# Nuclear vs. Fossil Fuels vs. Renewable (Pros and Cons)



## Randy (Mar 26, 2011)

It was a pretty good discussion and worth having, but this would probably be a more appropriate venue. Anybody want to kick this one off?


----------



## Guitarman700 (Mar 26, 2011)

There is no renewable energy source as it stands that can power the infrastructure we have in place. As much as I dislike the nuclear energy industry, it's our only option, for now.


----------



## Wingchunwarrior (Mar 26, 2011)

Nuclear=dangerous
Fossil Fuels=too reliant on Arab states
Renewable=I think it is probably the way forward,not because it's eco friendly because I believe that's a ridiculous cause but because it can become cost effective and somewhat protect local environment.


----------



## Guitarman700 (Mar 26, 2011)

Wingchunwarrior said:


> Nuclear=dangerous
> Fossil Fuels=too reliant on Arab states
> Renewable=I think it is probably the way forward,not because it's eco friendly because I believe that's a ridiculous cause but because it can become cost effective and somewhat protect local environment.



Nuclear energy CAN be safe, as long as the plants are built in a stable location, and there are enough redundant safeguards to ensure something like three mile island or Fukashima-daichi doesn't happen.


----------



## maliciousteve (Mar 26, 2011)

I read some where that by 2015 there will be new cars that will run on air and hydrogen. Great if it works well enough and with proper distribution of the hydrogen at the fuel stations but, new cars cost alot of money, so people won't be able to afford them until 2020 when the cars depreciate enough for them to be affordable.


----------



## Wingchunwarrior (Mar 26, 2011)

Guitarman700 said:


> Nuclear energy CAN be safe, as long as the plants are built in a stable location, and there are enough redundant safeguards to ensure something like three mile island or Fukashima-daichi doesn't happen.



Oh definitely, I think in the future it will probably be the main source of energy, however I think peoples views have got even worse after what happened in Japan so Political parties will be under a lot of pressure if it is introduced.So I'm guessing it won't be introduced on a wide scale in the near future


----------



## Randy (Mar 26, 2011)

We were having a small discussion about this on MG and the topic of household wind turbines came up. I'm sure they're expensive but as far as I've heard, they're capable of putting out more than enough electricity to power your home and then some. I also remember some discussion a few years ago about small solar farms that would be centrally located to power individual towns/villages, though I'm sure they'd have to be pretty big and very expensive.


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Mar 26, 2011)

I could tell you guys all sorts of inspiring things about energy, but of course there is a downside, too. You will ask, BUT WHY DON'T WE HAVE THEM YET!!!!!!!?????

And, the answer is the downside.... 

Domino Collapse is an excellent, if depressing look at conventional energy sources. Here is a teaser...


It comes in the form of an interview/documentary and puts across some very interesting details concerning conventional energy sources, which are all rubbish.

My personal favourite is Nikola Tesla's research at the behest of J.P. Morgan; you know, that guy who helped cause the 1930's depression in America, you remember that guy, right?



Go look, you will love it! Tesla was asked.... "But, where would you put the meter?". Brilliant!

By the way, Tesla gave you everything you ever took for granted. By inventing Alternating Current (AC) he illuminated the planet. I use illuminated specifically, look out for that word, it is significant.

"Who killed the electric car?" is another good documentary, regarding GM's EV1 electric car, but electric cars are crap anyway, although there are performance models faster than conventional cars, by miles, with monster acceleration. As they run of reactor power from the main grid, don't help anyway. And to replace all petrol cars, you'd need to make 'em, not very effective in Ec0 Land.

I've said enough for now, maybe I'll put more stuff later... If you want an honest and mature discussion, you have to check out a few people the mainstream don't want anyone to know about.... "Where do you put the meter?"...

Also, these videos may damage your world view. DO NOT WATCH THESE VIDEOS UNLESS YOU WANT TO BE CHALLENGED: WARNING WARNING WARNING. (You've been warned!!!).

Reasonable enough, eh?

Didn't Obama recently mention "Clean Coal"... 



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Mar 26, 2011)




----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Mar 26, 2011)

Guitarman, you read Frank Herbert's Dune, right? It's in your location: "Arrakis". How can you be pro nuclear? That book was revolutionary in spreading Keynesian economics and the potential of the green movement. Go read it again! 

Also, Europe has made an effort to go "Green". If you drive through France, Belgium, the Netherlands or Germany, they've all spent billions on wind turbines. They're monstrous constructions. Let's see if the data proves them to be cost effective.

Go watch "Domino Collapse", it has a costings section for all "Green" power sources, which you should be aware of before making you mind up for good on any one solution.

I'm not concerned, however. I know the fate of humanity is in good hands. Once Shono has finished changing his strings, he's moving on to renewable energy as his next challenge. . .


----------



## orb451 (Mar 26, 2011)

This is exactly the kind of thing we can expect from politicians pandering to their constituents that keep these kinds of projects from moving forward. Granted this is an older article, but to my knowledge they've had limited success building new solar/wind/water production facilities precisely because there is always *someone* who's against it.

http://gizmodo.com/#!5431887/mojave-desert-solar-farm-blocked-by-senator-dianne-feinstein

I think Nuclear power will remain a large scale major source of electricity generation until the next big *breakthrough*. Whether that's an alternative form of nuclear power, or something unknown at the moment, sooner or later something will be discovered and meet all the requirements for adoption.

At a local/micro level there's lots of alternative energy sources to try. But scaling them up or *requiring* their adoption is a tough sell and uphill battle. Not to mention cost.


----------



## Origin (Mar 26, 2011)

My vote's for nuclear, it's fantastically safe so long as...unfortunate natural disasters such as recent ones don't happen. Unfortunately Japan is going to give anti-nuclear windbags even more fuel.


----------



## SirMyghin (Mar 26, 2011)

Ryan-ZenGtr- said:


> Guitarman, you read Frank Herbert's Dune, right? It's in your location: "Arrakis". How can you be pro nuclear? That book was revolutionary in spreading Keynesian economics and the potential of the green movement. Go read it again!



A very good reason not to read too deeply into it. . Keynesians.... ( I do love me some Dune)

We need more nuclear out there, renewable just cannot cut it due to our lifestyles unless we make some massive breakthough. Those algae towers are pretty cool none the less. Solar cell creation actually uses a lot of 'hazardous substances' in their storage.

I know a lot of folks don't like nuclear right now due to the medai hype surrounding Fukashima. Considering the circumstances it took to do that little bit of damage, the place is damned safe.


----------



## Guitarman700 (Mar 26, 2011)

Ryan-ZenGtr- said:


> Guitarman, you read Frank Herbert's Dune, right? It's in your location: "Arrakis". How can you be pro nuclear? That book was revolutionary in spreading Keynesian economics and the potential of the green movement. Go read it again!
> 
> Also, Europe has made an effort to go "Green". If you drive through France, Belgium, the Netherlands or Germany, they've all spent billions on wind turbines. They're monstrous constructions. Let's see if the data proves them to be cost effective.
> 
> ...


I never said I was pro nuclear. I hate the nuclear energy industry with a passion, but as it stands, it's the only option we have at the moment that can power our current infrastructure. Our future obviously needs renewable energy, but the transition will be gradual, rather than immediate.


----------



## Skyblue (Mar 26, 2011)

There's actually an increase in interest in solar energy around here- my school installed solar panels everywhere, and they're planning on them producing electricity for the whole school, and a few families where I live installed solar panels on their houses, for electricity production for themselves. we'll have to wait and see if it'll actually work out. 

