. A 100% self reliance for meeting your own energy needs. The idea would be for producing a surplus of energy, and being paid for taking the initiative to add to it. The electric motors of today would kick the heck out of even the finest sports cars. Plugging into your own grid for recharging, at the same time getting off the force feeding of big oils monopoly's.
I think its more important to first inform the public on what the deficit means to the economic collapse for the dollar, and our savings. It more important to understand the underlying circumstances we face in the front of a real depression, and how that would effect or lives.
Humblepie
I have found power in the mysteries of thought.
It is always a question of knowing and seeing, and not that of believing.
Our virtues, and our failings are inseparable, like force, and matter. When they separate, man is no more.
Several years ago I read an article about US energy consumption after the power outages of 2003/4. VP Cheney sat down with a number of high level executives from US energy companies. Once the reporters were gone [I realize the writer of the article either has a source or was still there] the execs looked at the VP and said "we [the United States we] need nuclear power for the future growth of our country."
Not my field of expertise so consider the source, but anyone can find how the U.S. government has been trying to streamline registration of new nucelar power plants. The paperwork for the first new attempt was filed several months ago. IF there were no challenges, the new plant would be online in 2014. The power companies involved expect challenges.
I've looked into the objections to storing nuclear waste underneath Yucca Mountain. From what I've read it is the best choice we've seen so far. What I don't get is the US government told nuclear power plant operators IN THE 1970's. They only needed temporary waste storage until the gov't waste storage opened. Almost 40 years later we have nuclear material in guarded, but easily found, supposedly temporary locations. Our elected officials in an election year, chose to worry about steroids in baseball rather than make an attempt to overcome objections and begin reasonable storage of nuclear waste. Opponents are so rabid they work against nuclear material even getting transported by train in their state.
BTW: I look a bit to check my memory against the internet. Criticize our leadership as is your right, but seek to get the facts correct when you debate me. According to http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0523-01.htm in 2001 our administration: "However, Cheney did not back away from the administration's contention that massive new production infrastructure should be built.
He said Bush's policy assumes "very significant" savings from conservation and increased use of renewable energy sources such as sun and wind, but said they will not be enough to meet the nation's energy needs.
"That means," Cheney said, "it's going to be coal-fired, it's going to be gas-fired or it's going to come from nuclear power."
While I might agree that electric and hydrogen sources for power are good alternatives (once we figure out how to efficiently mass-produce them, as well as build a storage method that is not so toxic to the environment), your argument about nuclear power is quite incorrect. Nuclear is one of the most efficient methods of producing power on the planet. Raw material in vs. power output is many THOUSANDS of multiples, and the byproduct for a plant's waste isn't much larger than a semi-truck/year, aside from the waste water. The main problem is how to dispose of the reactor waste and contaminated water. It can be done, but we really have to work together to make it happen. I've heard already of methods that remove the radioactive waste factors (heavy metals, etc.) from water, essentially rendering the waste water drinkable. But given the climate in this country, if we ever tried to distribute the purified water, well...I'm sure you can imagine THAT fun little issue.
BTW: Because one has a differing viewpoint does not always indicate ignorance.
<< <i>
<< <i>what is OVER 100% efficient?
just asking
why is nuclear only 2%? >>
we can take a closer look at energy efficiency, By Having the ability to be energy efficient for ones self. that means personal generator systems, and battery banks. Wind, or solar power, wile getting off the grid, and, or adding to it. A 100% self reliance for meeting your own energy needs. The idea would be for producing a surplus of energy, and being paid for taking the initiative to add to it. The electric motors of today would kick the heck out of even the finest sports cars. Plugging into your own grid for recharging, at the same time getting off the force feeding of big oils monopoly's.
I think its more important to first inform the public on what the deficit means to the economic collapse for the dollar, and our savings. It more important to understand the underlying circumstances we face in the front of a real depression, and how that would effect or lives. >>
<< <i>Excellant commentary by Cladking and Tincup.
I was at Lake Powell in Arizona last year and visited a coal plant there. We have the technology to burn coal efficiently and cleanly and this plant was a great example. Our best alternative for electricty generation is nuclear power. I live 15 miles from a nuke plant and my good hunting buddy works there. He has been pulling 6-12's for the past year because there are not enough workers to run the plant. Here is an industry with a HUGE demand for workers, yet we worry about jobs going to Mexico. And, since we cant bury the waste 4 miles deep under a mountain, it sits in castes in the parking lot.
As Tincup stated we have been taken over by the tree hugging, tiedye wearing, soldier haters. I suppose they would rather see grandma freeze to death in her home in Chicago this winter than see a polar bear in a zoo.
Populations suffer massive decline when they exceed carrying capacity. We, Americans, have been promoting the human population growth in areas that are really inhospitable for human life. American drug/medical researchers have extended the average human's life by decades over the past century. Humans have no "entitlement" to live forever, yet we have been forcing this upon the planet. >>
Do you support nuclear plants?
I'm a tree hugging hippie American. I take offense to your commentary in that regard. I oppose war, and stand for peace. I am against the oppression of the people in our country, and abroad.
Nuclear power is Dangerous, it always has been it always will be. Its also less than 2 percent efficient, and must be controlled by a government agency. I'm sorry, we can afford to destroy the world with anymore nuclear testing, or meltdowns. Hydrogen fuel is one of the best things to adopt in this country. Electric power is just as much obtainable at little cost without using oil, or nuclear energy. We have obtained electric power that is clean and is over 100 percent efficient.. Thats right Over unity has been tapped, because of a new understanding for simple physics. I wont argue with you on that either. Over unity has been documented, and is real energy efficiency. Do your own research. I refuse to hold the hands of such uniformed ignorance.
I don't need to debate it, because its a debasement of myself, and the morals of the people who live in this country who would say otherwise. Energy dependent yes, but by using sound morals, ethics, and highly efficient devises. I oppose big oil, and I refuse to argue with ignorance, or an ignorant nation.
We would all be wise to focus not on energy, and take a closer look at the deficit, our banking systems, and exports.
Focus on Africa, and become a commerce rich partner, like china has done, building power plants for them, wile we get rich resources that benefit both nations. A free trade agreement with them would do wonders for this country, and theres. >>
Oh good Lord, where do I start with this post. You sound like Oprah, who wants to give all our money to corrupt poorly run African governments.
Let's see your thermodynamic analysis that shows nuke power is only 2% efficient. I'll save you the trouble, you don't have any. And hydrogen is not a fuel, it is an element that must be extracted from water at a high energy COST to be used elsewhere in simple combustion or a fuel cell. It is essentially an energy storage medium that is less efficient than many other forms.
Finally, it is simply impossible for ANYTHING to be more than 100% efficient.
<< <i>Excellant commentary by Cladking and Tincup.
I was at Lake Powell in Arizona last year and visited a coal plant there. We have the technology to burn coal efficiently and cleanly and this plant was a great example. Our best alternative for electricty generation is nuclear power. I live 15 miles from a nuke plant and my good hunting buddy works there. He has been pulling 6-12's for the past year because there are not enough workers to run the plant. Here is an industry with a HUGE demand for workers, yet we worry about jobs going to Mexico. And, since we cant bury the waste 4 miles deep under a mountain, it sits in castes in the parking lot.
As Tincup stated we have been taken over by the tree hugging, tiedye wearing, soldier haters. I suppose they would rather see grandma freeze to death in her home in Chicago this winter than see a polar bear in a zoo.
Populations suffer massive decline when they exceed carrying capacity. We, Americans, have been promoting the human population growth in areas that are really inhospitable for human life. American drug/medical researchers have extended the average human's life by decades over the past century. Humans have no "entitlement" to live forever, yet we have been forcing this upon the planet. >>
Do you support nuclear plants?
I'm a tree hugging hippie American. I take offense to your commentary in that regard. I oppose war, and stand for peace. I am against the oppression of the people in our country, and abroad.
Nuclear power is Dangerous, it always has been it always will be. Its also less than 2 percent efficient, and must be controlled by a government agency. I'm sorry, we can afford to destroy the world with anymore nuclear testing, or meltdowns. Hydrogen fuel is one of the best things to adopt in this country. Electric power is just as much obtainable at little cost without using oil, or nuclear energy. We have obtained electric power that is clean and is over 100 percent efficient.. Thats right Over unity has been tapped, because of a new understanding for simple physics. I wont argue with you on that either. Over unity has been documented, and is real energy efficiency. Do your own research. I refuse to hold the hands of such uniformed ignorance.
I don't need to debate it, because its a debasement of myself, and the morals of the people who live in this country who would say otherwise. Energy dependent yes, but by using sound morals, ethics, and highly efficient devises. I oppose big oil, and I refuse to argue with ignorance, or an ignorant nation.
We would all be wise to focus not on energy, and take a closer look at the deficit, our banking systems, and exports.
Focus on Africa, and become a commerce rich partner, like china has done, building power plants for them, wile we get rich resources that benefit both nations. A free trade agreement with them would do wonders for this country, and theres. >>
Wow.... thanks thestig.
You have made it very clear the thought process that has helped to get us into this situation. Better than I ever could.
There IS NO technology that can replace the use of oil at this time. If you have knowledge of something that is over 100% efficient, as you imply.... please share. In my years of working in science areas, that is sure news to me. I would try to do the research as you suggest, but am clueless on where to even start........... please inform me.
Hydrogen?? Please explain how it can be safely generated and stored, especially in mobile units such as cars, that will allow going much distance. I'd sure like to know.
Solar?? Please do some calculations to show just how big of solar panels are required to meet the energy needs of just your own home, let alone supply the country.
Hydro?? Sites are all taken that can basically be used for it. And what environmental group will EVER let one of these dams be built again??
Nuclear Power.... dangerous??? Please do the research that you are asking us to do..... and see for yourself just how many deaths have ocurred in nuclear power. Compare the nuclear industry to the coal industry.... and how many deaths occur from mining, black lung, explosions, the amount of energy it takes to get the coal to the plants, the explosions at the coal power plants, the environmental impact (strip mining, the massive CO and NOx emissions, etc....)
Nuclear Power only 2 % effiicient? wow....... again, please provide your data to back this up. Definitely news to me.
<< <i>While I might agree that electric and hydrogen sources for power are good alternatives (once we figure out how to efficiently mass-produce them, as well as build a storage method that is not so toxic to the environment), your argument about nuclear power is quite incorrect. Nuclear is one of the most efficient methods of producing power on the planet. Raw material in vs. power output is many THOUSANDS of multiples, and the byproduct for a plant's waste isn't much larger than a semi-truck/year, aside from the waste water. The main problem is how to dispose of the reactor waste and contaminated water. It can be done, but we really have to work together to make it happen. I've heard already of methods that remove the radioactive waste factors (heavy metals, etc.) from water, essentially rendering the waste water drinkable. But given the climate in this country, if we ever tried to distribute the purified water, well...I'm sure you can imagine THAT fun little issue.
BTW: Because one has a differing viewpoint does not always indicate ignorance.
<< <i>
<< <i>what is OVER 100% efficient?
just asking
why is nuclear only 2%? >>
we can take a closer look at energy efficiency, By Having the ability to be energy efficient for ones self. that means personal generator systems, and battery banks. Wind, or solar power, wile getting off the grid, and, or adding to it. A 100% self reliance for meeting your own energy needs. The idea would be for producing a surplus of energy, and being paid for taking the initiative to add to it. The electric motors of today would kick the heck out of even the finest sports cars. Plugging into your own grid for recharging, at the same time getting off the force feeding of big oils monopoly's.
I think its more important to first inform the public on what the deficit means to the economic collapse for the dollar, and our savings. It more important to understand the underlying circumstances we face in the front of a real depression, and how that would effect or lives. >>
>>
One must never forget, we all must never forget. One disaster can devastate this entire country. Do you not remember the effect on Hiroshima, and its peoples? Do you forget the Chernobyl disaster? or even 3 mile island? A devastation on a country, its peoples, and the effects this had on the entire world? the fall out, the contamination, the mutations.. Will you also forget 9/11? WE have the responsibility the ensure it never happens again.
Talk about statistics, the more cars on the road result in more car accidents. the more power plants, and radioactive waste the greater the chance for more disasters. I saw a truck in California burn to the ground, it was transporting low level radioactive material, It simply got to Hot. the truck was a pile of ashes, and a added contamination on our water supply, and the environment.
How the heck does that look to you? nice..
Nuclear Fallout Testing has killed thousands, a new study shows.
thestig, I'll address some of the topics you just brought up.
First, Chernobyl. When I replied to your earlier post, I obviously knew you would counter with Chernobyl. A disaster, absolutely. But if you are comparing that in any way to the US nuclear industry, there is no comparison. The US looked at the technology that the USSR was using, and abandoned that (never used) many many years ago. The USSR used it because it was much cheaper to do so. And were pushing the system beyond what it was designed for. The tradeoff was the danger with the design. There is no comparison to the technology that is in use for the current generation of nuclear plants in the U.S. , let alone the greatly advanced designs of the the next generation that will be built. If you are using Chernobyl as the rationale for having no nuclear power in the U.S., you are greatly misinformed of the technologies being used, or do not understand the concepts.
