Jump-starting nuclear energy

Chukpike

Banned
"President Obama's announcement that the federal government would guarantee loans for two advanced-design nuclear plants in Georgia was good news.

The commitment jump-starts the U.S. nuclear energy industry at a time when we have begun to understand that nuclear energy has a substantial role to play in combating climate change and supplying power....."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-moore5-2010mar05,0,988952.story

Looks like President Obama wants to revive the use of Nuclear Power in the US. It would seem to divide Liberals, as easily as separating liberals from conservative.
Nuclear Power is clean as related to carbon emissions. So is it "Green Energy"?

The con view:
Nuclear power -- not a green option

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ward5-2010mar05,0,2178921.story
 
"President Obama's announcement that the federal government would guarantee loans for two advanced-design nuclear plants in Georgia was good news.

The commitment jump-starts the U.S. nuclear energy industry at a time when we have begun to understand that nuclear energy has a substantial role to play in combating climate change and supplying power....."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-moore5-2010mar05,0,988952.story

Looks like President Obama wants to revive the use of Nuclear Power in the US. It would seem to divide Liberals, as easily as separating liberals from conservative.
Nuclear Power is clean as related to carbon emissions. So is it "Green Energy"?

The con view:
Nuclear power -- not a green option

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ward5-2010mar05,0,2178921.story


Is a "green" option all that important after all nuclear power is a cleaner form of energy than coal (assuming is doesn't go Chernobyl), there are only so many dams you can build and neither wind nor solar energy is all that efficient at the moment.

When you add in the employment benefit to the economy I think reviving the nuclear industry is a sound move.
 
Is a "green" option all that important after all nuclear power is a cleaner form of energy than coal (assuming is doesn't go Chernobyl), there are only so many dams you can build and neither wind nor solar energy is all that efficient at the moment.

When you add in the employment benefit to the economy I think reviving the nuclear industry is a sound move.

Nuclear is immensely cleaner than coal. To see the differences in views would require taking a few minutes to read the two opinions.

The first opinion is by a man that helped found Greenpeace. He may very well represent the establishment or the views of the current administration.

He doesn't necessarily represent Greenpeace any longer.

That is what I meant by this statement in my first post:
"It would seem to divide Liberals, as easily as separating liberals from conservative."quote chukpike

A Chernobyl type incident is not really the concern on either side, and if you consider the current administration as liberal, the two views and links I supplied are opposing debates by liberals.:)

This being the US we have people opposing wind farms, solar energy, hydroelectric, coal.... if you name it someone opposes it.

Example in California transmission line companies just won a fight to build transmission lines from deep in the desert(where companies want to build solar energy plants) back to where the power could be coupled with the power grid.

That was not even a NIMBY issue.(Not In My Back Yard)

Wind farms are considered unsightly. Yes, in America we have people jousting with windmills:wink:

Apparently liberals tend to oppose pretty much any kind of energy. As much as they say they want change it is still NIMBY.
 
I think in reality people will ***** about anything and everything and it doesn't matter what their political orientation is, lets face it not all conservatives agree either.

In terms of power generation I am supportive of ideas to produce "green" power but only if that power is economically viable, does that make me conservative, liberal or a mix of either?
 
I think in reality people will ***** about anything and everything and it doesn't matter what their political orientation is, lets face it not all conservatives agree either.

In terms of power generation I am supportive of ideas to produce "green" power but only if that power is economically viable, does that make me conservative, liberal or a mix of either?


I agree that conservatives can disagree with each other, and rarely will two people agree 100% on anything.

I just find extremely funny to see liberals so adamantly oppose each other on an issue like generating electrical power.:smile: Let us assume that people want to have electrical power just so they can continue to argue on the INTERNET.

Why can't people concerned with global warming come up with a system of generating power that will satisfy the reduction or effects of global warming? Basically requiring the elimination of using fossil fuels to generate power.

In the US we are currently in the final stages of agreeing on removing some hydroelectric dams that all ready generate clean energy. It is almost certain we will not build more.

Solar energy plants can take up a lot of space, which we have. I think the federal government owns about 90% of Nevada. But environmentalist don't want the desert disturbed. I do agree we need to preserve some of the area, but environmentalists usually want to save it all.

Just a lot of complaints, but liberals with no solutions offered. Basically means we will continue to burn up fossil fuels until they are gone.

