Nucular power

[Johonny]

Because it's fair to compare a country the size of France to a country the size of the USA. Surely these percentages are meaningful numbers.


"It's time for this country to start building nuclear power plants again," said Bush, who noted that while the U.S. gets 20 percent of its electricity from nuclear reactors, France meets 78 percent of its electricity needs with nuclear power.

[phantom power]

1. I'm not sure where you're going with this.

We could meet 100% of our electricity needs with nuclear. In fact, with 1000 reactors, we could meet all of our energy needs, eletricity, fuel, etc.

[jpak]

4. Renewables could supply 100% of our energy needs

electricity, fuel, etc.

:)

[phantom power]

6. Also true...

At this point, I almost don't care. Any solution that doesn't rely on disappearing fossil fuels, and that doesn't produce greenhouse gasses, acid rain and smog.

Just as long as we do it soon.

[jpak]

10. agreed!

n/t

[Endangered Specie]

12. I sincerely doubt that...

solar, wind, and other renewables could produce some but not 100%, and they arent greatly reliabe either (calm wind, clouds).

The point is to not rely on any one power source... Id recommend at least 5 or more sources of power, about 20-40% reliance each.

[jpak]

16. Based on what?

There is no technical reason why renewables combined with conservation and electrified mass transit could not meet 100% of our energy and transportation needs.

[Endangered Specie]

17. on a cloudy day, alot of people are going to be screwed.

[jpak]

18. Yup

No such things as energy storage systems - all those people in off-grid solar homes freeze in the dark every night and every cloudy day...

LOL!!!!

http://www.midcoast.com/~jgs/metour01.html

http://www.solarhouse.com

on edit: added links

[Endangered Specie]

20. ah huh, which means wed need something that supply >>100%

and by the way, what batteries to you plan on storing all this "reserve" energy with.

also, where shall we put all the solar panels? (I remember a lecture presented the idea that putting solar panels on your house can get about 20%-40% of your power. Which means approxomately wed need anywhere from 3 to 8 times the sqaure space for solar panels as there are buildings, plus the fact that most commercial buildings/towers use far more electricity and have more than 1 floor.

So that works to be 3 to 8 times the square footage of all buildings in the country... and thats not counting whats needed for cars, plus room for the batteries

[jpak]

21. Wrong on all accounts

The Lord House and other zero energy homes generate 100% of their electricity AND hot water using their roofs with room to spare.

http://www.solartoday.org/2005/may_june05/ZEH.htm

Hydrogen produced from renewables will provide energy storage for renewable electricity applications and is doing so in the US and Europe today...

http://www.humboldt.edu/~serc/trinidad.html

http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/FuelCellToday/IndustryInformation/IndustryInformationExternal/NewsDisplayArticle/0,1602,4660,00.html

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=143&art_id=qw1089173343646B241

[Endangered Specie]

23. In the future that may work...

one cannot say for sure, is this economicaly viable? will it hold up in geographic locations prone to extreme weather that requires extensive heat or A/C?. I read there that first the homes energy intake must be reduced "dramatically". In other words, current homes wouldnt cut it at all.

[jpak]

24. Yes, as Dick Cheney tells us "Conservation is a personal virtue"

LOL!!!!

There are tens of thousands of solar homes in the Northern Tier of States - and thousands more in the Subn Belt - all perfectly comfortable and affordable, and each one of them is energy efficient.

Current US homes could cut their energy use by major double-digits with lighting and appliances on sale at home centers today - and in each and every case, homeowners would save money buying them.

A 1980's vintage fridge uses 1000-3000 kWh per year - a new Energy Star fridge uses only 400 kWh per year (and the Japanese have one on the market that only uses 160 kWh per year).

A 14 watt compact fluorescent bulb uses 77% less electricity than a 60 watt bulb and provides the same amount of illumination.

Energy Star washers/dryers and dishwashers use 1/3 the electricity of many current models and consume only a fraction of the water required.

Energy Star air conditioners and heat pumps save homeowners hundreds of dollars per year compared to less efficient models.

Solar homes - today - provide 100% of all domestic energy needs in the lower 48 states.

Just the facts Jack...

[Johonny]

26. I think it's

fair to consider that America hasn't tried very hard to develope solar power. If we made an actual real effort in developing this technology most likely with will make better capturing and storing devices. We can also do a lot better in conserving energy. There is also no reason there can't be less of us. There's no reason the human population has to be so large.

Anyways it is very unlikely we will ever 100 % convert away from burning fuel. In general fuel burning will always be a part of the energy budget.

[Johonny]

5. Well

USA is bigger than France. It also uses a heck of a lot more energy per person than France. Comparing 20 % of an Apple to 73 % of a grape is stupid and misleading.