One thing I'd like to know- it's true, as far as I know anyway, that nuclear energy is basically "clean", which is very important these days, but then again- what do we do with all the Uranium fuel rods after we're done with them? as far as I know we just bury them, which isn't exactly efficient, not to mention not environment friendly. is this really the situation? does someone have a clue?~


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Mar 26, 2011)

Go watch "Domino Collapse"... Essentially, the "Green Movement" requires global scale retooling of economic, energy and social infrastructure. Doesn't sound very "Green", does it?

The case is put very well in the documentary. The final thought is returning to a simpler way of life.

I'd also suggest looking into Nikola Tesla's work and life, as many of his innovations have not been brought to the attention, as they rightly deserve, of the general public.

Nuclear power stations, if simplified, are essentially hydraulic systems, moving turbines with super heated water vapour. Go have a look at what happened in Chernobyl, the day the world nearly ended.

Go watch the documentaries I suggested and, if your ready, watch this:



I hope that's a good one, as Brian O'Leary is just the tip of the iceberg...

Chernobyl is an incredibly interesting event and well worth researching. The courage and bravery of the ordinary Russian soldiers, helicopter pilots and people is an exemplary symbol of humanity's tenacious grip on survival. Check it out!

Not enough people know what happened there, or after.


----------



## SirMyghin (Mar 26, 2011)

Skyblue said:


> One thing I'd like to know- it's true, as far as I know anyway, that nuclear energy is basically "clean", which is very important these days, but then again- what do we do with all the Uranium fuel rods after we're done with them? as far as I know we just bury them, which isn't exactly efficient, not to mention not environment friendly. is this really the situation? does someone have a clue?~




My solution has always been build a large fuel rod cannon and blast those bastards 1/2 way across the galaxy. There is enough lifeless space out there the odds are we won't adversely effect anything if it exists.


----------



## Guitarman700 (Mar 26, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> My solution has always been build a large fuel rod cannon and blast those bastards 1/2 way across the galaxy. There is enough lifeless space out there the odds are we won't adversely effect anything if it exists.



Launch it into the sun.


----------



## Explorer (Mar 26, 2011)

Having been places where there were wind turbines and more efficient housing designs, I think that there are some changes which would have to be implemented in order to use sustainable energy in more places.

I view the differences in outlook to be similar the differences between people who know how to sail and those who use powerboats. Sailors know how to go with what's available, tend to have modest power needs, and design/plan within limits. 

People with powerboats tend to think of journeys as destinations, and look for places to buy fuel for their boats. They tend to have lots of gadgets, and often ask when starting out, how one puts on the brakes. *laugh*

----

Having lived places where one used the power grid very little, and one cooked using bottled propane gas (still common in lots of places in Europe, even in cities), and where hot water came from a small tank in the kitchen or hallway which wasn't on all the time, I can definitively say that most Americans don't think that way. We keep our hot water tanks on and ready to go, as well as most of our electronics. 

I generally post on here from a netbook. My power bill for heat and electricity this past winter, for a three-month period of Dec-Jan-Feb, was $58US, and I live pretty far north. I believe in insulation, and I try to not waste energy. My cost for car usage over the last year, for everything including gas, was less than $2k. 

I'm at one extreme. Fortunately for me, that extreme means I can spend more money on other things. 

----

Until better insulation (even as a retrofit) is used in most homes, I can't see American homes getting better in terms of energy costs. 

There are definitely areas in the US where more sustainable energy sources are available. Quite a few utility companies around the country are giving the option to pay a few cents more to purchase carbon-neutral electricity. Places where consumers are actually generating *more* energy than they consume often allow those consumers to sell that surplus back to the grid, which means less power plants need to be built. 

There have also been a few developments in low-speed tidal current turbine design, and other designs which are very low-impact regarding ocean life. 

The words "sustainable" and "unsustainable" are gaining ground, as people start to look at how some things don't work in the long run. Events like Japan and the Deepwater Horizon spill just remind people of how risky things can be with current technologies, and of the unsolved problems over time. 

As in the case of DDT and pesticide usage, and the need to deal with the damage they caused, I think the next breakthrough regarding energy will be the requirement to use less of it. That happened when Jimmy Carter pushed for fuel efficiency standards, with Detroit arguing that it couldn't be done. That energy crisis passed, and with the new standards in place, we managed to bounce back further with less oil (Hummers and such to the contrary, of course).

----

And, regarding the idea of lifting the fuel rods into space, there are always such schemes that go wrong. The two space shuttles which blew up were just hugely publicized. How many other rockets go boom, and what would happen if there was nuclear waste in large amounts aboard such a vehicle?


----------



## Antenna (Mar 26, 2011)

Skyblue said:


> One thing I'd like to know- it's true, as far as I know anyway, that nuclear energy is basically "clean", which is very important these days, but then again- what do we do with all the Uranium fuel rods after we're done with them? as far as I know we just bury them, which isn't exactly efficient, not to mention not environment friendly. is this really the situation? does someone have a clue?~


 

I can answer that question for ya bud. I work in the Nuke industry so I know what is required and what we all have to do or the NRC will come rip our fucking asses out of our mouths. At the End of every Fuel Cycle (16 months or less) the rods are moved from the core to a Spent Fuel Pool which is an independent heavily enclosed structure that is constantly pressurized. The rods will continue to be stored there under no less than 23 ft. of water so that they stay at a safe temperature. After the fuel rods are at a safe enough level (in about 15 -20 years) these rods are moved from the pool and placed in Dry Cast Storage Containers, which are pressurized and ventilated and are stored in their own special Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation on site and heavily guarded by Security. All of these areas are heavily monitered by Radiation Protection Workers for any type of Compromise or Leakage.


----------



## Antenna (Mar 26, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> My solution has always been build a large fuel rod cannon and blast those bastards 1/2 way across the galaxy. There is enough lifeless space out there the odds are we won't adversely effect anything if it exists.


 

haha it'd just make abunch of "mini stars" all Stars are more radioactive than some old fuel rods.


----------



## SirMyghin (Mar 26, 2011)

^^

So essentially a waiting period in containment until the radio-isotopes have all broken down to more stable forms (or mostly so)? 

This stuff doesn't stay 'radioactive' forever, only while the unstable atoms are breaking up.


----------



## The Reverend (Mar 26, 2011)

Antenna said:


> I can answer that question for ya bud. I work in the Nuke industry so I know what is required and what we all have to do or the NRC will come rip our fucking asses out of our mouths. At the End of every Fuel Cycle (16 months or less) the rods are moved from the core to a Spent Fuel Pool which is an independent heavily enclosed structure that is constantly pressurized. The rods will continue to be stored there under no less than 23 ft. of water so that they stay at a safe temperature. After the fuel rods are at a safe enough level (in about 15 -20 years) these rods are moved from the pool and placed in Dry Cast Storage Containers, which are pressurized and ventilated and are stored in their own special Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation on site and heavily guarded by Security. All of these areas are heavily monitered by Radiation Protection Workers for any type of Compromise or Leakage.



What happens after that, though? Say war ravaged the country, are there safeguards in place to keep the spent rods (lulz) safe?


----------



## Randy (Mar 26, 2011)

Explorer said:


> I view the differences in outlook to be similar the differences between people who know how to sail and those who use powerboats. Sailors know how to go with what's available, tend to have modest power needs, and design/plan within limits.
> 
> People with powerboats tend to think of journeys as destinations, and look for places to buy fuel for their boats. They tend to have lots of gadgets, and often ask when starting out, how one puts on the brakes. *laugh*



I'm totally a sailing enthusiast, too.


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Mar 26, 2011)

5,000 year half life? I seem to recall... Go research some more Chernobyl stuff, or the nuclear testing in Bikini... So much stuff, can't remember all the details.

My thanks go to Explorer and Antenna for injecting some credibility. 