Because of restrictions on mining and drilling in the US we will use up the resources of the rest of the world first before being forced to mine and drill the last of US resources. I believe the US has nearly the largest known coal reserves in the world.
 
Well my belief is that all governments need to do is legislate emissions and let technology determine what type of power plants you end up with, if they can come up with a coal fired power plant that meets those emissions requirements then build as many coal fired power plants as you like.
 
Well my belief is that all governments need to do is legislate emissions and let technology determine what type of power plants you end up with, if they can come up with a coal fired power plant that meets those emissions requirements then build as many coal fired power plants as you like.

The problem here in the US is we can't get people to agree to a windmill, let alone using coal. :D

Like the two articles show it is not the technology that determines what type of power planets we use it is people. It is the fact we can't get agreement on what technology to use.
 
Dams are opposed by enviromentalists because it interferes with fish swimming up stream, they think that's more important. NIMBYs oppose windmills because they are noisy if close by. Nukes should be a good choice except for those who freak @ even hearing the name.
 
The problem here in the US is we can't get people to agree to a windmill, let alone using coal. :D

Like the two articles show it is not the technology that determines what type of power planets we use it is people. It is the fact we can't get agreement on what technology to use.

Hate to break it to you but thats the problem with being a Republic and not a Democracy, we elect our governments to run the country not to interpret a constitution.


Dams are opposed by enviromentalists because it interferes with fish swimming up stream, they think that's more important. NIMBYs oppose windmills because they are noisy if close by. Nukes should be a good choice except for those who freak @ even hearing the name.

Well I would oppose a wind farm in my back yard as well because they are noisy and damned ugly, it amazes me that people want "green" power to help save the environment and then build butt ugly and noisy structures that ruin the environment to do it.

I also question the efficiency of wind and solar, I find it retarded that we would consume vast chunks of land to build a collection system that will generate power at 10 times the cost of a nuclear plant that will require a 10th of the land mass.

I am all for green options but but not at any cost, we can not destroy ourselves economically to save the environment that would be counter productive.

By the way damns are opposed here as well but as long as we provide bypass systems for the wild life there is no problem.
 
Last edited:
Hate to break it to you but thats the problem with being a Republic and not a Democracy, we elect our governments to run the country not to interpret a constitution.
Not sure what this has to do with anything. The topic has little to do with government.
Mainly the issue is liberals complaining about the problems without offering any solutions of their own. If two segments of the same group can't reach a compromise how will any solution ever be found in a majority.



Well I would oppose a wind farm in my back yard as well because they are noisy and damned ugly, it amazes me that people want "green" power to help save the environment and then build butt ugly and noisy structures that ruin the environment to do it.

I also question the efficiency of wind and solar, I find it retarded that we would consume vast chunks of land to build a collection system that will generate power at 10 times the cost of a nuclear plant that will require a 10th of the land mass.

I am all for green options but but not at any cost, we can not destroy ourselves economically to save the environment that would be counter productive.

By the way damns are opposed here as well but as long as we provide bypass systems for the wild life there is no problem.

That is the point I am making. No one agrees or will compromise so nothing gets done. No matter if you are liberal, an environmentalist, or conservative all are going to demand the lights stay on. No one wants to argue in the dark or without their computer. :confused:

I was on the USS Bainbridge during the first big "oil shortage"(1974) and we were in the Persian Gulf. The news had it that the known world oil reserves would be gone by the turn of the century and the talk was, "something had to be done now"(1974) to keep the lights on. Nothing was done and the talk is still the same, although Global warming is a new added twist.

The main point of this topic is how disappointing it is even the same subgroup of citizens (liberals in this case) can't compromise or come to an agreement.

Europe uses a lot of nuclear power and does not seem to have safety or storage of spent fuel problems. Do they care less about their citizens?
 
We have to face facts, there is only a finite amount of resources on this planet. Geological survies have found enormous deposits across this world(namely Aus and Canada). With the amount of uranium required out of this to power these stations, we should have enough supply to satisfy the world's energy needs until a more powerful process is found(cold fusion).

The main point of this topic is how disappointing it is even the same subgroup of citizens (liberals in this case) can't compromise or come to an agreement.

Well that's generally because most politicians aren't engineers or nuclear scientists and only really know what their advisers say(generally a lobbyist on one side or another $$) or what every kid doing science at high school understands. When it comes to matters in science, shouldn't we listen to people who've studied and work with it everyday?
 