We "could" meet 100 % of our needs with Nuclear power, but not for very long. Lucky for us there is this big ball of nuclear reactions near by just throwing energy our way. It's also schedualed to be around another 5 billion years or so. If only we tried to store some more of it's energy...

[BornLeft]

28. Well I would like to remind you on

who certifies these plants. Do you really trust those guys? Not against them just don't like who runs them.

[bushisanidiot]

2. Nookyooler Wacko Bush won't be happy until he's blown the U.S.

to smithereens.

Newsflash to Pres. Nosepicker: France doesn't have a coke addict with his shaky little pinky on the big red button!

[Endangered Specie]

13. Indeed, the main problem with our nuclear power is

who would be running/planning it!

[longship]

3. The main problems with nuclear.

I believe that nuclear power plants can be run safely, at least in principle. We know enough about these things to do an effective job of producing these plants and gaining huge benefits of doing so.

However, there are multiple very important issues with which we would first have to deal.

1. Oversight of design and construction to insure that everything is being done to make the plants as safe as possible. I remain unconvinced in this era of waning regulation that such oversight would be sufficient.

2. Provide safe storage for the spent fuel, which is both non-native to the earth and extremely dangerous for millenia. This is not being done and no plan, including the one in Nevada, achieves a level of safety that makes me comfortable.

Until both these are put into place, I would oppose the construction of any new nuclear plants.

On edit: Pigs will fly before that would happen.

[MadHound]

9. One other problem that has to be adressed before we go nuclear

We have to absolutely elimnate human error. It was human error that caused the disasters at TMI and Chernobyl, and many other smaller glitches in the nuclear industry.

Until human error is taken out of the picture, we shouldn't be operating any more nukes.

[Endangered Specie]

14. you can never 100% take out human error in anything,

[MadHound]

19. True that, but

With nuclear power, one human error can kill thousands of people, and keep killing for generations. TMI and Chernobyl demonstrated that. Therefore, I guess we shouldn't invest anymore time and effort into nuclear, eh.

After all, it isn't like we don't have alternatives that are much safer, and cleaner. Wind comes to mind, as does solar. We've barely begun to tap the potential of these two energy sources, and to give you an idea of their potential, a 1991 DOE report on our energy resources stated that there is enough harvestable wind energy in three states, N. Dakota, S. Dakota and Texas, that the entire US could be supplied with all of its electrical needs through the year 2030. So it's not like we don't have options, we do. Thus, we should leave nukes alone.

[Endangered Specie]

22. our error is how we learn...

wind and solar are good but limited, nuclear is cleaner and in some ways safer than coalfire.

by the way, that report was 15 years ago, and how much of the land area would be needed to be destroyed to build the windmills.

we should not rely on any one source of energy, rather have several that make up fractions of our need, thus if one fails... it wouldnt spell doom.

[MadHound]

30. An error is a good way to learn,

But an error that costs us the lives of thousands, and the lives of future generations is an error that we can afford to have.

I realize that the report was fourteen years ago, just think of what the technological advances since then have been. I know that there have been many.

I don't know how much land it would take for these structures, but even if it took up the entirety of these three states, spread out over all fifty, it would be a drop in the bucket, considering the land and coastal are we have to erect the turbines.

I agree with you about not relying on one source of energy, would should indeed start exploring all of our renewable resources. But nuclear power is one we should stay away from. The costs of having even one mistake is too high to bear. In addition, we have absolutely no good plan for getting rid of the waste, and also, each plant that we build will eventually become an semi-abandoned, radioactive waste site, with each one requiring perpetual care. Not a good idea, think of these plants as becoming blights on our landscape.

[wuushew]

31. Perpetual care?

The isotopes created by nuclear irradiation to a facility have such short half lives that the radiation from it would be close to nothing after a few decades.

High level radioactive waste obviously presents more of a disposal problem, but by its relatively small volume it is nothing that cannot be dealt with in a rational and efficient manner.

[MadHound]

33. Yes, perpetual care

Irradiated carbon has a half life of aprox 5000 years. Irradiated lead has a half life of aprox twenty years. Here is a site that might help you a bit<http://www.downwinders.org/llw_facts.htm>

Not all irradiated products have short half lives. Some are actually quite long. One of the reasons we're having such a problem with radioactive waste, it isn't just the spent rods that are the problems, it is all of the other hot waste that is produced at a plant. I work at a nuclear plant, a reasearch reactor that produces radiopharmaceuticals. I see the pounds of hot waste we produce daily, I can just imagine what a larger place produces.

[anarch]

29. "nuclear power is like sausage"

As much as we really, really need to figure out something besides what we do now for energy, I just won't ever feel too comfortable with the idea of nuke-yoo-lar power. Especially that dangerous radioactive waste product/spent fuel question...scary!