Actinides in the environment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Plutonium in the environment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Ckackley (Mar 26, 2011)

Renewable CAN work but people seem to keep thinking inside the box. Take electricity- The roof on my house has a total area of 1100 square feet. There's 100 houses in my development. That's 110000 square feet of area available if it were to be covered in panels. That's in ONE development in ONE city in the US. A house CAN run on a roof top solar panel array, I've seen it done in Purceville, VA. Supliment with a few wind farms and some tidal turbines to make up for large facility use and theres a whole new power grid.

Cars- Better public transit on efficient vehicles run on biofuels. I could totally JUST drive my car once a week if we had good public transit. Can't make the biofuels out of a food product either. There are weeds that make almost as much fuel as corn and soy that won't cause food prices to go up. Going electric may put too much of a strain on a solar power grid but using gear reduction and better alternators could make a car damn near self recharging with very little fuel consumption. 

The tech is here now. We just need to get it in place. It can be done and should be done. The world needs power and jobs right now. Implementing a new grid would take care of both. However it seems that politics and current energy monopolies won't allow it.


----------



## Antenna (Mar 26, 2011)

The Reverend said:


> What happens after that, though? Say war ravaged the country, are there safeguards in place to keep the spent rods (lulz) safe?


 
Why yes, These things aren't just enclosed sheet rock or something. They are heavily fortified. The world really has learned in the 25 years since chernobyl. Plus the Nuclear Industry pays out a ridiculous sum of money to keep its security top notch and relevant, and if all else were to fail we have priority with the military as well.


----------



## Explorer (Mar 26, 2011)

It's been a while, but I remember reading a cost analysis regarding using fossil fuels. It included cleanup costs, job losses and damage to food generation in areas due to spills, health costs due to pollution, acid rain, and a few other factors. There was a huge amount which was just being charged to the public in the form of hidden fees, because it's not always so easy to say, you ruined this entire wetland and the crawfish which used to live here, and now all these poor people have nothing to eat. 

Now, the question is... how much would nuclear energy continue to cost, even if the US discontinued its use today? How much does containment of wastes, armament, soldiers' pay, etc, cost per year?

How much does it cost to guard a solar panel beyond what it costs to guard the house it sits on?

----

Does the nuclear industry pay those costs? Do they hire the US armed services as a form of police force?

Or, does the US government pay for it... meaning, the taxpayers do?

----

Ckackley raises a good point regarding biofuels. Most of what is being raised is replacing product which is useful for human consumption. 

Further, all the studies other than those from Monsanto show that the engineered genes on GMO crops wind up in completely unrelated plants nearby. That means that genes which lead to corn creating plastic instead of consumable sugar can get into the food chain. Also, weeds are now gaining that genetically engineered resistance to Round-Up pesticide, leading to more of it being needed. That mirrors what happened with pesticides in the US during the '70s, with all those birds and insects dead, leading to the book "Silent Spring," . (Don't know about all this, kids? There's no better time to do a little light reading on recent US history!) 

----

Again, the words "sustainable" and "unsustainable" become useful when thinking about solutions. 

A solution where one can rotate crops, and even use crops which induce greater growth in each other, with no outside input and little-to-no pesticides? Or a solution where more pesticides, and engineered organisms, are necessary to get past the current problems... but that will generate those same problems just a bit down the road?

A solution where the local grid can generate enough energy for modest means, with the true costs of coal and oil usage charged to those who decide they want to have the advantages of more powerful but more polluting/less sustainable fuels? Or one where the problems are (hopefully) put off until your kids will have to deal with them?

A solution where there are no wastes to deal with? Or one where the byproducts have to be guarded for the next 5000 years, at taxpayer expense, from terrorists who can just use dynamite to spread that waste around?

Sustainable. Unsustainable. Those simple words make it easy to decide, don't they?


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Mar 26, 2011)

Anyone watch the videos I suggested?

Post thoughts invited...

Explorer, don't even get me STARTED on Monsanto... 

Well worth looking into in depth, you will be better for the research. What was their deal again; if your neighbouring farmers use Monsanto seed, you have to pay a royalty to Monsanta for "Cross polination potential" ? (I made that polination bit up, as I couldn't remember the correct term, that is the best I can remember, look them up).

Go watch "Collapse" as I recommended, a good overview and "Peak Oil" explanation is included. DVD is worth the money, 110%. *slightly depressing though*

Other bit about electric cars; Rubber wheels. Bio fuels: more land used than energy generated. Same with solar panels.

Here is an insight into Chernobyl... Haven't watched this one, but it'll do.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5968506788418521112#


----------



## Antenna (Mar 26, 2011)

Explorer said:


> Now, the question is... how much would nuclear energy continue to cost, even if the US discontinued its use today? How much does containment of wastes, armament, soldiers' pay, etc, cost per year?
> 
> How much does it cost to guard a solar panel beyond what it costs to guard the house it sits on?
> 
> ...



The Nuclear Industry first off is a Privatized Industry, the U.S. Government does not pay anyone to make nuclear power. It is a product. The Only tax payer money that contributes to it is to the Federal Organization of The NRC. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulates every aspect in full detail of the entire industry. The Company (called Licensee) pays every expense itself including Armament, Containment, Training, Testing, Waste Management, Public information, and LARGE FINES if it is out of regulation with emplaced standards. 

No tax payer puts a single dollar into this at all. The military, like I said would definitely protect the nuclear sites if we had a war on American soil. However, the specialized men who make up the Nuclear Security Forces are mostly of Military and Law Enforcement background and are training and testing their skills constantly to ensure the most competent of individuals is guarding such an asset. 

As it stands Nuclear Energy is definitely a far better asset than Solar Energy as well. It takes ridiculous amounts of Solar cells to equal a single Nuclear Sites output to the Grid. This industry among all others has strived for over 30 years now to ensure a competitive rate to its customers and a further superior product than its fossil fuel brethren.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Mar 26, 2011)

Nuclear and renewables are obviosly the future, but for now shouldn't we just continue to hoard our fossil fuels(usa) and try to use everyone elses up first?


----------



## C2Aye (Mar 26, 2011)

Fossil fuels need to be a thing of the past and quickly I feel. The fact that you can barely see most of China's major cities due to smog from their coal power plants is a testament as to how 'dirty' fossil fuel power is. Renewable energy is a nice stopgap but hardly has the potential to provide enough power for such high energy demands. Nuclear power, both fission and fusion, seems to be the ultimate solution, especially fusion power.

With the recent happenings in Japan, some people have been questioning whether nuclear power is safe. I'm sorry, but those power stations were hit by the largest ever earthquake in Japan's recent history (or largest? not sure on that front) and those power plants didn't immediately meltdown and explode, a testament to the resilliance of modern enginneering. Anybody shouting off about how unsafe nuclear power is needs to get a sense of perspective.

Nuclear power shoud be safe given you follow everything to the letter. Chernobyl was a result of the people fannying about with the control rods. In the event that a reaction starts to even remotely get out of hand, drop your control rods and flood the reactor with water which kills your reaction. And even that's not necessary as nuclear power plants run well on a day to day basis. All the news reports about the safety of nuclear power need to remember that 8.9 scale earthquakes don't come about that often.

The major problem with nuclear power is the waste. I think the half-lives are in the order of thousands of years and it's a pain in the ass to dispose of it. I would just say shoot it in space towards the sun but I realise that is about as feasible as cold fusion.

Which brings me to nuclear fusion. Having had to do research on the current methods researched into achieving fusion, I think within the next 20-50 years, we will have a working nuclear fusion power plant and it will solve all our energy needs. I mean, it's like having our sun here on earth churning out energy. Obviously, there are obstacles to overcome and the required power plants would have to be absolutely massive but if it powers the world, then fair play. I would suggest looking into magnetic confinement fusion (MCF) and inertial confinement fusion (ICF). MCF looks more likely to produce a power plant and ICF seems to be used for nuclear weapons research but I find it reassuring that there are two methods, of which one will produce a working nuclear fusion power plant.