Okay, let's look at TMI. Another terrible accident, to be sure. BUT absolutely nothing at all on the scale of Chernobyl. The U.S. nuclear industry can be classified into two time periods... pre TMI, and after TMI. Anyone in the nuclear industry can tell you the pain they went through, after the TMI accident. The TMI was a wake up call. The industry had become complacent up to that point, and things vastly changed after that. Again, there is no comparison. The regulatory requirements and safeguards tripled after TMI, and has never let up. Another point about TMI.... note that the release was of noble gases. Anyone familiar with the nuclear industry knows that noble gases are non-reactive.... that means they will not deposit in the body. One may breathe them in, but then breathe them right back out. So no long term affects were likely with that. The main concern, was with the I131, which can enter the food chain and enter the body. However, there again, it is relatively short lived, and is basically gone in several weeks. And the amounts were not that large.
Lastly.... you are now comparing nuclear power plants with nuclear warhead testing. Huh......?? I don't even know where to start with that, if you seriously think there is any comparison there. Unless you are thinking nuclear power plants are depositing fallout similar to the bomb testing.... in which case you are sadly misinformed again.
Now.... please give me that information that you mentioned earlier..... about the well known technologies with greater than 100% efficiency. I am ready to embrace it, if you can head me in the right direction. Also, any of that info will be appreciated about how big of solar panels we need for our homes, where we can build hydros, and where I can buy an efficient hydrogen car that is usuable......
I do not want to give anyone the impression that I am anti-environment. Far from it.... I conserved when it was not trendy to do so. I just think things are way out of proportion right now, and more focus needs to be given to the energy fiasco.
No nuclear energy? Get in bed with the African nations? Hummmmmm...this will require some thinkin'.
War over oil is not too far fetched an idea especially since Russia has indicated that they were experiencing peak oil and a pitty too, just when the oligarchs were getting comfortable. Much better methinks to try something else besides fighting for oil with desperate, nuclear armed nations. You want to see some radiation clouds...try that one on for size; I think it's called nuclear winter. So, nuclear winter or alternative energy sources (nuke plants), make a choice. You can all sing Kumbayaa together while you freeze in the dark.
African nations, most are too stupid to prosper and even more inept at nation building. It's poor form to characterize them because there are some exceptions, but what the tinpot leaders don't kill end up dying from starvation, drougth, and pestulance. For these people, genocide is just part of the deal, they don't even qualify as third world nations. Their dictators and corrupt governments will be gutted, pillaged and left as a wasteland when the modern nations get through working over their resources. No need for us to get in there with the vultures, China should do quite well without our help. Best thing we could do is to just buy the darn place and be done with it. I'm sure Mugabwe wouldn't mind that, wonder how much he wants for the whole deal? If maybe we could get a consortium together made of some responsible nations, we could get in there and try and do some good for those desperate populaces.
Hydrogen?? Please explain how it can be safely generated and stored, especially in mobile units such as cars, that will allow going much distance. I'd sure like to know.
Solar?? Please do some calculations to show just how big of solar panels are required to meet the energy needs of just your own home, let alone supply the country.
Hydro?? Sites are all taken that can basically be used for it. And what environmental group will EVER let one of these dams be built again??
Nuclear Power.... dangerous??? Please do the research that you are asking us to do..... and see for yourself just how many deaths have ocurred in nuclear power. Compare the nuclear industry to the coal industry.... and how many deaths occur from mining, black lung, explosions, the amount of energy it takes to get the coal to the plants, the explosions at the coal power plants, the environmental impact (strip mining, the massive CO and NOx emissions, etc....)
Nuclear Power only 2 % effiicient? wow....... again, please provide your data to back this up. Definitely news to me. >>
coming from some one who claims to be a scientist, I would have expected more knowledge in the form of understanding the function of thermal dynamics.
If you take the time as a scientist to understand these 3 laws, you may find out what efficiency means in terms of waste, and heat. Understanding the amount of unburned gasoline in a car would give you a clue as to how much waste of energy is created in the form of heat, and unburned fuel resulting in an efficiency rating per gallon of about 50 %.
On demand hydrogen is obtainable, without the use of storage tanks.
Radiant energy has been proven, and there is only one man to obtain a patent.
A back flux in a magnetic field results in a spike of usable electrical power, that has been wasted since the conception of the electric generator, motor, and appliances.
Newtonian based functions, and principles has its avenues. Understanding the concept of equal, and opposite reactions also has its benefits.
I studied energy for most of my life. I am fascinated by its electric functions. I have a genral understanding of quantum physics, general physics, and thermal dynamics.
I opened my eyes for the understanding, truth with an eye on the solar system, and the universe for its secrets. I took time learn how magnetic fields function. I understand were the electron , and the proton resides. <<< A secret you could hardly believe, or even imagine. I can not give you the ability to understand these principles in a few paragraphs, even if I wanted to. I'm not boasting about my education, because I only have something to say about myself. I could only show you to an unopened door, you must use the keys.
I assume thestig will be first in line to volunteer to have his power shut off when the grid doesn't have enough fossil-fuel based electricity to meet the demand.
<< <i>. Best thing we could do is to just buy the darn place and be done with it. I'm sure Mugabwe wouldn't mind that, wonder how much he wants for the whole deal? If maybe we could get a consortium together made of some responsible nations, we could get in there and try and do some good for those desperate populaces. >>
Thumbs up.
I cant tell you how much I detest the use of nuclear power, its wastes, its environmental damages, and uses for war.
I did a study on a guy who made a simple nuclear battery that would be powered by nuclear waste. I even posted it in the test forum. It a very long paper, so I will find the link.
Its information that should never be lost, a basic understanding of the concept is what I got from reading it several times.
I know there is no fall out from a power plants operation, but there would be in case of a melt down, or a plane crash now wouldn't there be?
If you believe the government could not defend the pentagon you are mistaken, but yet we are lead to believe in its possibility's. link
Humblepie
I have found power in the mysteries of thought.
It is always a question of knowing and seeing, and not that of believing.
Our virtues, and our failings are inseparable, like force, and matter. When they separate, man is no more.
Unfortunately, coal plants will not be able to quickly save us. While we have a large amount of coal, the problem is the transportation bottleneck. The existing trains that are required to move the coal are already choked up.... and there is little or no room for any more capacity. Plants could be built right near the mines.... but electricity losses occur over distance, so that will also not gain us alot.
We've allowed ourselves to get into this situation. All of us have some blame.... we admired the hummers when they came out, we purchased new homes that are doubled in size that we really don't need, we want the latest computers hand large screen tv's. The philosophy has tended to be to have fun today, and don't worry about tomorrow. Unfortunately, it looks like 'tomorrow' may be crashing upon us.
That being said, I also am disgusted with how our country has been held up by the environmentalist groups. That has prevented us from drilling in Alaska; stopped any building of distillation units, nearly killed the nuclear industry (which by the way is one of the brightest hopes that I can see for power in this country). And the one thing that really gets to me is that we are 'prevented' from drilling in the Gulf in many areas, even when other countries like China and Venezuela (sp?) are drilling away and taking it right in our back yards. How stupid is that????
Right now, there are applications to build 10 - 20 new nuclear plants in this country. Streamline the applications, and lets get started building those. Meanwhile, open up the Gulf to allow the drilling for our country also. And lets start talking a national transportation system of a new generation of trains. Building more tracks will be difficult, with alot of resistance from landowners, etc... but this is an area that I consider highly important for our country. We cannot continue to depend on everyone driving everywhere by themselves all the time like in the past, and need the infrastructure to allow more mass transportation and the ability to move goods (and coal) over long distances.
It's been mentioned on this forum before about the theory of peak oil. If you go to this web site http://www.peakoil.org/ and do some reading, be prepared to be shocked on how our lives may be affected. Unproven theory? Perhaps, and maybe not. One thing I am sensing in our country right now is a sense of urgency. I wonder if we are not being told the whole story... of how we may be in worse shape than we irealize. One reason I say this is the fact about how may wind turbines are going up right now. A very large number. A weekend does not pass that when I am on the road, I see multiple trucks carrying the blades and support structures... seems like a real rush is going on right now to get these constructed. Hmm... why now?? >>
You're right that you can't transport electricity efficiently but you can convert it to fuel cell and transport it extremely efficiently. It can be delivered to the consumer at nearly 90% efficiency which is better than we currently do with the electrical grid. These p;lants should be in Wy- oming, Kansas and low pouplation centers in that area and the energy shipped primarily to the mid west. The east coast can ramp up to run 50% on nuclear as well as west coast polulation centers with low den- sities downwind. The west coast could use a little solar and wind as well.
With most cars converted to fuel cell within ten years oil demand would actually be dropping and what's available used to power fuel cells and electric generation on the coasts.
It would be wise to try to drive the cost of oil down while maintaining its price with taxes to stretch out the supply and diminish our depend- ence on it. We will still need all those chemicals in it to make the myriad products that come from oil for a very long time.
It's very late we get going on this. It's just incredible that we might be looking at peak oil now and we're burning little more coal and no more nuclear than we were ten years ago.
thestig, that is an interesting article about the nuclear battery.
However, I can see a flaw in it. Where do you get the Sr-90 from to fuel it?? I'll give you a clue.... that most likely will need to come from a nuclear reactor.
Even if one was to develop the battery to use 'natural' radioactive materials, those materials will need to be concentrated. thus, plants that will need to exist just like there are now.... to make fuel for nuclear reactors.
Sr-90 is also a very dangerous isotope. It is very similar chemically to Calcium, and thus if it gets into our body, it will deposit into bone material and stay deposited. If I recall, it has a long half life, so it will stay inside you for quite some time.
And once the material is decayed.... then what? It needs to be replaced on a frequent basis in the battery. So while that is neat technology, and may be very useful for a satellite in orbit, I don't see where it will solve anything here on earth.
Speaking of nuclear, anyone have a collection of those neutron irradiated dimes that you used to be able to get at Oak Ridge laboratories?? what dates do you have?
I think the only one I have right now is a Roosevelt dime dated 1946, and in one of those 'rubber' type holders. I think the metal holders are really neat...
Unfortunately, coal plants will not be able to quickly save us. While we have a large amount of coal, the problem is the transportation bottleneck. The existing trains that are required to move the coal are already choked up.... and there is little or no room for any more capacity. Plants could be built right near the mines.... but electricity losses occur over distance, so that will also not gain us alot.
We've allowed ourselves to get into this situation. All of us have some blame.... we admired the hummers when they came out, we purchased new homes that are doubled in size that we really don't need, we want the latest computers hand large screen tv's. The philosophy has tended to be to have fun today, and don't worry about tomorrow. Unfortunately, it looks like 'tomorrow' may be crashing upon us.
That being said, I also am disgusted with how our country has been held up by the environmentalist groups. That has prevented us from drilling in Alaska; stopped any building of distillation units, nearly killed the nuclear industry (which by the way is one of the brightest hopes that I can see for power in this country). And the one thing that really gets to me is that we are 'prevented' from drilling in the Gulf in many areas, even when other countries like China and Venezuela (sp?) are drilling away and taking it right in our back yards. How stupid is that????
Right now, there are applications to build 10 - 20 new nuclear plants in this country. Streamline the applications, and lets get started building those. Meanwhile, open up the Gulf to allow the drilling for our country also. And lets start talking a national transportation system of a new generation of trains. Building more tracks will be difficult, with alot of resistance from landowners, etc... but this is an area that I consider highly important for our country. We cannot continue to depend on everyone driving everywhere by themselves all the time like in the past, and need the infrastructure to allow more mass transportation and the ability to move goods (and coal) over long distances.
It's been mentioned on this forum before about the theory of peak oil. If you go to this web site http://www.peakoil.org/ and do some reading, be prepared to be shocked on how our lives may be affected. Unproven theory? Perhaps, and maybe not. One thing I am sensing in our country right now is a sense of urgency. I wonder if we are not being told the whole story... of how we may be in worse shape than we irealize. One reason I say this is the fact about how may wind turbines are going up right now. A very large number. A weekend does not pass that when I am on the road, I see multiple trucks carrying the blades and support structures... seems like a real rush is going on right now to get these constructed. Hmm... why now?? >>
You're right that you can't transport electricity efficiently but you can convert it to fuel cell and transport it extremely efficiently. It can be delivered to the consumer at nearly 90% efficiency which is better than we currently do with the electrical grid. These p;lants should be in Wy- oming, Kansas and low pouplation centers in that area and the energy shipped primarily to the mid west. The east coast can ramp up to run 50% on nuclear as well as west coast polulation centers with low den- sities downwind. The west coast could use a little solar and wind as well.
With most cars converted to fuel cell within ten years oil demand would actually be dropping and what's available used to power fuel cells and electric generation on the coasts.
It would be wise to try to drive the cost of oil down while maintaining its price with taxes to stretch out the supply and diminish our depend- ence on it. We will still need all those chemicals in it to make the myriad products that come from oil for a very long time.
It's very late we get going on this. It's just incredible that we might be looking at peak oil now and we're burning little more coal and no more nuclear than we were ten years ago. >>
And an earthquake would pose no threat? come on just built them on the San Andreana's fault why don't you, I cant believe you do not fear its risks.. How could any human being think for one minute risk doesn't exist.. Its a risk I would not be willing to take, If anyone would say otherwise they only need to consider the future possibility's of disaster, or a war on american soil were energy is always first to be taken out....