Check out some of these stories, illustrating exactly the points above:

http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/article/id2165/pg6/


"These stories suggest why nuclear power is like sausage: The more you know about how it's made, the less likely you are to like it. "

[maxsolomon]

7. isn't uranium a finite resource that needs to be extracted

from hostile countries with corrupt, oppressive governments?

hey, there's a great idea!

[cgrrguyto]

8. Not exactly hostile!

Not exactly hostile countries! Canada is the world's largest producer of uranium (about 30%). Second on the list is Austrailia.
http://www.uic.com.au/nip03.htm

[Endangered Specie]

15. are you kidding Canada tries to sell us bad perscription drugs!

:sarcasm:

I think ill take Canada over Saudi Arabia ANY day!

[newyawker99]

36. Hi cgrrguyto!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[cgrrguyto]

37. Hi back!

Been lurking for months. Really try to get the sense of a board before joining in, and am impressed by the (mostly) civil debate I've found here at DU. Look forward to popping in now and again if I've got something to contribute.

[phantom power]

11. It is a finite resource.

There's a lively on-going debate about the merits of nuclear power in the Environment/Energy forum. Claims about how long fission fuels will last range from 60 years to 3000 years. The 60-year prediction is based mostly on uranium-only fission tech, with no fuel recycling. The 3000-year scenario is based on extensive use of breeder technology and fuel recycling, and breeding thorium (which we have lots and lots of) into fissionable fuel.

I'm just a software guy, but my take on it is that that 60-year scenario is needlessly pessimistic. However, deploying breeder reactors will require investing in fuel recycling plants (basically, re-purification), which involves additional cost, and it would essentially be an entire industry based on the processing of radioactive waste.

I don't see any of that as a show-stopper, if it gives us an additional 3000 years of power. Long enough to work out where we go next. Hopefully, off planet.

[Johonny]

25. I think

I'd like to get my nuclear power from the Sun. It's got 5 billion years left.

[phantom power]

27. Sure, we can do that.

I did a thought exercise on how much power storage we'd require. I came up with about 7 terawatt-hours, to get thru each night. So, we'd have to generate our day-time power, plus 7 terawatt-hours surplus, each day, and store that to use at night.

Then, just to assume something concrete, I estimated the cost of all that storage, if we used lithium-ion batteries (which have the best energy density per both volume and mass), and came up with anywhere from 2 trillion dollars, to 20 trillion, allowing for unknown economies of scale and new technology. They would also have to be replaced or refurbished about once every 5-6 years. Fun fact: the total volume of those batteries would be about a 1/4 of a cubic kilometer, if you piled them up in one spot.

That, of course, doesn't count the additional storage to address periods when there are clouds, etc. It also doesn't count the cost of the actual solar arrays, themselves, just the storage ;-)

None of which is to say we can't, or shouldn't, do it. I just thought people should understand the kind of issues and costs we're really dealing with.

[Johonny]

34. Hmm

I imagine the power used at night various greatly with location and time of year.

There are lots of ways to store energy now you understand. I don't see energy storage as a huge problem. We can always burn some fuel at night if you're really worried. I can't see humans totally leaving behind combustion as an energy source anytime soon. We will always get some energy from combustion.

[phantom power]

35. I assumed 1/4 of total energy per day to require storage.

Remember, it's not just full darkness. Solar flux decreases rapidly, as the sun approaches the horizon. You only get peak generating power for about 4-6 hours a day.

As for combustion, I'm not sure I follow you. What are we going to burn?

Power consumption is pretty significant at night. Heating and/or AC all run at night. Here in Phoenix, our electric utility considers peak-hours to be 1-8. Last month, we used 80% of our electricity off-peak, which is to say morning, late evening and nighttime. Note almost all of that time is out of peak-generating times for a PV array.

And it's not just residential. Businesses often run 24/7.

[longship]

38. Breeder tech is quite dangerous

In more than one way, breeder reactors are really, really bad.

First, you end up with lots of bomb-grade Pu-239 which has a half-life of about 25,000 years. If you think we have a spent fuel problem with the normal reactors consider the problem of getting rid of lots of that stuff.

Second, cooling the bugger is a pain in the butt. Normally this is done with liquid Na which reacts violently with water (i.e., explodes) and becomes highly radioactive itself. The heat exchanging process is a two-stage affair with hot liquid Na transferring heat to a secondary heat exchanger using... you guessed it, water (yikes!). Of course the additional complexity adds more paths for the reactor to do very bad things. I'll leave to you to consider what might happen if a secondary heat exchanger broke and allowed the Na and H20 to get at each other.

Just say no thank you to fast breeder technology.

[wuushew]

32. You misspelled nuclear

n/t