----------



## Explorer (Mar 26, 2011)

Antenna said:


> The Nuclear Industry first off is a Privatized Industry, the U.S. Government does not pay anyone to make nuclear power. It is a product. The Only tax payer money that contributes to it is to the Federal Organization of The NRC. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulates every aspect in full detail of the entire industry. The Company (called Licensee) pays every expense itself including Armament, Containment, Training, Testing, Waste Management, Public information, and LARGE FINES if it is out of regulation with emplaced standards.
> 
> No tax payer puts a single dollar into this at all. The military, like I said would definitely protect the nuclear sites if we had a war on American soil. However, the specialized men who make up the Nuclear Security Forces are mostly of Military and Law Enforcement background and are training and testing their skills constantly to ensure the most competent of individuals is guarding such an asset.
> 
> As it stands Nuclear Energy is definitely a far better asset than Solar Energy as well. It takes ridiculous amounts of Solar cells to equal a single Nuclear Sites output to the Grid. This industry among all others has strived for over 30 years now to ensure a competitive rate to its customers and a further superior product than its fossil fuel brethren.


 
Ah, I was under the impression that the cost of guarding spent nuclear fuel was going to be a federal responsibility, at least until recently. Wasn't the nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain being paid for with federal funds? Let me look...

Yes, although it was removed from the President's budget, and will likely be a point of much debate this coming year, federal funds were definitely being used until last year.

Further, the federal government currently pays the nuclear facilities for storage costs on the spent fuel, as it didn't take on the storage of the spent fuel after 1998. I'm not saying that the nuclear industry isn't a private enterprise. I'm saying it is a highly subsidized industry, and one which is generating a lot of waste which cannot be stored in a sustainable way.

If you have any facts which contradict the open budgets which show the federal government, it would be interesting to know where that money actually went. Otherwise, your assertion is wrong. 

----

I understand if it appears to most that "unsustainable" means that something is less desireable. I also understand the appeal of an unsustainable solution if one wants to keep up the habits of the past. 

Sure, nuclear is now a competitive product, as long as one doesn't factor in the costs of spent fuel containment, *at minimum*. 

I don't know if this is how you meant to come across, but to me it sounds like, "Well, if you want to keep driving that Hummer, of *course* we'll have to drill in the National Wildlife Refuge! You can't make the Hummer a hybrid!" 

The point you're missing is that perhaps not everyone is demanding that we continue to use energy at the level of a Hummer. Perhaps not everyone wants spent nuclear fuel to deal with. Perhaps some people can get by with less energy consumption, and want to do so. 

Perhaps they don't want to deal with the consequences of others creating poisons through unsustainable solutions... or to saddle their kids with those consequences.

Just some thoughts!

----

Ah! One more thing!

I remember, during some discussion of drilling in the National Wildlife Refuge, the idea being floated that any such oil obtained should be used for US consumption. It turns out that the contracts for such drilling allow the oil companies to sell the oil on the open market.

In other words, even if the refuge is ruined, if China can pay a higher price, we get nothing out of it, but the oil companies will make out wonderfully.

Cheers!


----------



## Antenna (Mar 26, 2011)

I agree C2Aye, Nuclear power is something people can have full confidence in. Really it doesn't matter what kind of reaction you have going on in the core. A Nuke Plant works most other power plants do, Except you have a reactor. You have a nuclear reactor with the core and fuel rods, and a water coolant system that controls the reaction and heat. This coolant is sealed pressurized and at roughly 500 degrees F, Then you have a set of separate water (which does not come in contact with the core or anything) that runs over theses pipes and heats up. This heated water goes into a steam generator that then spins turbines. These super fast spinning turbines actually create electricity and push it out into the grid. It essentially replaces fossil fuels because you don't have smoke as a bi-product, but instead steam. It really doesn't get more efficient these days or cleaner.


----------



## Explorer (Mar 26, 2011)

Antenna said:


> (Nuclear) essentially replaces fossil fuels because you don't have smoke as a bi-product, but instead steam, *and radioactive spent fuel with a half life of 5000 years*. It really doesn't get more efficient these days or cleaner, *especially compared to solar, tidal or wind.*


 
Fixed. *chuckle*


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Mar 26, 2011)

+1 Jimmy Carter energy reforms... Solar panels on the White House! It happened a while back, but they got taken down pretty quick.

There's a documentary on his energy advisor (!) which is cool and progressive, but I can't remember the name. He wears a Stetson whilst promoting progressive energy concerns, in his 70's!

Chernobyl official story is that they were testing reactor 3 (?) of 4 (?) and turned off all automated safety protocols to measure output. Fannying around, maybe...


----------



## Antenna (Mar 26, 2011)

Explorer said:


> Fixed. *chuckle*



 Ignorance.

I will admit hydro-electric plants are good, not as much cost efficiency, but whatever. Solar power while a fantastic idea is too expensive to pay for itself and too expensive to maintain, maybe one day.


----------



## Randy (Mar 26, 2011)

Excel info -::- Bergey Windpower


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Mar 26, 2011)

Energy policy of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Hydroelectricity was the basis of Nikola Tesla's introduction of the U.S. electricity grid, starting at Niagara Falls, NY in 1883.

That was a while ago...

Interesting reading....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_administration


----------



## pink freud (Mar 26, 2011)

Guitarman700 said:


> There is no renewable energy source as it stands that can power the infrastructure we have in place. As much as I dislike the nuclear energy industry, it's our only option, for now.



Thorium is going to be used more. It's safer.


----------



## -42- (Mar 26, 2011)

At this point, the only thing keeping 'alternative' sources afloat are subsisdies, otherwise they have almost zero economic viability compared to more traditional energy sources. I'm not against using alternative sources of power, but I feel as if the expectations of wind/solar/wave/etc are exceedingly high given how limited they are as power sources (currently, at least). 

Suffice to say that I live within ten miles of a nuclear plant, and I feel perfectly safe.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Mar 26, 2011)

There are a lot of very strong ideas going around for renewable energy sources. The problem is the economic effect changing a fuel source would bring; first you'd have to get the oil and gas companies to swap to a new product, something that could destroy their businesses. Then theres the amount of money it would cost to put the new fuel into the market in the form of new appliances and fuel depos. 

The fact is that if an idea came along, it would be a long while before anyone knew about it, let alone saw it put into action. My grandad knew someone before the war who invented an everlasting match. The patent was bought by a match company and buried, never to see the light of day. Shit like that happens all the time. Scientific progress is stopped because its easier to make money when things stay the same as they are.

Nuclear energy is the way forward for now.


----------



## The Reverend (Mar 26, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> There are a lot of very strong ideas going around for renewable energy sources. The problem is the economic effect changing a fuel source would bring; first you'd have to get the oil and gas companies to swap to a new product, something that could destroy their businesses. Then theres the amount of money it would cost to put the new fuel into the market in the form of new appliances and fuel depos.
> 
> The fact is that if an idea came along, it would be a long while before anyone knew about it, let alone saw it put into action. My grandad knew someone before the war who invented an everlasting match. The patent was bought by a match company and buried, never to see the light of day. Shit like that happens all the time. Scientific progress is stopped because its easier to make money when things stay the same as they are.
> 
> Nuclear energy is the way forward for now.



This.

As has been mentioned on this forum before, scientific progress just for the sake of progress barely exists anymore. Our lives are IMO measurably harder than necessary due to more research being done to create things that make money than to make things that improve life. 