Humblepie
I have found power in the mysteries of thought.
It is always a question of knowing and seeing, and not that of believing.
Our virtues, and our failings are inseparable, like force, and matter. When they separate, man is no more.
<< <i>thestig, that is an interesting article about the nuclear battery.
However, I can see a flaw in it. Where do you get the Sr-90 from to fuel it?? I'll give you a clue.... that most likely will need to come from a nuclear reactor.
Even if one was to develop the battery to use 'natural' radioactive materials, those materials will need to be concentrated. thus, plants that will need to exist just like there are now.... to make fuel for nuclear reactors.
Sr-90 is also a very dangerous isotope. It is very similar chemically to Calcium, and thus if it gets into our body, it will deposit into bone material and stay deposited. If I recall, it has a long half life, so it will stay inside you for quite some time.
And once the material is decayed.... then what? It needs to be replaced on a frequent basis in the battery. So while that is neat technology, and may be very useful for a satellite in orbit, I don't see where it will solve anything here on earth. >>
did you know we are a country that doesn't take the time to re enrich the spent fuel rods? thats right, I think Germany does. You cant have a government hell bent on nuclear power, when they are unwilling, or incapable of using it safely, and efficiently. Did I mention they cant even defend there own pentagon, and they have missiles all over the place..
Did I also mention thats total BS. someone also mention they still cant even store it properly. I even saw a truck reduced to ashes, because they don't even know how to properly transport it.. It was on the top of the Cahone pass in California.
Lets please take a look at the deficit, I think this is more important, considering the dollar may be heading for a new all time low, and you cash in the banking systems are at risk..
Ps. one of my favorite tunes is earth crisis by steel pulse.
Humblepie
I have found power in the mysteries of thought.
It is always a question of knowing and seeing, and not that of believing.
Our virtues, and our failings are inseparable, like force, and matter. When they separate, man is no more.
With the safety protocols now in place a melt down is impossible in the USA.
All prior accidents have been safely contained.
The nuclear industry is committed to producing clean energy, cheaply and safely.
The Titanic is a modern ship that is impossible to ever sink.
Waste materials contain radioactive by products whose half life is 1000 years.
We think that the risk of a massive earthquake impacting on the deep storage areas for radioactive wast as most improbable and highly unlikely.
There is absolutely no risk to the American Public.
The economy is fundamentally sound- H.Hoover
There is light at the end of the tunnel - Johnson
We do not believe that smoking is in any way addicting. The Presidents of the major Tobacco companies
Tobacco smoke has not been proven to be injurious to the people - The American Tobacco Institute
Seat belts are impractical to use and are not viewed as as a meaningful issue , in the reduction of injuries in traffic accidents The American Automobile Industry
Air bags are just to difficult to manufacture for use in automobiles and may in fact injure more people then the help. Also the cost per vehicle would be very high and be passed on to the consumer The American Automobile Industry
Increasing the mileage per gallon for American Automobiles is beyond our technology at the present time. Also the cost of such improvements would add substantial cost to the car which would increase what American Consumers must pay for a car. The American Automobile Industry.
Asbestos has not been shown to be injurious to people Johns Mansville Co
Does anyone truly believe that we as a People, can ever believe the promises and statements of Industry Associations and Company officials as to the safety of products, nuclear energy, drugs, cars or products we use every day.
Move into the nuclear energy age and what will be done with the thousand of tons of highly radioactive materials produced each year. How does one absolutely insure that each and every Nuclear Site is safe from earthquakes, tornadoes, terrorist attacks. Do we really believe that the training of nuclear technicians, nuclear technology or even security personal are all above reproach.
Countrywide Financial is financially solid and there is no cause for stock holders to be concerned.- Company President Mozillo
And an earthquake would pose no threat? come on just built them on the San Andreana's fault why don't you, I cant believe you do not fear its risks.. How could any human being think for one minute risk doesn't exist.. Its a risk I would not be willing to take, If anyone would say otherwise they only need to consider the future possibility's of disaster, or a war on american soil were energy is always first to be taken out.... >>
There's grave risk associated with nuclear reactors but it's a human risk rather than a function of its nature. This risk is much smaller with plants that are designed for a worst case scenario. The risk would virtually disappear if it were run professionally. You almost have to try or ignore the entire thing to cause major failures on these things. Un- fortuntely people have been left in charge who are not fit to drive a car, much less operate a plant.
Three Mile Island was a virtual non-event from the standpoint of the danger that actually existed. At one point they believed that a great danger existed but it proved to be a mathmatical error.
Chernobyl was stupidity at its finest.
But this is why I suggest building them downwind from population cen- ters. They just might do it again so we may as well have prevailing wind on our side.
If someone can come up with a viable alternative to coal and nuclear then I'm all ears. In the meantime we'll be looking forward to starvation on a mass scale if something isn't actually built. Now. (or at least very soon)
"It's very late we get going on this. It's just incredible that we might be looking at peak oil now and we're burning little more coal and no more nuclear than we were ten years ago."
Yes, it's sad because we were aware of this well before now. At least 10 years ago we already had the energy needs and oil dependence well thought out; people were even beginning to discuss peak oil and competition for resources. Instead we did nothing. I don't know if we can pin the failure on the President or corporate greed so much as that we failed to see that the impact that China's explosion onto the international scene to be such a huge game changing event. It's like we thought about oil dependency and finite resources but we failed to act as though our economic vitality depended upon responding to the obvious problem on the near horizion. Within about two years, China went from being identified as up and coming to being the 500 pound gorilla in a 2br condo.
Does anyone truly believe that we as a People, can ever believe the promises and statements of Industry Associations and Company officials as to the safety of products, nuclear energy, drugs, cars or products we use every day.
Move into the nuclear energy age and what will be done with the thousand of tons of highly radioactive materials produced each year. How does one absolutely insure that each and every Nuclear Site is safe from earthquakes, tornadoes, terrorist attacks. Do we really believe that the training of nuclear technicians, nuclear technology or even security personal are all above reproach.
>>
No. You absolutely can't believe them. Indeed, anytime you let other people do your thinking for you then you are acting in their interest, not yours. Asbestos workers were dropping like flies long before anyone admitted there was danger but the information was out there if you looked for it.
If you look at th designs of the power plants it's apparent that major problem are improbable. That does not mean they are safe.
If you just pile up the radioactive waste and put a fence around it you wouldn't need a great deal of security. It would be of interest only to terrorists and the amount of shielding they'd need to steal it would make them easy to see.
Figure out in twenty or a hundred years what to do with it. It would probably end up being decomposed into its constituent radioactive parts when the technology is available.
<< <i>How does one absolutely insure that each and every Nuclear Site is safe from earthquakes, tornadoes, terrorist attacks. >>
We don't, because we can't. All we can do is take every reasonable precaution to bring the likelihoods as close to zero as we reasonably can, while acknowledging that it never CAN be zero.
All we can do is try to assess the average-case and worst-case outcomes for several imperfect choices, try to make a realistic guess about the probability of these potential bad outcomes, and make an informed decision balancing all factors.
How can we be sure that a lot of people won't starve, a lot of people will not get needed critical medical care, or a lot of people can't put food on the table because they can't get to their jobs? How can we be sure that a lack of affordable energy won't plunge the nation (and the world) into a decades-long global depression? And let me remind you that third-world countries have a terrible track record of being responsible economic stewards. They don't have the luxury of bearing the added costs of being "green." It takes everything they have to eat and maybe construct rickety huts and shacks for shelter.
See, that's a worst-case of doing nothing about nuclear and keeping it off the table. One could just as easily construct a panic-inducing, doomsday scenario about that, too. In the end, we have to balance the severity of the outcomes with the likelihood that they will occur, and hopefully make wise, informed decisions weighing the benefits and the risk, and trying to find the right trade-off point.
Yes, it's sad because we were aware of this well before now. At least 10 years ago we already had the energy needs and oil dependence well thought out; people were even beginning to discuss peak oil and competition for resources. Instead we did nothing. I don't know if we can pin the failure on the President or corporate greed so much as that we failed to see that the impact that China's explosion onto the international scene to be such a huge game changing event. It's like we thought about oil dependency and finite resources but we failed to act as though our economic vitality depended upon responding to the obvious problem on the near horizion. Within about two years, China went from being identified as up and coming to being the 500 pound gorilla in a 2br condo. >>
China's economy has been growing nearly 7% annually for decades. If this sneaked up on the American government they are the most short sighted leaders in all of his- tory. I'm still giving them the benefit of the doubt that they know what they are doing.
It's high time they do it or tell us the plan. The silence is getting deafening and I don't want to hear any more on how gasahol is going to save us. That will be time to hunker down in a bunker with a three year supply of food and water.
Doing the best we can, is not an answer. Until technology limits the absolute amount of fissionable material required ,to a level that can not cause wide spread dispersal in a worst case scenario and until the production of radioactive waste is significantly reduced to manageable volume, Nuclear Energy will not be the answer.
<< <i>Doing the best we can, is not an answer. Until technology limits the absolute amount of fissionable material required ,to a level that can not cause wide spread dispersal in a worst case scenario and until the production of radioactive waste is significantly reduced to manageable volume, Nuclear Energy will not be the answer. >>
Using that logic, we should immediately shut all coal plants.
Coal burning for electricity leads to wide spread dispersal of pollutants, which for many infants, elderly and folks with respiratory problems, cause serious health problems. Many coal miners die from black lung and other horrible ailments. "Conventional" power plant accidents kill people every year. Every time a coal mine collapses and coal miners die, do you think we should pull the plug on half of the nation's electricity supply because it's not 100% guaranteed safe and cuddly?
The best we can isn't an answer, right? I assume you're happy living off-grid on your own food and water supplies. What you seem to be advocating leads us to just that, because NO energy comes without some amount of health and environmental risk. Not ONE.
And by the way, I don't believe nuclear is "the" answer. It may be AN answer, one of several, and hopefully one that can be deemphasized as other renewable and likely safer technologies come on line.
But you seem to be advocating decades of darkness and economic depression, times which will prevent us from being able to AFFORD widespread deployment of "cleaner" and "safer" alternatives. Crippled economies don't have much money for R&D.
<< <i>Doing the best we can, is not an answer. Until technology limits the absolute amount of fissionable material required ,to a level that can not cause wide spread dispersal in a worst case scenario and until the production of radioactive waste is significantly reduced to manageable volume, Nuclear Energy will not be the answer. >>
Using that logic, we should immediately shut all coal plants.
Coal burning for electricity leads to wide spread dispersal of pollutants, which for many infants, elderly and folks with respiratory problems, cause serious health problems. Many coal miners die from black lung and other horrible ailments. "Conventional" power plant accidents kill people every year. Every time a coal mine collapses and coal miners die, do you think we should pull the plug on half of the nation's electricity supply because it's not 100% guaranteed safe and cuddly?
The best we can isn't an answer, right? I assume you're happy living off-grid on your own food and water supplies. What you seem to be advocating leads us to just that, because NO energy comes without some amount of health and environmental risk. Not ONE.
And by the way, I don't believe nuclear is "the" answer. It may be AN answer, one of several, and hopefully one that can be deemphasized as other renewable and likely safer technologies come on line.
But you seem to be advocating decades of darkness and economic depression, times which will prevent us from being able to AFFORD widespread deployment of "cleaner" and "safer" alternatives. Crippled economies don't have much money for R&D. >>
Wow this is intense lol...politics on a coin forum.
We seem to hear much about how bad oil is for us.... and how bad nuclear power is for us.....
........ but I have not seen any specifics on exactly what can do to realistically replace them. We just hear the..... solar, wind, hydro, hydrogen chant over and over, but these just cannot replace the output of the oil and nuclear, with where the technology is at now.
I' m convinced more than ever---- we are living in the Age of Unreason.
<< How does one absolutely insure that each and every Nuclear Site is safe from earthquakes, tornadoes, terrorist attacks. >>
this is why a coin forum should not be the place to discuss nuclear energy when the people discussing it are using 30 year old discussion points. go google a pebble bed reactor. the darn thing is so safe the engineers running it could walk away from it and never come back to it and it will not harm a thing until it stops producing or falls apart.
"When a pebble-bed reactor gets hotter, the more rapid motion of the atoms in the fuel decreases the probability of neutron-induced fissions by 235U atoms due to an effect known as Doppler broadening. When the uranium is heated, its nuclei move more rapidly in random directions, and therefore see a wider range of relative neutron speeds. 238U, which forms the bulk of the uranium in the reactor, is much more likely to absorb fast or epithermal neutrons.[3] This reduces the number of thermalized neutrons available to cause 235U fission, reducing the power output by the reactor.
When the fuel heats, the 238U reacts with a broader spectrum of neutron speeds, thereby lowering the number of available neutrons for fission with 235U. A slower fission rate generally lowers the temperature of the fuel. 238U tends to absorb instead of fission, thus contributing a negligible amount of energy. This places a natural limit on the power produced by the reactor. The reactor vessel is designed so that without mechanical aids it loses more heat than the reactor can generate in this idle state. The design adapts well to safety features (see below). In particular, most of the fuel containment resides in the pebbles, and the pebbles are designed so that a containment failure releases at most a 0.5 mm sphere of radioactive material.