As to how this relates to our energy problems, I'm sure if the government and corporations really wanted to, they could make several large strides, or possibly solve this energy thing. For my money, nuclear power is the best option right *now*, but as Explorer said, it is not sustainable, nor is it desirable, really. No matter how good the safeguards may be, I don't feel comfortable creating dangerous material that will continue to stay so for 5,000 years. Our world sees such major upheaval and changes multiple times a century that making decisions that could have an impact for thousands of years is quite frankly immature. 

I think it's obvious that renewable energy would be ideal, and in my very uneducated opinion, I think that given enough serious funding, it could be made just as viable as anything we've ever used for energy. I mean, come on. We can fit all this ludicrous shit into ever-smaller cell phones, but we can't make solar panels any better? Or electric cars better?


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Mar 26, 2011)

People need power.

People need jobs.

Build people-powered generators.

BAM!


I just solved the energy crisis.


----------



## Guitarman700 (Mar 26, 2011)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> People need power.
> 
> People need jobs.
> 
> ...



Soilent energy is PEOPLE!


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Mar 26, 2011)

Guitarman700 said:


> Soilent energy is PEOPLE!


 
I meant use people to turn cranks or ride exercise bikes or something, but using humans as the fuel itself could work, too. It'd save alot on cemetery real estate. Just take granny down to the Municipal Mortuary & Power Substation.


----------



## highlordmugfug (Mar 26, 2011)

^*Insensitive joke incoming*

We truly can be a nation powered by unwed teenage mothers!


----------



## Ckackley (Mar 26, 2011)

-42- said:


> At this point, the only thing keeping 'alternative' sources afloat are subsisdies, otherwise they have almost zero economic viability compared to more traditional energy sources. I'm not against using alternative sources of power, but I feel as if the expectations of wind/solar/wave/etc are exceedingly high given how limited they are as power sources (currently, at least).
> 
> Suffice to say that I live within ten miles of a nuclear plant, and I feel perfectly safe.



Hate to break it to ya, but our current energy is heavily subsidized as well.


----------



## Randy (Mar 26, 2011)

Playground created by BYU students helps to generate power - ksl.com


----------



## Explorer (Mar 27, 2011)

Antenna said:


> Ignorance.



I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. It was just that you had made two statements which were demonstrably false, that the US nuclear industry didn't take any money from the US government, and that the byproduct of nuclear energy was clean steam. 

If that fits your idea of ignorance... well, I'm not sure how true facts fall into a definition of ignorance, but ignoring those facts is definitely *willful* ignorance. That, unfortunately, tends to ruin one's credibility regarding a topic.

----

As current energy sources get more and more expensive and/or as the environmental costs mount to where they cannot be ignored, the pressure does come on to switch to things which *don't* have those negatives. 

At the point where California required vehicles to have *greater* fuel effciency than the rest of the country, there were challenges to the legality of a higher standard. However, auto companies managed to comply because they wanted to be able to sell cards in California.

Now there is the requirement that a certain percentage of vehicles sold in California have to have zero emissions. If you're an auto maker, do you go for it, or turn your back on a huge market?

California also had some huge energy efficiency standards for homes, if I recall correctly. Now all the houses constructed comply with those standards from the '70s, and they consume less energy per square foot than anywhere else in the country, if I recall recent figures. 

No, it won't be an overnight process to do more with less. California has been at it for 40 years. 

I'll be interested in seeing if there is convergence between an emphasis on renewable energy, and the remarkable fact that climatologists in a recent study agreed (97%) that the earth is warming, with 82% of those polled agreeing that the warming is anthropomorphic (caused by man). That's a pretty big convergence of opinion, notable in the same way that geologists, biologists and others all agree on evolution, although they may debate specific mechanisms.

Anyway, if we're going to be subsidizing any form of power, all the facts should be discussed, don't you think? If coal burning and nuclear create waste products which will incur costs over time, that's part of the discussion. If lives will be threatened by changing weather patterns, then that will be part of the discussion as well.


----------



## orb451 (Mar 27, 2011)

Compared to fossil fuels, nuclear power is still the best bet for large scale energy production. If anyone wants to complain about the nuclear power industry getting government subsidies they should be complaining about green energy government subsidies as well. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Wind, hydro and solar energy production simply can't hold a candle (figuratively or literally) to nuclear and *gasp* fossil power production. That's reality. But if it comforts some people to live in a dream world, that's fine. Knock yourselves out. 

You'd see a lot less of those *evil* coal and fossil fuel burning power plants if they could build more nuclear power plants. But they can't build those because people are stuck with the notion that Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and now Fukishima are the kinds of things that happen weekly in the nuclear industry. That the half life for spent fuel rods is 5000+ years (complete garbage). That the rods are effectively wrapped in paper towels and thrown on the side of the road (complete garbage). And so on and so forth. Talk about willful ignorance.  Wind, hydro and solar just *aren't* up to snuff yet. I hope someday they are, but at the moment they're not. Period. And by up to snuff, I mean operating at efficiencies that match or exceed those of nuclear or fossil power plants in use today, and at a lower cost. Otherwise, why use them? And this again does not even take into account the protesters and zealots that block their adoption whenever possible.

Here's a few choice quotes from Explorer and my thoughts on the matter:

_As current energy sources get more and more expensive and/or as the environmental costs mount to where they cannot be ignored, the pressure does come on to switch to things which *don't* have those negatives. _

There already is a viable alternative energy source for large scale power production, that could push the US at least away from coal burning plants. It's called nuclear power. Other than irrational fear of nuclear power, why not *at least* invest money in building new nuclear power plants *in conjunction* with the copious amounts of money being spent on Carbon Credits and other vastly inefficient forms of large scale energy production. 


_At the point where California required vehicles to have *greater* fuel effciency than the rest of the country, there were challenges to the legality of a higher standard. However, auto companies managed to comply because they wanted to be able to sell cards in California.

_I didn't know the auto industry was in the business of making cards. That aside, what's your point? The auto makers are businesses, not charities. When they have a state mandate that could potentially compromise their ability to make money, what did you expect them to do? Sit back and snub California? Again, they're a business, of course they're going to do what they have to do to *stay* in business. Would you be happier if they flopped? 


_Now there is the requirement that a certain percentage of vehicles sold in California have to have zero emissions. If you're an auto maker, do you go for it, or turn your back on a huge market?_

By your hypothetical question, I think it's safe to assume you're not a business owner. Obviously any business that wants to *stay* in business is going to do what they have to do, to continue to make money. And again I ask, what's your point? That they complied? That they had to? That they were able to?


_California also had some huge energy efficiency standards for homes, if I recall correctly. Now all the houses constructed comply with those standards from the '70s, and they consume less energy per square foot than anywhere else in the country, if I recall recent figures. _

Terrific! At what cost? And to whom? The homeowners? The home builders? The state's cost in enforcing the regulations? Green energy at the micro level sure seems like the new guilt trip du jour. Another way for businesses to exist to bilk money from fools that feel guilty for the energy they consume or the way in which they do it. Is greater energy efficiency a bad thing? Absolutely not! But should it be crammed down our collective throats? No. 


_No, it won't be an overnight process to do more with less. California has been at it for 40 years. _

Almost half a century and what have we to show for it? We still rely primarily on nuclear power plants for electricity statewide. The solar energy facilities we do have produce a great amount of power, so why not build more? Again because they run into roadblocks from environmental groups or politicians (see previous post for link). There are three major wind power generation stations, one of which is located out by Palm Springs that currently produces ~615MW of power, compared to use one reactor at San Onofre Nuclear station that produces almost twice that amount. 

This, despite the wind power and solar power efficiency and cost reduction advancements in the last 20+ years. So again, if people want to delude themselves into thinking these alternative energy forms are going to be our saviors, they're wrong. At least for now. As I said earlier, in the future I'm sure some new discoveries will make batteries more efficient, wind and solar power more efficient or practical, well, solar, probably not wind and perhaps hydro power production. 


_Anyway, if we're going to be subsidizing any form of power, all the facts should be discussed, don't you think? If coal burning and nuclear create waste products which will incur costs over time, that's part of the discussion. If lives will be threatened by changing weather patterns, then that will be part of the discussion as well. _

Correct, we should discuss everything. Including the ongoing inefficiency of wind and solar power. Why pour money into technology that's had at least as long as nuclear power to mature and advance, and has reached a plateau in terms of cost and efficiency. That's like driving your beatup 72' Pinto Hatchback and dumping money into it whenever something on it shits the bed. All the money you're spending could be invested in something that just *runs*... like a Honda. Both cars have their drawbacks, but one is clearly a better choice than the other. Oh that's right, we need to get off fossil power. Agreed, we do, eventually we'll use it all, and that will end that dependency. And yes, we should get off of it sooner obviously.

So what's the harm in investing money in wind/solar/hydro? At face value, nothing. Just don't complain about one industry that delivers better results getting subsidies and turning a blind eye to subsidies (READ tax payer money) spent on industries that are delivering sub-par results at a higher cost. Hell I would rather they divvy up the government money spent on all 5 power production technologies, whatever that amount is, and maybe lift the red tape on building new nuclear power plants, R&D more efficient ways of disposing of nuclear waste AND put money into R&D for wind/solar/hydro.


----------



## Antenna (Mar 27, 2011)

Explorer said:


> I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. It was just that you had made two statements which were demonstrably false, that the US nuclear industry didn't take any money from the US government, and that the byproduct of nuclear energy was clean steam.
> 
> If that fits your idea of ignorance... well, I'm not sure how true facts fall into a definition of ignorance, but ignoring those facts is definitely *willful* ignorance. That, unfortunately, tends to ruin one's credibility regarding a topic.


 
No hard feelings bro I just want your information to be straight. You can't say that the nuclear industry takes money from the Fed, if anything they would have to pay for storage. The U.S. Government, while supplying storage from tax money, would also earn money back for storage costs by licensees. States have made it an interest to plan for the future to eventually store excess spent fuel in a national repository though. Yucca Mountain WAS the proposed site of the nations deep geological nuclear repository, but though it was approved in 2002, as of last year funding was cut and its license for this year was withdrawn by the NRC, Also from what I understand no nuclear waste has actually ever been stored there. There is no Centralized National Repository for long term nuclear spent fuel storage, only Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations that are located on-site at the nuclear plants like I stated earlier. 

Now on to your statement that I'm wrong about the by-product of nuclear waste not being clean steam. Although that spent fuel is quite radioactive, it is never released into the environment. I stated before that spent fuel is heavily contained and unlike fossil fuel plants with carbon filling our environment constantly, the public and most nuclear workers do not get a dose of radiation from that by-product.


----------



## C2Aye (Mar 27, 2011)

Antenna said:


> Now on to your statement that I'm wrong about the by-product of nuclear waste not being clean steam. Although that spent fuel is quite radioactive, it is never released into the environment. I stated before that spent fuel is heavily contained and unlike fossil fuel plants with carbon filling our environment constantly, the public and most nuclear workers do not get a dose of radiation from that by-product.



The clean steam is a result of running water through the reactor which I'm sure you know already but the radioactive waste does prove a bit of a challenge. Some of the waste products have half-lifes of *millions* of years (Iodine-129 has a half-life of 15.7 million years). That's a bloody long time to keep these things stored. As well as this, the waste can emit gamma radiation which means you need very thick containers (nuclear reactors usually use thick lead and concrete shielding!) to prevent any gamma rays from escaping into the enviroment while transporting radioactive waste. A lot of waste also needs to be treated before storing it away, adding to the hassle.

It is true that the general public doesn't see or hear about this happening very often but I can only assume that the removal and storage of nuclear waste is a time consuming, tedious, expensive and potentially dangerous process. To me, the greatest drawback of nuclear power is having to deal with this waste. Renewable energy is the 'cleanest' comparitively, but has no where near the energy potential.

As a side note, the only by-products of a nuclear _fusion_ reactor would be inert helium and neutron radiation restricted to the reactor vessel. No huge amounts of waste produced and huge amounts of energy production.

I want me a nuclear fusion power plant.


----------



## Antenna (Mar 27, 2011)

C2Aye said:


> The clean steam is a result of running water through the reactor which I'm sure you know already but the radioactive waste does prove a bit of a challenge. Some of the waste products have half-lifes of *millions* of years (Iodine-129 has a half-life of 15.7 million years). That's a bloody long time to keep these things stored. As well as this, the waste can emit gamma radiation which means you need very thick containers (nuclear reactors usually use thick lead and concrete shielding!) to prevent any gamma rays from escaping into the enviroment while transporting radioactive waste. A lot of waste also needs to be treated before storing it away, adding to the hassle.
> 
> It is true that the general public doesn't see or hear about this happening very often but I can only assume that the removal and storage of nuclear waste is a time consuming, tedious, expensive and potentially dangerous process. To me, the greatest drawback of nuclear power is having to deal with this waste. Renewable energy is the 'cleanest' comparitively, but has no where near the energy potential.
> 
> ...


 
The steam is from the secondary water system that never comes in contact with the reactor. Only the primary coolant system comes in contact with the reactor and the two systems can never infiltrate each other. That steam has no radiation in it.

Also moving the fuel from the reactor to storage is a relatively simple process. It is directly moved from reactor to fuel pool. Then when the fuel is ready for dry storage it is moved directly from the pool to the containers. These containers are ridiculously fortified with sheilding and concrete. These processes take very little time, few people are involved and little radiation dose occurs. 

This type of industry has been around for much time now so there a fail safes on top of fail safes and procedures written to ensure there can be no slip ups when it comes to any process. I mean look at history how many incidents have occured in the past in the industry. 3 mile island and chernobyl were human performance events and could have been prevented. Japan.... I mean give me a break, that situation speaks for itself. The industry is forced to face the problems of the past and prevent them from ever happening again.

I totally agree with renewable Energy as well, all i'm simply trying to do is inform people of how the nuclear industry works and clear up any assumptions or unanswered questions. 

I don't claim know every entire aspect of the industry but for the most part the processes are clean cut and easy to understand.


----------



## The Reverend (Mar 27, 2011)

Antenna said:


> The steam is from the secondary water system that never comes in contact with the reactor. Only the primary coolant system comes in contact with the reactor and the two systems can never infiltrate each other. That steam has no radiation in it.
> 
> Also moving the fuel from the rector to storage is a relatively simple process. It is directly moved from reactor to fuel pool. Then when the fuel is ready for dry storage it is moved directly from the pool to the containers. These containers are ridiculously fortified with sheilding and concrete. These processes take very little time, few people are involved and little radiation dose occurs.
> 
> ...




And we are all better informed due to your contributions. 

Ultimately, my only problem with nuclear power as it stands today is that things like Japan can and do happen. Obviously with only three major incidents on record, it's not to be expected, but I just don't feel like 2,439 years from now an earthquake rupturing a nuclear waste bunker and destroying shit. I'm willing to deal with it until something better can be devised, but I really don't feel like nuclear power is ultimately the most responsible power source.

With today's technology, I have to favor nuclear power in this debate. I just don't think we should settle for it, or any of our other current technologies.


----------



## Ckackley (Mar 27, 2011)

I think the point that Explorer is making is kinda getting missed. Wind, solar and such being less efficient isn't the point. The point is that there is NO waste product. So, if we use the renewable sources with a little responsible energy use it can be enough. People don't NEED to have every light on in a 3000 square foot house when they're sitting alone in one room on the computer. We don't NEED to drive personal vehicles millions of miles when there's a good public system that can get you where you need to go. I never understood why the talk of alternative fuel never involves us greedy western bastards cutting back a little. We're going to overuse, overeat and waste ourselves to oblivion one of these days.