The reactor is cooled by an inert, fireproof gas, so it cannot have a steam explosion as a light-water reactor can. The coolant has no phase transitions—it starts as a gas and remains a gas.
The moderator is solid carbon. It does not act as a coolant, move, or have phase transitions (i.e. between liquid and gas) as the light water in conventional reactors does.
A pebble-bed reactor thus can have all of its supporting machinery fail, and the reactor will not crack, melt, explode or spew hazardous wastes. It simply goes up to a designed "idle" temperature, and stays there. In that state, the reactor vessel radiates heat, but the vessel and fuel spheres remain intact and undamaged. The machinery can be repaired or the fuel can be removed.
These safety features were tested (and filmed) with the German AVR reactor.[9]. All the control rods were removed, and the coolant flow was halted. Afterward, the fuel balls were sampled and examined for damage. There was none. Later problems with the AVR reactor resulted in a small release of radiation to the public.[citation needed]
PBRs are intentionally operated above the 250 °C annealing temperature of graphite, so that Wigner energy is not accumulated. This solves a problem discovered in a famous accident, the Windscale fire. One of the reactors at the Windscale site in England (not a PBR) caught fire because of the release of energy stored as crystalline dislocations (Wigner energy) in the graphite. The dislocations are caused by neutron passage through the graphite. At Windscale, a program of regular annealing was put in place to release accumulated Wigner energy, but since the effect was not anticipated during the construction of the reactor, the process could not be reliably controlled and led to a fire.
The continuous refueling means that there is no excess reactivity in the core. Continuous refueling also permits continuous inspection of the fuel elements."
so. what was the discussion again? oh yea, spewing ignorance on a coin board :-)
<< <i>Doing the best we can, is not an answer. Until technology limits the absolute amount of fissionable material required ,to a level that can not cause wide spread dispersal in a worst case scenario and until the production of radioactive waste is significantly reduced to manageable volume, Nuclear Energy will not be the answer. >>
Using that logic, we should immediately shut all coal plants.
Coal burning for electricity leads to wide spread dispersal of pollutants, which for many infants, elderly and folks with respiratory problems, cause serious health problems. Many coal miners die from black lung and other horrible ailments. "Conventional" power plant accidents kill people every year. Every time a coal mine collapses and coal miners die, do you think we should pull the plug on half of the nation's electricity supply because it's not 100% guaranteed safe and cuddly?
The best we can isn't an answer, right? I assume you're happy living off-grid on your own food and water supplies. What you seem to be advocating leads us to just that, because NO energy comes without some amount of health and environmental risk. Not ONE.
And by the way, I don't believe nuclear is "the" answer. It may be AN answer, one of several, and hopefully one that can be deemphasized as other renewable and likely safer technologies come on line.
But you seem to be advocating decades of darkness and economic depression, times which will prevent us from being able to AFFORD widespread deployment of "cleaner" and "safer" alternatives. Crippled economies don't have much money for R&D. >>
Wow this is intense lol...politics on a coin forum. >>
If thats not backward thinking I don't know what is. I would gladly use more coal in the case of the lesser of two evils. By the way there is a vast amount of methane off the Atlantic coast...
Thank you wise old bear for the great examples used in describing how time plays a big role in understanding the dangers of jumping in feet first. by then it would be to late to stop the wide spread political loop holes to abolish the use of hazardous materials, and its effects on the population.
Humblepie
I have found power in the mysteries of thought.
It is always a question of knowing and seeing, and not that of believing.
Our virtues, and our failings are inseparable, like force, and matter. When they separate, man is no more.
Nuclear fission produces silver. Yep, AG-110. But you would not want a silver dollar made of this stuff; you would pick up some serious radiation exposure from it.... but it might have some awesome toning!!
<< <i>When we ignore a problem for 20 years that all knew was coming
we must now pay the price in money , restrictions and a change in
the way we live our lives. In time, necessity will bring the new technology
forward from the research labs and universities that will solve the problem
in a manner that is safe, cost effective and renewable. I would not trust
the Nuclear Industry, if they were to tell me that night will follow day. They
lie without any fear of the repercussions nor fear of criminal prosecution. They
would kill and injure thousands to make a buck. In that calloused attitude, they
are no different then any other Industry. I mistrust them all, because they have
never earned my trust. >>
Sorry, Bear but you're wrong on this. Failure is not an option.
Food is a form of oil. Money is a form of oil. Without oil the nation does not function. The crops don't get planted and the heat goes out. There is no small game and try- ing to plant something with millions of starving people around will prove counter- productive.
When these changes are needed it is much too late. The human race will cluster around a few points of light and our numbers will be far far lower.
It would be criminal to walk into this intentionally so as not to upset the tree huggers or those voters who oppose coal.
<< <i>Just be aware that ONLY 6% of oil-futures bought and sold last week were acquired/disbursed by oil-companies/refiners and end-users.
That means 94% of the action was by SPECULATORS.
It is almost time to short BOTH USO and UNG. Not yet, but soon.
And, remember, when USO tanks, it will take SLV and GLD into the toilet. >>
most of the action is, was there a 20% spike or something? i must have missed something, Friday...or Thursday or last week, last month.....late last year...pick a day.
Ulitmately, our energy solution will depend on deploying a number of resources. A diversified solution, there is no single answer. Oil is good because we're geared up for it. The advantage of nuclear energy is that is produces so many kW/plant compared to gas/oil/coal fired or hydro. Nuclear is very effective where you have to push a megawad of electrons into an intense grid. As opposed to having multiple coal fired generators, you could have one nuke plant located in a fault free remote location. Nuke is more environmentally friendly as well as more powerful than any alternative we have...of course you can't have an accident or the whole argument for nukes goes down. We have had the same problem with nuclear energy since it was first put on line; what do you do with the depleated rods? But, nukes can be part of the solution. Wind is coming on strong and may be able to produce upwards of 8 or 10 percent of a major urban areas needs at some point. Coal gassification may become economically effecient but still with serious tradeoffs. I doubt wave or geothermal is going anywhere because it just doesn't push enough juice to do anyone much good. Solar is part of the solution, particularly at the individual homeowner level; still kind of expensive and not all that effecient but you should be able to push it up to where it supplies 30% or 40% of a residences needs. By far the best solution is to use less of it through being really efficient or simply finding other ways to do things.
By far the greatest culprit, the ones that did the most harm, has to be the much lauded US auto industry. With out lining out the argument, we have had no major upgrades in the gasoline engine since unleaded fuel and catalytic converters and how long have we had those, and we're on the front end of techonological development? We use an incredible amount of resources for transportation (tires, metal, plastics, rare metals, petroleum, etc)...surely there is a better way to do that. Hell, we can't even build a car with a collapse proof driver/passenger compartment, what are the chances of finding one that gets 70 or 80 miles on a gallon of refined petoleum? So, I put much of the blame on the greed ridden, self interested, union supporting, competition busting, stockholder pandering, US automobile industry. We led the world in vehicles for so long and now we are struggling to stay on as an "also ran". If we could figure this out in a quantum leap kind of way, we would put this oil situation behind us for the next generation at least. The cars must get much safer, much smaller, and much more fuel efficient and it needs to happen with in a couple of years. Is it really that hard to do?
<< <i>Just be aware that ONLY 6% of oil-futures bought and sold last week were acquired/disbursed by oil-companies/refiners and end-users.
That means 94% of the action was by SPECULATORS.
It is almost time to short BOTH USO and UNG. Not yet, but soon.
And, remember, when USO tanks, it will take SLV and GLD into the toilet. >>
most of the action is, was there a 20% spike or something? i must have missed something, Friday...or Thursday or last week, last month.....late last year...pick a day. >>
So what kind of time period are we talking about? Perhaps on Monday?
<< <i>Just be aware that ONLY 6% of oil-futures bought and sold last week were acquired/disbursed by oil-companies/refiners and end-users.
That means 94% of the action was by SPECULATORS.
It is almost time to short BOTH USO and UNG. Not yet, but soon.
And, remember, when USO tanks, it will take SLV and GLD into the toilet. >>
most of the action is, was there a 20% spike or something? i must have missed something, Friday...or Thursday or last week, last month.....late last year...pick a day. >>
Didn't Theodore Roosevelt set up some kind of act of intervention in case the economy got out of control..
Well I cant recall what the act is, it essentially gives the government the ability to use any means necessary to manipulate the markets.
Located someplace off the camion islands, a dealer told me today.
Lets take a look at the deficit problem, and how it relates to the devaluation of American currency.
Oil, And Gold are now predicting the future actions of the dollar. You could all benefit by understanding how all this has been played out.
The deficit, and the unseen Government intervention holds the keys to the truth. The truth about, dollars, oil, and were gold will be heading..
Humblepie
I have found power in the mysteries of thought.
It is always a question of knowing and seeing, and not that of believing.
Our virtues, and our failings are inseparable, like force, and matter. When they separate, man is no more.
Comments
<< <i>On the other hand, I wonder how many of the fabulously wealthy countries today with huge oil money are diversifying their economies. When oil dries up they will be way up a creek. It appears the Saudis will be furthest up said creek. >>
Don't worry. We'll send them foriegn aid.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
<< <i>It's time to put up or shut up.
We either start building the coal plants or risk massive population losses.
When someone comes up with some oil then we can slow down on building coal. >>
Unfortunately, coal plants will not be able to quickly save us. While we have a large amount of coal, the problem is the transportation bottleneck. The existing trains that are required to move the coal are already choked up.... and there is little or no room for any more capacity. Plants could be built right near the mines.... but electricity losses occur over distance, so that will also not gain us alot.
We've allowed ourselves to get into this situation. All of us have some blame.... we admired the hummers when they came out, we purchased new homes that are doubled in size that we really don't need, we want the latest computers hand large screen tv's. The philosophy has tended to be to have fun today, and don't worry about tomorrow. Unfortunately, it looks like 'tomorrow' may be crashing upon us.
That being said, I also am disgusted with how our country has been held up by the environmentalist groups. That has prevented us from drilling in Alaska; stopped any building of distillation units, nearly killed the nuclear industry (which by the way is one of the brightest hopes that I can see for power in this country). And the one thing that really gets to me is that we are 'prevented' from drilling in the Gulf in many areas, even when other countries like China and Venezuela (sp?) are drilling away and taking it right in our back yards. How stupid is that????
Right now, there are applications to build 10 - 20 new nuclear plants in this country. Streamline the applications, and lets get started building those. Meanwhile, open up the Gulf to allow the drilling for our country also. And lets start talking a national transportation system of a new generation of trains. Building more tracks will be difficult, with alot of resistance from landowners, etc... but this is an area that I consider highly important for our country. We cannot continue to depend on everyone driving everywhere by themselves all the time like in the past, and need the infrastructure to allow more mass transportation and the ability to move goods (and coal) over long distances.
It's been mentioned on this forum before about the theory of peak oil. If you go to this web site http://www.peakoil.org/ and do some reading, be prepared to be shocked on how our lives may be affected. Unproven theory? Perhaps, and maybe not. One thing I am sensing in our country right now is a sense of urgency. I wonder if we are not being told the whole story... of how we may be in worse shape than we irealize. One reason I say this is the fact about how may wind turbines are going up right now. A very large number. A weekend does not pass that when I am on the road, I see multiple trucks carrying the blades and support structures... seems like a real rush is going on right now to get these constructed. Hmm... why now??
There is most likely many multiples the amount of Oil still in the Earth.
The Oil Shales of Colorado for instance; there's a rumor that Saskatchewan (next to Alberta's Oil Sands) has just as much Oil in their Oil Sands; how about Alaska? There must be plenty of Oil there.
Also, deeper drilling technology could provide much more Oil.
Bottom line in my opinion is this.....
Cheap Oil is a thing of the Past.
and,
if we want more Oil, the Environment unfortunately, is going to suffer.
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
I was at Lake Powell in Arizona last year and visited a coal plant there. We have the technology to burn coal efficiently and cleanly and this plant was a great example. Our best alternative for electricty generation is nuclear power. I live 15 miles from a nuke plant and my good hunting buddy works there. He has been pulling 6-12's for the past year because there are not enough workers to run the plant. Here is an industry with a HUGE demand for workers, yet we worry about jobs going to Mexico. And, since we cant bury the waste 4 miles deep under a mountain, it sits in castes in the parking lot.
As Tincup stated we have been taken over by the tree hugging, tiedye wearing, soldier haters. I suppose they would rather see grandma freeze to death in her home in Chicago this winter than see a polar bear in a zoo.
Populations suffer massive decline when they exceed carrying capacity. We, Americans, have been promoting the human population growth in areas that are really inhospitable for human life. American drug/medical researchers have extended the average human's life by decades over the past century. Humans have no "entitlement" to live forever, yet we have been forcing this upon the planet.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
real silver...honest! No, really!! L@@K!
<< <i>Excellant commentary by Cladking and Tincup.