----------



## Antenna (Mar 27, 2011)

I understand his point as well, but in a realistic aspect the majority of people do not use energy in moderation. You may get it down slowly but overconsumption will always have its place in society. Convenience is too precious a thing for corporations and individuals.


----------



## Randy (Mar 27, 2011)

What I'm missing is all the "we all know renewable isn't there yet". Really? I don't understand that. I see people who are 100% powering their homes with solar and/or wind power. Today. Right now. Generous estimates say you could convert your home for $40,000 and the number goes down from there... even if we did it to supplement our current power situation. People don't bat an eyelash on spending $200,000+ on a home or even ~$30,000 on a new car but financing an alternative energy source for your home (which takes you off the grid and you'll make back in savings over the duration of owning it, alone) is "too much"? I just don't get it. Sounds like excuses.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Mar 27, 2011)

Integrating a new fuel source into an ever growing population is going to be incredibly expensive. 

California is one of a few examples the rets of the world needs to learn from. I know there have been a fair few advances made there in terms of efficient energy sources, because people are pusing for it, leading the way. Unfortunately the whole debate as to whether global warming is occurring (which is a silly debate imo) has slowed down the process of searching for fossil fuels. This is unfortunately down to a lot of scientists and car companies trying to disprove the theories, even fabricating evidence.

Mankind when you consider it's potential, is very inefficient. Things like religious conflict, economic and governmental power gets in the way of true progress. As such, it will be a while before we enter the age of clean energy. It's sad because we could do it now if we wanted, but that would cost money. I think we'll end up paying for it and the change will come only just in time.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Mar 27, 2011)

Randy said:


> What I'm missing is all the "we all know renewable isn't there yet". Really? I don't understand that. I see people who are 100% powering their homes with solar and/or wind power. Today. Right now. Generous estimates say you could convert your home for $40,000 and the number goes down from there... even if we did it to supplement our current power situation. People don't bat an eyelash on spending $200,000+ on a home or even ~$30,000 on a new car but financing an alternative energy source for your home (which takes you off the grid and you'll make back in savings over the duration of owning it, alone) is "too much"? I just don't get it. Sounds like excuses.


 
Thing is, thats a lot of money for something that you can't really see the benefits of. I mean you can't show someone how their life is going to change if they use clean energy. The only people who do shell out that much are people who really care. The everyday man who doesn't really care about the environment let alone know much about global warming, isn't going to shell out that much on something that doesn't visibly help him. Besides, it would take a lot of people to have any sort of positive effect overall, so one person is going to think 'why me if no one else is doing it?'. People are afraid to take that first step.


----------



## orb451 (Mar 27, 2011)

Randy said:


> What I'm missing is all the "we all know renewable isn't there yet". Really? I don't understand that. I see people who are 100% powering their homes with solar and/or wind power. Today. Right now. Generous estimates say you could convert your home for $40,000 and the number goes down from there... even if we did it to supplement our current power situation. People don't bat an eyelash on spending $200,000+ on a home or even ~$30,000 on a new car but financing an alternative energy source for your home (which takes you off the grid and you'll make back in savings over the duration of owning it, alone) is "too much"? I just don't get it. Sounds like excuses.



Large scale Randy, large scale. Those energy sources are not there yet for large scale production. I admit they're closer now than they have been, but they still require a lot and have their drawbacks. Yes solar and wind farms do produce energy, I'm not arguing that they don't. Simply that they have drawbacks and roadblocks.

I read that it would take an area the size of Utah covered in solar panels (as they are now) to generate enough electricity for the US. And while it might be funny or cute to joke about getting rid of Utah, the reality is still that it's not going to happen. Whenever these facilities are proposed there is always some fucking nutter(s) that come crawling out of the woodwork to protest and prevent their spread. That's what *I* don't get. If you want us off fossil fuels or nuclear energy fine, but why the fuck would you protest these things being built?

Not you Randy, I know you're not among them, but you know the people I'm talking about. It's like you can't fucking win. Always someone crying about some fucking thing or another and how it's hurt, displaced or disenfranchised as a side effect of actually trying to implement *cleaner* energy.

These clean energy forms apparently do work well enough at the micro level and that's great, it's how they scale that's one problem. Another is, adoption. How many people can afford to make the changes needed? If there's companies offering renewable energy solutions with 5, 10 or 15 year financing then great, we need more of them. If not though, 40K or more is a bitter pill to swallow, especially when you consider people's other bills and so on. Even if it's 10K, 10K can *break* some families, if they're making life decisions with 10K, I hope they're investing it in their children's education, retirement or healthcare *before* they worry about getting off the power grid and converting their home.

The point about us "Greedy Western Bastards" is hilarious. I know huh? Those damned freedoms getting in the way of progress! How dare they exercise their freedoms and use their cars or SUVs to get from point A to point B. Haven't they heard of bicycles? Haven't they heard of public transportation? How dare they want to turn on the lights in their homes? 

Sometimes social conservatives act as though they want to roll back the clock to the 1950's. These green energy (use more with less) folks seem to put those others to shame, they seem to act like they want the clock rolled back to the 1850's or maybe the 1750's. You don't need indoor plumbing! You don't need lights when a candle will work! You don't need *electric* guitars!!! You don't need a car when walking, cycling or riding a horse will get you there! 

Fact is, we live in a world where people consume and don't always choose the hardest path simply because it's the *right*, *clean* or *nice* thing to do. People, like electricity, follow the path of least resistance. Should you, the individual, choose to bike or walk to work, or be fortunate enough to do so, all the power to ya. Same with clean energy, if you can afford it and choose to do so, that's awesome, and admirable. But don't expect ~300+ million Americans anyway to do the same thing. And don't even think about trying to remove their freedom to choose for themselves what direction they want to go in.

I think all of us agree (on here anyway) that getting off of Oil (foreign or domestic) should be a major priority. We should be focusing more money on that. Not chasing down the nuclear boogie man.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Mar 27, 2011)

Water/hydrogen is definitely the way forward. It's eco-friendly and obviously fuel is in abundance.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Mar 27, 2011)

Honda FCX Clarity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## C2Aye (Mar 27, 2011)

Scar Symmetry said:


> Water/hydrogen is definitely the way forward. It's eco-friendly and obviously fuel is in abundance.



Make that deuterium-tritium and you'll have yourself a fusion reactor, given you can wait a few decades.


----------



## silentrage (Mar 27, 2011)

@orb
I think the attitude that people should be allowed their freedom to act, even if it's a wasteful action, may be too apathetic at the current time.

Fossil fuel is projected to run out in decades, and global population is still on the rise, which means "Free" energy like solar need to not only step up to meet our current consumption rates, but what it is going to be in a few decades, and if you consider the effect of exponential growth, it might be double what it is today, or more.

By that time if there is not enough cheap, alternative energy then there will need to be a drastic change in lifestyle(to pre 1900s?), if we're lucky, or significant global population reduction, if we're less lucky. First option is not pretty, second option is nightmarish. 

If people realize that by keep acting like they are now, there's a chance they will DIE HORRIBLY as a consequence, they would not continue to act this way, but they don't realize that. :/ 

I think even a low probability of the above scenario occurring is enough to make me at least go from my 8.0L 4x4 to public transit. I mean seriously, how small must your penis be if you need to drive a vehicle like that?


----------



## orb451 (Mar 27, 2011)

silentrage said:


> @orb
> I think the attitude that people should be allowed their freedom to act, even if it's a wasteful action, may be too apathetic at the current time.
> 
> Fossil fuel is projected to run out in decades, and global population is still on the rise, which means "Free" energy like solar need to not only step up to meet our current consumption rates, but what it is going to be in a few decades, and if you consider the effect of exponential growth, it might be double what it is today, or more.
> ...