I was at Lake Powell in Arizona last year and visited a coal plant there. We have the technology to burn coal efficiently and cleanly and this plant was a great example. Our best alternative for electricty generation is nuclear power. I live 15 miles from a nuke plant and my good hunting buddy works there. He has been pulling 6-12's for the past year because there are not enough workers to run the plant. Here is an industry with a HUGE demand for workers, yet we worry about jobs going to Mexico. And, since we cant bury the waste 4 miles deep under a mountain, it sits in castes in the parking lot.
As Tincup stated we have been taken over by the tree hugging, tiedye wearing, soldier haters. I suppose they would rather see grandma freeze to death in her home in Chicago this winter than see a polar bear in a zoo.
Populations suffer massive decline when they exceed carrying capacity. We, Americans, have been promoting the human population growth in areas that are really inhospitable for human life. American drug/medical researchers have extended the average human's life by decades over the past century. Humans have no "entitlement" to live forever, yet we have been forcing this upon the planet. >>
Do you support nuclear plants?
I'm a tree hugging hippie American. I take offense to your commentary in that regard. I oppose war, and stand for peace.
I am against the oppression of the people in our country, and abroad.
Nuclear power is Dangerous, it always has been it always will be. Its also less than 2 percent efficient, and must be controlled by a government agency. I'm sorry, we can afford to destroy the world with anymore nuclear testing, or meltdowns. Hydrogen fuel is one of the best things to adopt in this country. Electric power is just as much obtainable at little cost without using oil, or nuclear energy.
We have obtained electric power that is clean and is over 100 percent efficient.. Thats right Over unity has been tapped, because of a new understanding for simple physics. I wont argue with you on that either. Over unity has been documented, and is real energy efficiency.
Do your own research. I refuse to hold the hands of such uniformed ignorance.
I don't need to debate it, because its a debasement of myself, and the morals of the people who live in this country who would say otherwise.
Energy dependent yes, but by using sound morals, ethics, and highly efficient devises.
I oppose big oil, and I refuse to argue with ignorance, or an ignorant nation.
We would all be wise to focus not on energy, and take a closer look at the deficit, our banking systems, and exports.
Focus on Africa, and become a commerce rich partner, like china has done, building power plants for them, wile we get rich resources that benefit both nations. A free trade agreement with them would do wonders for this country, and theres.
I have found power in the mysteries of thought.
It is always a question of knowing and seeing, and not that of believing.
Our virtues, and our failings are inseparable, like force, and matter. When they separate, man is no more.
.
just asking
why is nuclear only 2%?
<< <i>It's time to put up or shut up.
We either start building the coal plants or risk massive population losses.
When someone comes up with some oil then we can slow down on building coal. >>
The Chinese are using huge amounts of diesel fuel because coal is in short supply and they are starting new power plants at the rate of 1 or more a week. A local ethanol plant burns 18 railcars of the stuff every week.
<< <i>what is OVER 100% efficient?
just asking
why is nuclear only 2%? >>
we can take a closer look at energy efficiency, By Having the ability to be energy efficient for ones self. that means personal generator systems, and battery banks. Wind, or solar power, wile getting off the grid, and, or adding to it. A 100% self reliance for meeting your own energy needs.
The idea would be for producing a surplus of energy, and being paid for taking the initiative to add to it.
The electric motors of today would kick the heck out of even the finest sports cars. Plugging into your own grid for recharging, at the same time getting off the force feeding of big oils monopoly's.
I think its more important to first inform the public on what the deficit means to the economic collapse for the dollar, and our savings.
It more important to understand the underlying circumstances we face in the front of a real depression, and how that would effect or lives.
I have found power in the mysteries of thought.
It is always a question of knowing and seeing, and not that of believing.
Our virtues, and our failings are inseparable, like force, and matter. When they separate, man is no more.
.
Several years ago I read an article about US energy consumption after the power outages of 2003/4. VP Cheney sat down with a number of high level executives from US energy companies. Once the reporters were gone [I realize the writer of the article either has a source or was still there] the execs looked at the VP and said "we [the United States we] need nuclear power for the future growth of our country."
Not my field of expertise so consider the source, but anyone can find how the U.S. government has been trying to streamline registration of new nucelar power plants. The paperwork for the first new attempt was filed several months ago. IF there were no challenges, the new plant would be online in 2014. The power companies involved expect challenges.
I've looked into the objections to storing nuclear waste underneath Yucca Mountain. From what I've read it is the best choice we've seen so far. What I don't get is the US government told nuclear power plant operators IN THE 1970's. They only needed temporary waste storage until the gov't waste storage opened. Almost 40 years later we have nuclear material in guarded, but easily found, supposedly temporary locations. Our elected officials in an election year, chose to worry about steroids in baseball rather than make an attempt to overcome objections and begin reasonable storage of nuclear waste. Opponents are so rabid they work against nuclear material even getting transported by train in their state.
BTW: I look a bit to check my memory against the internet. Criticize our leadership as is your right, but seek to get the facts correct when you debate me. According to http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0523-01.htm in 2001 our administration: "However, Cheney did not back away from the administration's contention that massive new production infrastructure should be built.
He said Bush's policy assumes "very significant" savings from conservation and increased use of renewable energy sources such as sun and wind, but said they will not be enough to meet the nation's energy needs.
"That means," Cheney said, "it's going to be coal-fired, it's going to be gas-fired or it's going to come from nuclear power."
enough for now
BTW: Because one has a differing viewpoint does not always indicate ignorance.
<< <i>
<< <i>what is OVER 100% efficient?
just asking
why is nuclear only 2%? >>
we can take a closer look at energy efficiency, By Having the ability to be energy efficient for ones self. that means personal generator systems, and battery banks. Wind, or solar power, wile getting off the grid, and, or adding to it. A 100% self reliance for meeting your own energy needs.
The idea would be for producing a surplus of energy, and being paid for taking the initiative to add to it.
The electric motors of today would kick the heck out of even the finest sports cars. Plugging into your own grid for recharging, at the same time getting off the force feeding of big oils monopoly's.
I think its more important to first inform the public on what the deficit means to the economic collapse for the dollar, and our savings.
It more important to understand the underlying circumstances we face in the front of a real depression, and how that would effect or lives. >>
<< <i>
<< <i>Excellant commentary by Cladking and Tincup.
I was at Lake Powell in Arizona last year and visited a coal plant there. We have the technology to burn coal efficiently and cleanly and this plant was a great example. Our best alternative for electricty generation is nuclear power. I live 15 miles from a nuke plant and my good hunting buddy works there. He has been pulling 6-12's for the past year because there are not enough workers to run the plant. Here is an industry with a HUGE demand for workers, yet we worry about jobs going to Mexico. And, since we cant bury the waste 4 miles deep under a mountain, it sits in castes in the parking lot.
As Tincup stated we have been taken over by the tree hugging, tiedye wearing, soldier haters. I suppose they would rather see grandma freeze to death in her home in Chicago this winter than see a polar bear in a zoo.
Populations suffer massive decline when they exceed carrying capacity. We, Americans, have been promoting the human population growth in areas that are really inhospitable for human life. American drug/medical researchers have extended the average human's life by decades over the past century. Humans have no "entitlement" to live forever, yet we have been forcing this upon the planet. >>
Do you support nuclear plants?
I'm a tree hugging hippie American. I take offense to your commentary in that regard. I oppose war, and stand for peace.
I am against the oppression of the people in our country, and abroad.
Nuclear power is Dangerous, it always has been it always will be. Its also less than 2 percent efficient, and must be controlled by a government agency. I'm sorry, we can afford to destroy the world with anymore nuclear testing, or meltdowns. Hydrogen fuel is one of the best things to adopt in this country. Electric power is just as much obtainable at little cost without using oil, or nuclear energy.
We have obtained electric power that is clean and is over 100 percent efficient.. Thats right Over unity has been tapped, because of a new understanding for simple physics. I wont argue with you on that either. Over unity has been documented, and is real energy efficiency.
Do your own research. I refuse to hold the hands of such uniformed ignorance.
I don't need to debate it, because its a debasement of myself, and the morals of the people who live in this country who would say otherwise.
Energy dependent yes, but by using sound morals, ethics, and highly efficient devises.
I oppose big oil, and I refuse to argue with ignorance, or an ignorant nation.
We would all be wise to focus not on energy, and take a closer look at the deficit, our banking systems, and exports.
Focus on Africa, and become a commerce rich partner, like china has done, building power plants for them, wile we get rich resources that benefit both nations. A free trade agreement with them would do wonders for this country, and theres. >>
Oh good Lord, where do I start with this post. You sound like Oprah, who wants to give all our money to corrupt poorly run African governments.
Let's see your thermodynamic analysis that shows nuke power is only 2% efficient. I'll save you the trouble, you don't have any. And hydrogen is not a fuel, it is an element that must be extracted from water at a high energy COST to be used elsewhere in simple combustion or a fuel cell. It is essentially an energy storage medium that is less efficient than many other forms.
Finally, it is simply impossible for ANYTHING to be more than 100% efficient.
<< <i>
<< <i>Excellant commentary by Cladking and Tincup.
I was at Lake Powell in Arizona last year and visited a coal plant there. We have the technology to burn coal efficiently and cleanly and this plant was a great example. Our best alternative for electricty generation is nuclear power. I live 15 miles from a nuke plant and my good hunting buddy works there. He has been pulling 6-12's for the past year because there are not enough workers to run the plant. Here is an industry with a HUGE demand for workers, yet we worry about jobs going to Mexico. And, since we cant bury the waste 4 miles deep under a mountain, it sits in castes in the parking lot.
As Tincup stated we have been taken over by the tree hugging, tiedye wearing, soldier haters. I suppose they would rather see grandma freeze to death in her home in Chicago this winter than see a polar bear in a zoo.
Populations suffer massive decline when they exceed carrying capacity. We, Americans, have been promoting the human population growth in areas that are really inhospitable for human life. American drug/medical researchers have extended the average human's life by decades over the past century. Humans have no "entitlement" to live forever, yet we have been forcing this upon the planet. >>
Do you support nuclear plants?
I'm a tree hugging hippie American. I take offense to your commentary in that regard. I oppose war, and stand for peace.
I am against the oppression of the people in our country, and abroad.
Nuclear power is Dangerous, it always has been it always will be. Its also less than 2 percent efficient, and must be controlled by a government agency. I'm sorry, we can afford to destroy the world with anymore nuclear testing, or meltdowns. Hydrogen fuel is one of the best things to adopt in this country. Electric power is just as much obtainable at little cost without using oil, or nuclear energy.
We have obtained electric power that is clean and is over 100 percent efficient.. Thats right Over unity has been tapped, because of a new understanding for simple physics. I wont argue with you on that either. Over unity has been documented, and is real energy efficiency.
Do your own research. I refuse to hold the hands of such uniformed ignorance.
I don't need to debate it, because its a debasement of myself, and the morals of the people who live in this country who would say otherwise.
Energy dependent yes, but by using sound morals, ethics, and highly efficient devises.
I oppose big oil, and I refuse to argue with ignorance, or an ignorant nation.
We would all be wise to focus not on energy, and take a closer look at the deficit, our banking systems, and exports.
Focus on Africa, and become a commerce rich partner, like china has done, building power plants for them, wile we get rich resources that benefit both nations. A free trade agreement with them would do wonders for this country, and theres. >>
Wow.... thanks thestig.
You have made it very clear the thought process that has helped to get us into this situation. Better than I ever could.
There IS NO technology that can replace the use of oil at this time. If you have knowledge of something that is over 100% efficient, as you imply.... please share. In my years of working in science areas, that is sure news to me. I would try to do the research as you suggest, but am clueless on where to even start........... please inform me.
Hydrogen?? Please explain how it can be safely generated and stored, especially in mobile units such as cars, that will allow going much distance. I'd sure like to know.
Solar?? Please do some calculations to show just how big of solar panels are required to meet the energy needs of just your own home, let alone supply the country.
Hydro?? Sites are all taken that can basically be used for it. And what environmental group will EVER let one of these dams be built again??
Nuclear Power.... dangerous??? Please do the research that you are asking us to do..... and see for yourself just how many deaths have ocurred in nuclear power. Compare the nuclear industry to the coal industry.... and how many deaths occur from mining, black lung, explosions, the amount of energy it takes to get the coal to the plants, the explosions at the coal power plants, the environmental impact (strip mining, the massive CO and NOx emissions, etc....)
Nuclear Power only 2 % effiicient? wow....... again, please provide your data to back this up. Definitely news to me.
<< <i>While I might agree that electric and hydrogen sources for power are good alternatives (once we figure out how to efficiently mass-produce them, as well as build a storage method that is not so toxic to the environment), your argument about nuclear power is quite incorrect. Nuclear is one of the most efficient methods of producing power on the planet. Raw material in vs. power output is many THOUSANDS of multiples, and the byproduct for a plant's waste isn't much larger than a semi-truck/year, aside from the waste water. The main problem is how to dispose of the reactor waste and contaminated water. It can be done, but we really have to work together to make it happen. I've heard already of methods that remove the radioactive waste factors (heavy metals, etc.) from water, essentially rendering the waste water drinkable. But given the climate in this country, if we ever tried to distribute the purified water, well...I'm sure you can imagine THAT fun little issue.
BTW: Because one has a differing viewpoint does not always indicate ignorance.
<< <i>
<< <i>what is OVER 100% efficient?
just asking
why is nuclear only 2%? >>
we can take a closer look at energy efficiency, By Having the ability to be energy efficient for ones self. that means personal generator systems, and battery banks. Wind, or solar power, wile getting off the grid, and, or adding to it. A 100% self reliance for meeting your own energy needs.
The idea would be for producing a surplus of energy, and being paid for taking the initiative to add to it.
The electric motors of today would kick the heck out of even the finest sports cars. Plugging into your own grid for recharging, at the same time getting off the force feeding of big oils monopoly's.
I think its more important to first inform the public on what the deficit means to the economic collapse for the dollar, and our savings.
It more important to understand the underlying circumstances we face in the front of a real depression, and how that would effect or lives. >>
>>
One must never forget, we all must never forget. One disaster can devastate this entire country. Do you not remember the effect on Hiroshima, and its peoples? Do you forget the Chernobyl disaster? or even 3 mile island? A devastation on a country, its peoples, and the effects this had on the entire world? the fall out, the contamination, the mutations..
Will you also forget 9/11? WE have the responsibility the ensure it never happens again.
.
Now thats ignorance...
link
Text
Talk about statistics, the more cars on the road result in more car accidents.
the more power plants, and radioactive waste the greater the chance for more disasters.
I saw a truck in California burn to the ground, it was transporting low level radioactive material, It simply got to Hot. the truck was a pile of ashes, and a added contamination on our water supply, and the environment.
How the heck does that look to you? nice..
Nuclear Fallout
Testing has killed thousands, a new study shows.
adding to the radioactive melting pot.
Red indicates the extent of the radiation cloud on April 27, just after the accident in Chernobyl.
Blue, indicates its almost worldwide distribution until the 6th of May.
How the heck does that look to you? fficial%26hs%3DHIO">Text
I have found power in the mysteries of thought.
It is always a question of knowing and seeing, and not that of believing.
Our virtues, and our failings are inseparable, like force, and matter. When they separate, man is no more.
.
First, Chernobyl. When I replied to your earlier post, I obviously knew you would counter with Chernobyl. A disaster, absolutely. But if you are comparing that in any way to the US nuclear industry, there is no comparison. The US looked at the technology that the USSR was using, and abandoned that (never used) many many years ago. The USSR used it because it was much cheaper to do so. And were pushing the system beyond what it was designed for. The tradeoff was the danger with the design. There is no comparison to the technology that is in use for the current generation of nuclear plants in the U.S. , let alone the greatly advanced designs of the the next generation that will be built. If you are using Chernobyl as the rationale for having no nuclear power in the U.S., you are greatly misinformed of the technologies being used, or do not understand the concepts.
Okay, let's look at TMI. Another terrible accident, to be sure. BUT absolutely nothing at all on the scale of Chernobyl. The U.S. nuclear industry can be classified into two time periods... pre TMI, and after TMI. Anyone in the nuclear industry can tell you the pain they went through, after the TMI accident. The TMI was a wake up call. The industry had become complacent up to that point, and things vastly changed after that. Again, there is no comparison. The regulatory requirements and safeguards tripled after TMI, and has never let up. Another point about TMI.... note that the release was of noble gases. Anyone familiar with the nuclear industry knows that noble gases are non-reactive.... that means they will not deposit in the body. One may breathe them in, but then breathe them right back out. So no long term affects were likely with that. The main concern, was with the I131, which can enter the food chain and enter the body. However, there again, it is relatively short lived, and is basically gone in several weeks. And the amounts were not that large.
Lastly.... you are now comparing nuclear power plants with nuclear warhead testing. Huh......?? I don't even know where to start with that, if you seriously think there is any comparison there. Unless you are thinking nuclear power plants are depositing fallout similar to the bomb testing.... in which case you are sadly misinformed again.
Now.... please give me that information that you mentioned earlier..... about the well known technologies with greater than 100% efficiency. I am ready to embrace it, if you can head me in the right direction. Also, any of that info will be appreciated about how big of solar panels we need for our homes, where we can build hydros, and where I can buy an efficient hydrogen car that is usuable......
I do not want to give anyone the impression that I am anti-environment. Far from it.... I conserved when it was not trendy to do so. I just think things are way out of proportion right now, and more focus needs to be given to the energy fiasco.
War over oil is not too far fetched an idea especially since Russia has indicated that they were experiencing peak oil and a pitty too, just when the oligarchs were getting comfortable. Much better methinks to try something else besides fighting for oil with desperate, nuclear armed nations. You want to see some radiation clouds...try that one on for size; I think it's called nuclear winter. So, nuclear winter or alternative energy sources (nuke plants), make a choice. You can all sing Kumbayaa together while you freeze in the dark.
African nations, most are too stupid to prosper and even more inept at nation building. It's poor form to characterize them because there are some exceptions, but what the tinpot leaders don't kill end up dying from starvation, drougth, and pestulance. For these people, genocide is just part of the deal, they don't even qualify as third world nations. Their dictators and corrupt governments will be gutted, pillaged and left as a wasteland when the modern nations get through working over their resources. No need for us to get in there with the vultures, China should do quite well without our help. Best thing we could do is to just buy the darn place and be done with it. I'm sure Mugabwe wouldn't mind that, wonder how much he wants for the whole deal? If maybe we could get a consortium together made of some responsible nations, we could get in there and try and do some good for those desperate populaces.
Hydrogen?? Please explain how it can be safely generated and stored, especially in mobile units such as cars, that will allow going much distance. I'd sure like to know.
Solar?? Please do some calculations to show just how big of solar panels are required to meet the energy needs of just your own home, let alone supply the country.
Hydro?? Sites are all taken that can basically be used for it. And what environmental group will EVER let one of these dams be built again??
Nuclear Power.... dangerous??? Please do the research that you are asking us to do..... and see for yourself just how many deaths have ocurred in nuclear power. Compare the nuclear industry to the coal industry.... and how many deaths occur from mining, black lung, explosions, the amount of energy it takes to get the coal to the plants, the explosions at the coal power plants, the environmental impact (strip mining, the massive CO and NOx emissions, etc....)
Nuclear Power only 2 % effiicient? wow....... again, please provide your data to back this up. Definitely news to me. >>
coming from some one who claims to be a scientist, I would have expected more knowledge in the form of understanding the function of thermal dynamics.
If you take the time as a scientist to understand these 3 laws, you may find out what efficiency means in terms of waste, and heat.
Understanding the amount of unburned gasoline in a car would give you a clue as to how much waste of energy is created in the form of heat, and unburned fuel resulting in an efficiency rating per gallon of about 50 %.
On demand hydrogen is obtainable, without the use of storage tanks.
Radiant energy has been proven, and there is only one man to obtain a patent.
A back flux in a magnetic field results in a spike of usable electrical power, that has been wasted since the conception of the electric generator, motor, and appliances.
Newtonian based functions, and principles has its avenues. Understanding the concept of equal, and opposite reactions also has its benefits.
I studied energy for most of my life. I am fascinated by its electric functions. I have a genral understanding of quantum physics, general physics, and thermal dynamics.
I opened my eyes for the understanding, truth with an eye on the solar system, and the universe for its secrets. I took time learn how magnetic fields function. I understand were the electron , and the proton resides. <<< A secret you could hardly believe, or even imagine. I can not give you the ability to understand these principles in a few paragraphs, even if I wanted to. I'm not boasting about my education, because I only have something to say about myself. I could only show you to an unopened door, you must use the keys.
you could start here
Newton
here
here..
and here.
Link
I have found power in the mysteries of thought.
It is always a question of knowing and seeing, and not that of believing.
Our virtues, and our failings are inseparable, like force, and matter. When they separate, man is no more.
.
if any correlation WWII, near the end we (ie U.S.A) were/was close to BK
it was interesting (to me at least) to "back-read" Thursday's WSJ Money & Investing column on the front of the section and see the turmoil Friday.
<< <i>. Best thing we could do is to just buy the darn place and be done with it. I'm sure Mugabwe wouldn't mind that, wonder how much he wants for the whole deal? If maybe we could get a consortium together made of some responsible nations, we could get in there and try and do some good for those desperate populaces. >>
Thumbs up.
I cant tell you how much I detest the use of nuclear power, its wastes, its environmental damages, and uses for war.
I did a study on a guy who made a simple nuclear battery that would be powered by nuclear waste. I even posted it in the test forum.
It a very long paper, so I will find the link.
Its information that should never be lost, a basic understanding of the concept is what I got from reading it several times.
I know there is no fall out from a power plants operation, but there would be in case of a melt down, or a plane crash now wouldn't there be?
If you believe the government could not defend the pentagon you are mistaken, but yet we are lead to believe in its possibility's.
link
I have found power in the mysteries of thought.
It is always a question of knowing and seeing, and not that of believing.
Our virtues, and our failings are inseparable, like force, and matter. When they separate, man is no more.
.
<< <i>
Unfortunately, coal plants will not be able to quickly save us. While we have a large amount of coal, the problem is the transportation bottleneck. The existing trains that are required to move the coal are already choked up.... and there is little or no room for any more capacity. Plants could be built right near the mines.... but electricity losses occur over distance, so that will also not gain us alot.
We've allowed ourselves to get into this situation. All of us have some blame.... we admired the hummers when they came out, we purchased new homes that are doubled in size that we really don't need, we want the latest computers hand large screen tv's. The philosophy has tended to be to have fun today, and don't worry about tomorrow. Unfortunately, it looks like 'tomorrow' may be crashing upon us.
That being said, I also am disgusted with how our country has been held up by the environmentalist groups. That has prevented us from drilling in Alaska; stopped any building of distillation units, nearly killed the nuclear industry (which by the way is one of the brightest hopes that I can see for power in this country). And the one thing that really gets to me is that we are 'prevented' from drilling in the Gulf in many areas, even when other countries like China and Venezuela (sp?) are drilling away and taking it right in our back yards. How stupid is that????
Right now, there are applications to build 10 - 20 new nuclear plants in this country. Streamline the applications, and lets get started building those. Meanwhile, open up the Gulf to allow the drilling for our country also. And lets start talking a national transportation system of a new generation of trains. Building more tracks will be difficult, with alot of resistance from landowners, etc... but this is an area that I consider highly important for our country. We cannot continue to depend on everyone driving everywhere by themselves all the time like in the past, and need the infrastructure to allow more mass transportation and the ability to move goods (and coal) over long distances.
It's been mentioned on this forum before about the theory of peak oil. If you go to this web site http://www.peakoil.org/ and do some reading, be prepared to be shocked on how our lives may be affected. Unproven theory? Perhaps, and maybe not. One thing I am sensing in our country right now is a sense of urgency. I wonder if we are not being told the whole story... of how we may be in worse shape than we irealize. One reason I say this is the fact about how may wind turbines are going up right now. A very large number. A weekend does not pass that when I am on the road, I see multiple trucks carrying the blades and support structures... seems like a real rush is going on right now to get these constructed. Hmm... why now?? >>
You're right that you can't transport electricity efficiently but you can
convert it to fuel cell and transport it extremely efficiently. It can be
delivered to the consumer at nearly 90% efficiency which is better than
we currently do with the electrical grid. These p;lants should be in Wy-
oming, Kansas and low pouplation centers in that area and the energy
shipped primarily to the mid west. The east coast can ramp up to run
50% on nuclear as well as west coast polulation centers with low den-
sities downwind. The west coast could use a little solar and wind as
well.
With most cars converted to fuel cell within ten years oil demand would
actually be dropping and what's available used to power fuel cells and
electric generation on the coasts.
It would be wise to try to drive the cost of oil down while maintaining
its price with taxes to stretch out the supply and diminish our depend-
ence on it. We will still need all those chemicals in it to make the myriad
products that come from oil for a very long time.
It's very late we get going on this. It's just incredible that we might be
looking at peak oil now and we're burning little more coal and no more
nuclear than we were ten years ago.
However, I can see a flaw in it. Where do you get the Sr-90 from to fuel it?? I'll give you a clue.... that most likely will need to come from a nuclear reactor.
Even if one was to develop the battery to use 'natural' radioactive materials, those materials will need to be concentrated. thus, plants that will need to exist just like there are now.... to make fuel for nuclear reactors.
Sr-90 is also a very dangerous isotope. It is very similar chemically to Calcium, and thus if it gets into our body, it will deposit into bone material and stay deposited. If I recall, it has a long half life, so it will stay inside you for quite some time.
And once the material is decayed.... then what? It needs to be replaced on a frequent basis in the battery. So while that is neat technology, and may be very useful for a satellite in orbit, I don't see where it will solve anything here on earth.
Speaking of nuclear, anyone have a collection of those neutron irradiated dimes that you used to be able to get at Oak Ridge laboratories?? what dates do you have?
I think the only one I have right now is a Roosevelt dime dated 1946, and in one of those 'rubber' type holders. I think the metal holders are really neat...
<< <i>
<< <i>
Unfortunately, coal plants will not be able to quickly save us. While we have a large amount of coal, the problem is the transportation bottleneck. The existing trains that are required to move the coal are already choked up.... and there is little or no room for any more capacity. Plants could be built right near the mines.... but electricity losses occur over distance, so that will also not gain us alot.