I hear ya man, I loathe those rolling land-barges as much as the next guy for various reasons but so long as there is a market for them, people ought to be able to choose whether or not they want to buy them. If you have enough to buy a top of the line Land Rover, chances are $4+ a gallon of gas makes little difference to you in the grand scheme of things. People don't buy those types of vehicles for their efficiency, they buy them for the status and in some cases convenience (as in hauling around a bunch of rug-rats).

I'm not arguing that the candle of fossil fuels has been lit and continues to burn and once done, is done for good. I'm just saying that nuclear, not fossil power, should be expanded to meet energy goals for the future. That is, until, another major breakthrough happens that either boosts the efficiency of current alternative energy off the charts, or brings the cost down even more. I would prefer efficiency boosts though, because if the world's population continues to grow (which it surely will) then sooner or later you're going to get into land battles between people needing land to live and exist, and enormous solar and wind farms that need vast swaths of land to function as well.

The other problem is solar energy is not free. Unless by free, you mean the cost for the sun to generate light and for it to travel to Earth. Once it's here, it's costly to implement and costly to extract energy from. Look at Salt Water Crocodiles, stay with me for a second, they're cold blooded. Yet they have large bony plates beneath the skin of their backs that absorb the suns heat and distribute it throughout their body all day and night. They get the benefits of being cold blooded, in that they don't have to eat all the time to maintain their body temperature and existence (as mammals do) and they get the benefits of being warm blooded because their internal body temperature is constant and doesn't drop off the charts because of their environment as other cold blooded animals do.

I'm sure there's a team of geeks just working out the details on how these animals are so efficient with their solar powered body temp regulation. But my whole point is, increases in solar efficiency are great and I'm sure they'll continue, in the *mean time*, nuclear power can and does work, and work well. If we spent half the money we wasted on the fucking War on Drugs in the last 30 years and instead put that money into more R&D for nuclear waste management, we might actually get somewhere.

Fossil fuels are going the way of the dinosaurs (there's a pun in there somewhere), no one should be denying that. And renewable energy or clean energy, should continue to be developed and improved. In the interim, instead of fear-mongering over nuclear disasters and "what if" scenarios, we should continue to expand (not contract) our dependence on nuclear energy for large scale electrical power generation. It's proven. it works.


----------



## Explorer (Mar 27, 2011)

Orb raises a hugely important point: People won't choose what is best in the long run, even if the stakes are very high. I've seen someone smoking a cigarette through their trach ring, for God's sake. *laugh*

However, the federal and state governments, through the actions of our elected representatives and their agents, *have* undertaken various actions to protect the US from different longterm problems. That's how they can issue rules against watering lawns during drought conditions, or prevent factories from sending the components of acid rain into the atmosphere. 

So, in these times of Homeland Security and global warming... a House of Representatives subcommittee voted within the past two weeks to remove the EPA's ability to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant; doing so would impact manufacturing and energy industries in the US.

----

A while ago, when i decided to see how reducing my personal carbon footprint would affect my bottom line, I started a bank account with direct deposit. Into that account, I put the amount of money which I had normally spent on energy costs. I started using a bus pass and/or cycling for a lot of things, and combined tasks for automobile usage, so that I wasn't dashing out in the car for little things. The monthly contribution to the account was fixed when gas hit $2 a gallon. I pay car and utilities out of that account.

As it is, I've had a couple of years where I saved $4k in that account by the end of the year. 

(And, in the weird additional benefit column, I've been seeing a tiny little blonde yoga/aerobics instructor who loves my commitment to this stuff. *laugh*)


----------



## silentrage (Mar 27, 2011)

Oh I see now, you're mostly bothered by how people are jumping on the anti-nuclear bandwagon, on that note I completely agree. It's been A-OK for decades, but now a 40 year old plant that's severely under-maintained gets hit by a magnitude 9 earthquake and fails, and oh noes we must stop all nuclear power generation!!! 
It's also just hilarious how much panic-buying there was, lol.

@Explorer
Great point, I think it's definitely possible to influence people's behavior by exploiting their self-preservation instincts and inherent kindness. If they understood properly that their actions may cause suffering and death to themselves or others in the future, they would change their actions. And it is up to the government, the media, and the internet to properly inform them. I think the government and media largely fail at the moment(charlie sheen, really? ). 

Btw grats on dating hot yoga instructor.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Mar 27, 2011)

If we don;t move to nuclear energy, there will be fuel riots in the next few decades, not to mention food resources will be drained. Fish stocks are plummeting as well.

Mankind doesn't change unless it is absolutely necessary; that is, when the problem is staring us right in the face, forcing us to change. If we don't launch a preemptive strike against problems such as fuel and food resources now, the next 100 years are going to be incredibly difficult with populations expected to rise to 21 billion by the end of the century.


----------



## Explorer (Mar 27, 2011)

silentrage said:


> Btw grats on dating hot yoga instructor.



Oddly, not the first yoga chick I've been involved with. Two were/are blonde (aerobics/yoga and aikido/yoga, massage therapist/yoga had curly brown hair), and all three were petite and had blue eyes. 

Sorry for the OT, all.


----------



## silentrage (Mar 27, 2011)

Maybe I should start going to yoga class... 

and on topic: I don't think we will collectively get our acts together either.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Mar 27, 2011)

We will eventually, but it won't be without paying for it first. We need a kick in the ass before we commit to change. Then it's unavoidable.


----------



## Ckackley (Mar 27, 2011)

I'd rather roll back my usage than be forced into a world of rolling blackouts and fuel shortages. 

On the nuclear front , here's a small video from MSN that sheds some light on nuclear waste. 
msnbc.com Video Player


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Mar 27, 2011)

I don't know why I bother posting here at all. ....

I've given you guys more than I should as a resource, yet clearly, NO ONE WATCHED THE DOCUMENTARIES I POSTED!

In "who killed the electric car" you get to see why California has NO electric cars, despite the state's short lived "low emissions bill", which was defeated in court (!). Watch it to see how progress is crushed.

If you look up Nikola Tesla's ideas you'll find all sorts of strange things you probably should be vaguely aware of. I won't spoil the ride. Most progressive man of the last 10,000 years, probably since truly ancient Egypt.

Brian O'Leary is an ex-Nasa astronaut (never launched more than 50 miles above atmosphere) who has dedicated his life to free energy. He has written a book on the disappearences of energy researchers, which he has promoted with long, detailed interviews. He will keep you up to date.

Also, in the 1970's Roger Mayer, allegedly, perfected a system to release the hydrogen from H20, or water. It is now in use for purifying sewage, ONLY. Not cars, homes or energy generation, as was intended. Other people have perfected this type of system, yet are destitute and shunned. Evidence exists. Go find if your interested.

Torsion fields, electromagnetic fields and all the rest.... Very interesting stuff. Have fun!

Antenna, top job on your detailed posts!

Collapse which I also recommended is amazing, peak oil is the key to understanding mainstream culture.

Everything I've mentioned is well known about common knowledge stuff, but the detail is significant. Take the time, you will be rewarded.

Big up the Yoga, they have a great understanding of reality!


----------



## ss22 (Mar 30, 2011)

I'm not sure if it's been mentioned yet, but keep in mind that nuclear power plants are horrendously expensive to build. The "too cheap to meter" claim has been debunked decades ago. The latest issue of Time had an interesting story on the future of nuclear power (stemming of course from the current events in Japan). The US government has billions of dollars of subsidies earmarked for building nuclear plants. They simply can't get any corporations to commit to building a plant (the last building project to fall through was in GA I believe).

I firmly believe that this is the primary issue that has stopped nuclear power from having a larger share of power production, not environmental concerns or the NIMBYs.


----------