We've allowed ourselves to get into this situation. All of us have some blame.... we admired the hummers when they came out, we purchased new homes that are doubled in size that we really don't need, we want the latest computers hand large screen tv's. The philosophy has tended to be to have fun today, and don't worry about tomorrow. Unfortunately, it looks like 'tomorrow' may be crashing upon us.
That being said, I also am disgusted with how our country has been held up by the environmentalist groups. That has prevented us from drilling in Alaska; stopped any building of distillation units, nearly killed the nuclear industry (which by the way is one of the brightest hopes that I can see for power in this country). And the one thing that really gets to me is that we are 'prevented' from drilling in the Gulf in many areas, even when other countries like China and Venezuela (sp?) are drilling away and taking it right in our back yards. How stupid is that????
Right now, there are applications to build 10 - 20 new nuclear plants in this country. Streamline the applications, and lets get started building those. Meanwhile, open up the Gulf to allow the drilling for our country also. And lets start talking a national transportation system of a new generation of trains. Building more tracks will be difficult, with alot of resistance from landowners, etc... but this is an area that I consider highly important for our country. We cannot continue to depend on everyone driving everywhere by themselves all the time like in the past, and need the infrastructure to allow more mass transportation and the ability to move goods (and coal) over long distances.
It's been mentioned on this forum before about the theory of peak oil. If you go to this web site http://www.peakoil.org/ and do some reading, be prepared to be shocked on how our lives may be affected. Unproven theory? Perhaps, and maybe not. One thing I am sensing in our country right now is a sense of urgency. I wonder if we are not being told the whole story... of how we may be in worse shape than we irealize. One reason I say this is the fact about how may wind turbines are going up right now. A very large number. A weekend does not pass that when I am on the road, I see multiple trucks carrying the blades and support structures... seems like a real rush is going on right now to get these constructed. Hmm... why now?? >>
You're right that you can't transport electricity efficiently but you can
convert it to fuel cell and transport it extremely efficiently. It can be
delivered to the consumer at nearly 90% efficiency which is better than
we currently do with the electrical grid. These p;lants should be in Wy-
oming, Kansas and low pouplation centers in that area and the energy
shipped primarily to the mid west. The east coast can ramp up to run
50% on nuclear as well as west coast polulation centers with low den-
sities downwind. The west coast could use a little solar and wind as
well.
With most cars converted to fuel cell within ten years oil demand would
actually be dropping and what's available used to power fuel cells and
electric generation on the coasts.
It would be wise to try to drive the cost of oil down while maintaining
its price with taxes to stretch out the supply and diminish our depend-
ence on it. We will still need all those chemicals in it to make the myriad
products that come from oil for a very long time.
It's very late we get going on this. It's just incredible that we might be
looking at peak oil now and we're burning little more coal and no more
nuclear than we were ten years ago. >>
And an earthquake would pose no threat? come on just built them on the San Andreana's fault why don't you, I cant believe you do not fear its risks.. How could any human being think for one minute risk doesn't exist.. Its a risk I would not be willing to take, If anyone would say otherwise they only need to consider the future possibility's of disaster, or a war on american soil were energy is always first to be taken out....
I have found power in the mysteries of thought.
It is always a question of knowing and seeing, and not that of believing.
Our virtues, and our failings are inseparable, like force, and matter. When they separate, man is no more.
.
<< <i>thestig, that is an interesting article about the nuclear battery.
However, I can see a flaw in it. Where do you get the Sr-90 from to fuel it?? I'll give you a clue.... that most likely will need to come from a nuclear reactor.
Even if one was to develop the battery to use 'natural' radioactive materials, those materials will need to be concentrated. thus, plants that will need to exist just like there are now.... to make fuel for nuclear reactors.
Sr-90 is also a very dangerous isotope. It is very similar chemically to Calcium, and thus if it gets into our body, it will deposit into bone material and stay deposited. If I recall, it has a long half life, so it will stay inside you for quite some time.
And once the material is decayed.... then what? It needs to be replaced on a frequent basis in the battery. So while that is neat technology, and may be very useful for a satellite in orbit, I don't see where it will solve anything here on earth. >>
did you know we are a country that doesn't take the time to re enrich the spent fuel rods?
thats right, I think Germany does. You cant have a government hell bent on nuclear power, when they are unwilling, or incapable of using it safely, and efficiently. Did I mention they cant even defend there own pentagon, and they have missiles all over the place..
Did I also mention thats total BS. someone also mention they still cant even store it properly. I even saw a truck reduced to ashes, because they don't even know how to properly transport it.. It was on the top of the Cahone pass in California.
Lets please take a look at the deficit, I think this is more important, considering the dollar may be heading for a new all time low, and you cash in the banking systems are at risk..
Ps. one of my favorite tunes is earth crisis by steel pulse.
I have found power in the mysteries of thought.
It is always a question of knowing and seeing, and not that of believing.
Our virtues, and our failings are inseparable, like force, and matter. When they separate, man is no more.
.
a melt down is impossible in the USA.
All prior accidents have been safely contained.
The nuclear industry is committed to producing
clean energy, cheaply and safely.
The Titanic is a modern ship that is impossible to
ever sink.
Waste materials contain radioactive by products
whose half life is 1000 years.
We think that the risk of a massive earthquake
impacting on the deep storage areas for radioactive
wast as most improbable and highly unlikely.
There is absolutely no risk to the American Public.
The economy is fundamentally sound- H.Hoover
There is light at the end of the tunnel - Johnson
We do not believe that smoking is in any way
addicting. The Presidents of the major Tobacco companies
Tobacco smoke has not been proven to be injurious to
the people - The American Tobacco Institute
Seat belts are impractical to use and are not viewed as
as a meaningful issue , in the reduction of injuries in traffic accidents
The American Automobile Industry
Air bags are just to difficult to manufacture for use in automobiles and
may in fact injure more people then the help. Also the cost per vehicle
would be very high and be passed on to the consumer
The American Automobile Industry
Increasing the mileage per gallon for American Automobiles is beyond our technology
at the present time. Also the cost of such improvements would add substantial cost to
the car which would increase what American Consumers must pay for a car.
The American Automobile Industry.
Asbestos has not been shown to be injurious to people
Johns Mansville Co
Does anyone truly believe that we as a People, can ever believe
the promises and statements of Industry Associations and Company
officials as to the safety of products, nuclear energy, drugs, cars or
products we use every day.
Move into the nuclear energy age and what will be done with the thousand
of tons of highly radioactive materials produced each year. How does one absolutely
insure that each and every Nuclear Site is safe from earthquakes, tornadoes, terrorist
attacks. Do we really believe that the training of nuclear technicians, nuclear technology
or even security personal are all above reproach.
Countrywide Financial is financially solid and there is no cause
for stock holders to be concerned.- Company President Mozillo
Camelot
<< <i>
And an earthquake would pose no threat? come on just built them on the San Andreana's fault why don't you, I cant believe you do not fear its risks.. How could any human being think for one minute risk doesn't exist.. Its a risk I would not be willing to take, If anyone would say otherwise they only need to consider the future possibility's of disaster, or a war on american soil were energy is always first to be taken out.... >>
There's grave risk associated with nuclear reactors but it's a human
risk rather than a function of its nature. This risk is much smaller with
plants that are designed for a worst case scenario. The risk would
virtually disappear if it were run professionally. You almost have to try
or ignore the entire thing to cause major failures on these things. Un-
fortuntely people have been left in charge who are not fit to drive a
car, much less operate a plant.
Three Mile Island was a virtual non-event from the standpoint of the
danger that actually existed. At one point they believed that a great
danger existed but it proved to be a mathmatical error.
Chernobyl was stupidity at its finest.
But this is why I suggest building them downwind from population cen-
ters. They just might do it again so we may as well have prevailing wind
on our side.
If someone can come up with a viable alternative to coal and nuclear
then I'm all ears. In the meantime we'll be looking forward to starvation
on a mass scale if something isn't actually built. Now. (or at least very
soon)
Using a flammable liquid might not be the best
solution to the problem. At some point, technology
might allow energy to be produced from very small
quantities of fissionable material in a manner that would
assure safety in a worst case scenario. However, that is
still a fantasy that is perhaps 25 to 100 years in the future.
Science thought that hydrogenated oils in making margarine
would help reduce cholesterol . That science was proven to
be wrong. When you have the quantity of fissionable material
required in a modern plant, then an unintended train of events,
both mechanical and human ,can lead to disaster.
Camelot
Using a flammable liquid might not be the best
solution to the problem. At some point, technology
might allow energy to be produced from very small
quantities of fissionable material in a manner that would
assure safety in a worst case scenario. However, that is
still a fantasy that is perhaps 25 to 100 years in the future.
Science thought that hydroginated oils in making margarine
would help reduce cholesterol . That science was proven to
be wrong.
Camelot
looking at peak oil now and we're burning little more coal and no more
nuclear than we were ten years ago."
Yes, it's sad because we were aware of this well before now. At least 10 years ago we already had the energy needs and oil dependence well thought out; people were even beginning to discuss peak oil and competition for resources. Instead we did nothing. I don't know if we can pin the failure on the President or corporate greed so much as that we failed to see that the impact that China's explosion onto the international scene to be such a huge game changing event. It's like we thought about oil dependency and finite resources but we failed to act as though our economic vitality depended upon responding to the obvious problem on the near horizion. Within about two years, China went from being identified as up and coming to being the 500 pound gorilla in a 2br condo.
<< <i>
Does anyone truly believe that we as a People, can ever believe
the promises and statements of Industry Associations and Company
officials as to the safety of products, nuclear energy, drugs, cars or
products we use every day.
Move into the nuclear energy age and what will be done with the thousand
of tons of highly radioactive materials produced each year. How does one absolutely
insure that each and every Nuclear Site is safe from earthquakes, tornadoes, terrorist
attacks. Do we really believe that the training of nuclear technicians, nuclear technology
or even security personal are all above reproach.
>>
No. You absolutely can't believe them. Indeed, anytime you let other
people do your thinking for you then you are acting in their interest, not
yours. Asbestos workers were dropping like flies long before anyone
admitted there was danger but the information was out there if you
looked for it.
If you look at th designs of the power plants it's apparent that major
problem are improbable. That does not mean they are safe.
If you just pile up the radioactive waste and put a fence around it you
wouldn't need a great deal of security. It would be of interest only to
terrorists and the amount of shielding they'd need to steal it would
make them easy to see.
Figure out in twenty or a hundred years what to do with it. It would
probably end up being decomposed into its constituent radioactive
parts when the technology is available.
<< <i>How does one absolutely insure that each and every Nuclear Site is safe from earthquakes, tornadoes, terrorist attacks. >>
We don't, because we can't. All we can do is take every reasonable precaution to bring the likelihoods as close to zero as we reasonably can, while acknowledging that it never CAN be zero.
All we can do is try to assess the average-case and worst-case outcomes for several imperfect choices, try to make a realistic guess about the probability of these potential bad outcomes, and make an informed decision balancing all factors.
How can we be sure that a lot of people won't starve, a lot of people will not get needed critical medical care, or a lot of people can't put food on the table because they can't get to their jobs? How can we be sure that a lack of affordable energy won't plunge the nation (and the world) into a decades-long global depression? And let me remind you that third-world countries have a terrible track record of being responsible economic stewards. They don't have the luxury of bearing the added costs of being "green." It takes everything they have to eat and maybe construct rickety huts and shacks for shelter.
See, that's a worst-case of doing nothing about nuclear and keeping it off the table. One could just as easily construct a panic-inducing, doomsday scenario about that, too. In the end, we have to balance the severity of the outcomes with the likelihood that they will occur, and hopefully make wise, informed decisions weighing the benefits and the risk, and trying to find the right trade-off point.
Virtually nothing has zero risk.
<< <i>
Yes, it's sad because we were aware of this well before now. At least 10 years ago we already had the energy needs and oil dependence well thought out; people were even beginning to discuss peak oil and competition for resources. Instead we did nothing. I don't know if we can pin the failure on the President or corporate greed so much as that we failed to see that the impact that China's explosion onto the international scene to be such a huge game changing event. It's like we thought about oil dependency and finite resources but we failed to act as though our economic vitality depended upon responding to the obvious problem on the near horizion. Within about two years, China went from being identified as up and coming to being the 500 pound gorilla in a 2br condo. >>
China's economy has been growing nearly 7% annually for decades. If this sneaked
up on the American government they are the most short sighted leaders in all of his-
tory. I'm still giving them the benefit of the doubt that they know what they are doing.
It's high time they do it or tell us the plan. The silence is getting deafening and I don't
want to hear any more on how gasahol is going to save us. That will be time to hunker
down in a bunker with a three year supply of food and water.
absolute amount of fissionable material required ,to a level that can
not cause wide spread dispersal in a worst case scenario and until the
production of radioactive waste is significantly reduced to manageable
volume, Nuclear Energy will not be the answer.
Camelot
<< <i>Doing the best we can, is not an answer. Until technology limits the
absolute amount of fissionable material required ,to a level that can
not cause wide spread dispersal in a worst case scenario and until the
production of radioactive waste is significantly reduced to manageable
volume, Nuclear Energy will not be the answer. >>
Using that logic, we should immediately shut all coal plants.
Coal burning for electricity leads to wide spread dispersal of pollutants, which for many infants, elderly and folks with respiratory problems, cause serious health problems. Many coal miners die from black lung and other horrible ailments. "Conventional" power plant accidents kill people every year. Every time a coal mine collapses and coal miners die, do you think we should pull the plug on half of the nation's electricity supply because it's not 100% guaranteed safe and cuddly?
The best we can isn't an answer, right? I assume you're happy living off-grid on your own food and water supplies. What you seem to be advocating leads us to just that, because NO energy comes without some amount of health and environmental risk. Not ONE.
And by the way, I don't believe nuclear is "the" answer. It may be AN answer, one of several, and hopefully one that can be deemphasized as other renewable and likely safer technologies come on line.
But you seem to be advocating decades of darkness and economic depression, times which will prevent us from being able to AFFORD widespread deployment of "cleaner" and "safer" alternatives. Crippled economies don't have much money for R&D.
<< <i>
<< <i>Doing the best we can, is not an answer. Until technology limits the
absolute amount of fissionable material required ,to a level that can
not cause wide spread dispersal in a worst case scenario and until the
production of radioactive waste is significantly reduced to manageable
volume, Nuclear Energy will not be the answer. >>
Using that logic, we should immediately shut all coal plants.
Coal burning for electricity leads to wide spread dispersal of pollutants, which for many infants, elderly and folks with respiratory problems, cause serious health problems. Many coal miners die from black lung and other horrible ailments. "Conventional" power plant accidents kill people every year. Every time a coal mine collapses and coal miners die, do you think we should pull the plug on half of the nation's electricity supply because it's not 100% guaranteed safe and cuddly?
The best we can isn't an answer, right? I assume you're happy living off-grid on your own food and water supplies. What you seem to be advocating leads us to just that, because NO energy comes without some amount of health and environmental risk. Not ONE.
And by the way, I don't believe nuclear is "the" answer. It may be AN answer, one of several, and hopefully one that can be deemphasized as other renewable and likely safer technologies come on line.
But you seem to be advocating decades of darkness and economic depression, times which will prevent us from being able to AFFORD widespread deployment of "cleaner" and "safer" alternatives. Crippled economies don't have much money for R&D. >>
Wow this is intense lol...politics on a coin forum.
........ but I have not seen any specifics on exactly what can do to realistically replace them. We just hear the..... solar, wind, hydro, hydrogen chant over and over, but these just cannot replace the output of the oil and nuclear, with where the technology is at now.
I' m convinced more than ever---- we are living in the Age of Unreason.
we must now pay the price in money , restrictions and a change in
the way we live our lives. In time, necessity will bring the new technology
forward from the research labs and universities that will solve the problem
in a manner that is safe, cost effective and renewable. I would not trust
the Nuclear Industry, if they were to tell me that night will follow day. They
lie without any fear of the repercussions nor fear of criminal prosecution. They
would kill and injure thousands to make a buck. In that calloused attitude, they
are no different then any other Industry. I mistrust them all, because they have
never earned my trust.
Camelot
were acquired/disbursed by oil-companies/refiners and end-users.
That means 94% of the action was by SPECULATORS.
It is almost time to short BOTH USO and UNG. Not yet, but soon.
And, remember, when USO tanks, it will take SLV and GLD into the toilet.
this is why a coin forum should not be the place to discuss nuclear
energy when the people discussing it are using 30 year old discussion
points. go google a pebble bed reactor. the darn thing is so safe
the engineers running it could walk away from it and never come back
to it and it will not harm a thing until it stops producing or falls apart.
"When a pebble-bed reactor gets hotter, the more rapid motion of the atoms in the fuel decreases the probability of neutron-induced fissions by 235U atoms due to an effect known as Doppler broadening. When the uranium is heated, its nuclei move more rapidly in random directions, and therefore see a wider range of relative neutron speeds. 238U, which forms the bulk of the uranium in the reactor, is much more likely to absorb fast or epithermal neutrons.[3] This reduces the number of thermalized neutrons available to cause 235U fission, reducing the power output by the reactor.
When the fuel heats, the 238U reacts with a broader spectrum of neutron speeds, thereby lowering the number of available neutrons for fission with 235U. A slower fission rate generally lowers the temperature of the fuel. 238U tends to absorb instead of fission, thus contributing a negligible amount of energy. This places a natural limit on the power produced by the reactor. The reactor vessel is designed so that without mechanical aids it loses more heat than the reactor can generate in this idle state. The design adapts well to safety features (see below). In particular, most of the fuel containment resides in the pebbles, and the pebbles are designed so that a containment failure releases at most a 0.5 mm sphere of radioactive material.
The reactor is cooled by an inert, fireproof gas, so it cannot have a steam explosion as a light-water reactor can. The coolant has no phase transitions—it starts as a gas and remains a gas.
The moderator is solid carbon. It does not act as a coolant, move, or have phase transitions (i.e. between liquid and gas) as the light water in conventional reactors does.
A pebble-bed reactor thus can have all of its supporting machinery fail, and the reactor will not crack, melt, explode or spew hazardous wastes. It simply goes up to a designed "idle" temperature, and stays there. In that state, the reactor vessel radiates heat, but the vessel and fuel spheres remain intact and undamaged. The machinery can be repaired or the fuel can be removed.
These safety features were tested (and filmed) with the German AVR reactor.[9]. All the control rods were removed, and the coolant flow was halted. Afterward, the fuel balls were sampled and examined for damage. There was none. Later problems with the AVR reactor resulted in a small release of radiation to the public.[citation needed]
PBRs are intentionally operated above the 250 °C annealing temperature of graphite, so that Wigner energy is not accumulated. This solves a problem discovered in a famous accident, the Windscale fire. One of the reactors at the Windscale site in England (not a PBR) caught fire because of the release of energy stored as crystalline dislocations (Wigner energy) in the graphite. The dislocations are caused by neutron passage through the graphite. At Windscale, a program of regular annealing was put in place to release accumulated Wigner energy, but since the effect was not anticipated during the construction of the reactor, the process could not be reliably controlled and led to a fire.
The continuous refueling means that there is no excess reactivity in the core. Continuous refueling also permits continuous inspection of the fuel elements."
so. what was the discussion again? oh yea, spewing ignorance on
a coin board :-)
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Doing the best we can, is not an answer. Until technology limits the
absolute amount of fissionable material required ,to a level that can
not cause wide spread dispersal in a worst case scenario and until the
production of radioactive waste is significantly reduced to manageable
volume, Nuclear Energy will not be the answer. >>
Using that logic, we should immediately shut all coal plants.
Coal burning for electricity leads to wide spread dispersal of pollutants, which for many infants, elderly and folks with respiratory problems, cause serious health problems. Many coal miners die from black lung and other horrible ailments. "Conventional" power plant accidents kill people every year. Every time a coal mine collapses and coal miners die, do you think we should pull the plug on half of the nation's electricity supply because it's not 100% guaranteed safe and cuddly?
The best we can isn't an answer, right? I assume you're happy living off-grid on your own food and water supplies. What you seem to be advocating leads us to just that, because NO energy comes without some amount of health and environmental risk. Not ONE.
And by the way, I don't believe nuclear is "the" answer. It may be AN answer, one of several, and hopefully one that can be deemphasized as other renewable and likely safer technologies come on line.
But you seem to be advocating decades of darkness and economic depression, times which will prevent us from being able to AFFORD widespread deployment of "cleaner" and "safer" alternatives. Crippled economies don't have much money for R&D. >>
Wow this is intense lol...politics on a coin forum. >>
If thats not backward thinking I don't know what is.
I would gladly use more coal in the case of the lesser of two evils. By the way there is a vast amount of methane off the Atlantic coast...
Thank you wise old bear for the great examples used in describing how time plays a big role in understanding the dangers of jumping in feet first. by then it would be to late to stop the wide spread political loop holes to abolish the use of hazardous materials, and its effects on the population.
I have found power in the mysteries of thought.
It is always a question of knowing and seeing, and not that of believing.
Our virtues, and our failings are inseparable, like force, and matter. When they separate, man is no more.
.
Nuclear fission produces silver. Yep, AG-110. But you would not want a silver dollar made of this stuff; you would pick up some serious radiation exposure from it.... but it might have some awesome toning!!
and we seem to do it very well indeed. Since non of us
are going to convince the other to view the issue in any
other way, we shall agree to disagree and move on to
the next issue to be dissected, analyzed and probed.
Camelot
<< <i>When we ignore a problem for 20 years that all knew was coming
we must now pay the price in money , restrictions and a change in
the way we live our lives. In time, necessity will bring the new technology
forward from the research labs and universities that will solve the problem
in a manner that is safe, cost effective and renewable. I would not trust
the Nuclear Industry, if they were to tell me that night will follow day. They
lie without any fear of the repercussions nor fear of criminal prosecution. They
would kill and injure thousands to make a buck. In that calloused attitude, they
are no different then any other Industry. I mistrust them all, because they have
never earned my trust. >>
Sorry, Bear but you're wrong on this. Failure is not an option.
Food is a form of oil. Money is a form of oil. Without oil the nation does not function.
The crops don't get planted and the heat goes out. There is no small game and try-
ing to plant something with millions of starving people around will prove counter-
productive.
When these changes are needed it is much too late. The human race will cluster around
a few points of light and our numbers will be far far lower.
It would be criminal to walk into this intentionally so as not to upset the tree huggers
or those voters who oppose coal.
<< <i>Spewing ignorance on a coin board. That is what we do
and we seem to do it very well indeed. Since non of us
are going to convince the other to view the issue in any
other way, we shall agree to disagree and move on to
the next issue to be dissected, analyzed and probed.
i hope you know i was joking. when i talk financial stuff i have a high
probability of spewing hot radioactive ignorance.
it is just some science topics i keep up to date due to nerdy websites
i read ;-)
<< <i>Just be aware that ONLY 6% of oil-futures bought and sold last week
were acquired/disbursed by oil-companies/refiners and end-users.
That means 94% of the action was by SPECULATORS.
It is almost time to short BOTH USO and UNG. Not yet, but soon.
And, remember, when USO tanks, it will take SLV and GLD into the toilet. >>
most of the action is, was there a 20% spike or something? i must have missed something, Friday...or Thursday or last week, last month.....late last year...pick a day.
By far the greatest culprit, the ones that did the most harm, has to be the much lauded US auto industry. With out lining out the argument, we have had no major upgrades in the gasoline engine since unleaded fuel and catalytic converters and how long have we had those, and we're on the front end of techonological development? We use an incredible amount of resources for transportation (tires, metal, plastics, rare metals, petroleum, etc)...surely there is a better way to do that. Hell, we can't even build a car with a collapse proof driver/passenger compartment, what are the chances of finding one that gets 70 or 80 miles on a gallon of refined petoleum? So, I put much of the blame on the greed ridden, self interested, union supporting, competition busting, stockholder pandering, US automobile industry. We led the world in vehicles for so long and now we are struggling to stay on as an "also ran". If we could figure this out in a quantum leap kind of way, we would put this oil situation behind us for the next generation at least. The cars must get much safer, much smaller, and much more fuel efficient and it needs to happen with in a couple of years. Is it really that hard to do?
Oh, yes, almost forgot.
<< <i>
<< <i>Just be aware that ONLY 6% of oil-futures bought and sold last week
were acquired/disbursed by oil-companies/refiners and end-users.
That means 94% of the action was by SPECULATORS.
It is almost time to short BOTH USO and UNG. Not yet, but soon.
And, remember, when USO tanks, it will take SLV and GLD into the toilet. >>
most of the action is, was there a 20% spike or something? i must have missed something, Friday...or Thursday or last week, last month.....late last year...pick a day. >>
So what kind of time period are we talking about? Perhaps on Monday?
<< <i>
<< <i>Just be aware that ONLY 6% of oil-futures bought and sold last week
were acquired/disbursed by oil-companies/refiners and end-users.
That means 94% of the action was by SPECULATORS.
It is almost time to short BOTH USO and UNG. Not yet, but soon.
And, remember, when USO tanks, it will take SLV and GLD into the toilet. >>
most of the action is, was there a 20% spike or something? i must have missed something, Friday...or Thursday or last week, last month.....late last year...pick a day. >>
Didn't Theodore Roosevelt set up some kind of act of intervention in case the economy got out of control..
Well I cant recall what the act is, it essentially gives the government the ability to use any means necessary to manipulate the markets.
Located someplace off the camion islands, a dealer told me today.
Lets take a look at the deficit problem, and how it relates to the devaluation of American currency.
Oil, And Gold are now predicting the future actions of the dollar. You could all benefit by understanding how all this has been played out.
The deficit, and the unseen Government intervention holds the keys to the truth. The truth about, dollars, oil, and were gold will be heading..
I have found power in the mysteries of thought.
It is always a question of knowing and seeing, and not that of believing.
Our virtues, and our failings are inseparable, like force, and matter. When they separate, man is no more.
.