Well I would oppose a wind farm in my back yard as well because they are noisy and damned ugly, it amazes me that people want "green" power to help save the environment and then build butt ugly and noisy structures that ruin the environment to do it.
They are lot less ugly than a coal fired power station or nuclear plant. They have no real waste disposal problems either.

They can put one in my backyard tomorrow.
IMG_1083mconverted.jpg


This photo was taken on the landing of the switchyard control room, and the humming of the transformers in the adjacent switchyard was far louder than the wind turbines the closest of which were only a little over 600 yards away.

Four years after their installation we still have a significant number of tourists who stop to take photos and ask about tours of the windfarm. Most people I have spoken to describe the turbines to be awe inspiring and graceful.
 
Last edited:
How long have they been there?

The wind farms I have seen looked great new but 10-15 years in and half of them are broken or down for maintenance and they are covered in grease and oil stains.

As far as nuclear power plants go (well most power plants with the exception of coal) all the ones I have seen have been very well hidden from public view and a great deal of effort has been expended in tidying up their surrounds to remove peoples objections.
 
How long have they been there?

The wind farms I have seen looked great new but 10-15 years in and half of them are broken or down for maintenance and they are covered in grease and oil stains.

As far as nuclear power plants go (well most power plants with the exception of coal) all the ones I have seen have been very well hidden from public view and a great deal of effort has been expended in tidying up their surrounds to remove peoples objections.

Excellent post. This is a great example of the challenge that forward thinking liberals face.

Your dissatisfaction with the aesthetics of wind power. Faced with a renewable power source that does not pollute you are concerned with aesthetics.

P.S. The type of wind mills senojekips pictured that are used in wind farms are 1 megawatt or larger. They are accessed from inside. The support is hollow and workers are not exposed to the elements to service the units. They are not going to be rusted out hulks in 10-15 years they would be maintained. The cost of wind power is about 3 times the cost of a coal fired plant. So get ready for your rates to go up.:-D

But you have proved the reactions of the intelligent liberals who are concerned with Global Warming but NIMBY about ways to deal with it.

So you will sucker up and except cap and trade. All that does is allow old outdated plants to operate, rather then be updated or replaced.:wink:
 
How long have they been there?
4 years. (in service)

The wind farms I have seen looked great new but 10-15 years in and half of them are broken or down for maintenance and they are covered in grease and oil stains.
They would be first generation wind turbines ? At predicted usage rates and maintenance costings these would have been be totally debt free in 7 years, but power sales are increasing and it is expected that they could now be paid off in 4.5 - 5 years if usage keeps increasing at the current rates. Two local farmers have actually leased turbines off Suzlon and as far as I know are planning to buy more. Meanwhile Suzlon have placed a moratorium on leasing as their value is sky rocketing.

As far as nuclear power plants go (well most power plants with the exception of coal) all the ones I have seen have been very well hidden from public view and a great deal of effort has been expended in tidying up their surrounds to remove peoples objections.
I have seen several, Middlesbrough UK, Salem in Delaware, Millstone in NY, and a couple of others, and not one of them was hidden or beautified in any way. and as such were clearly identifiable for what they were, and with their size and distinctive architecture I doubt that it would be practical without constructing them underground. Even if it were possible I would still far rather have a windfarm within half a mile of my home than a Nuclear power plant within 100 miles.

The type of wind mills senojekips pictured that are used in wind farms are 1 megawatt or larger.
They are 2.2MW/3.5MW peak units.

The cost of wind power is about 3 times the cost of a coal fired plant. So get ready for your rates to go up.:-D
Power generated by these turbines is sold to the grid at the price set by the owners of the grid. If the cost per MW exceeds the cost of other forms of generation, the grid owners just do not buy it, so it has to compete with all other methods of generation for cost.

All of this is computer controlled and turbines are only run up and connected as the demand arises, all this is setup and managed without local human intervention. The screen on the right presently shows a diagram of the windfarm and what turbines are on load, standby or down. The screen at left shows the market prices of power and how much is being purchased by buyers on the grid, and at what price per MWH, this screen can also show almost any other pertinent details down to maintenance schedules, grid diagrams and switching arrangements. It can also be used to contact buyers and all other farms owned by this company,... or play Solitaire.

IMG_1080mconverted.jpg


After the acceptance period, this control room and switchyard operates remotely and this equipment is left purely for maintenance purposes. That's my mate installing a data point for some new equipment and the other bloke is a maintenance electrician to escort us through the switchyard.
 
Last edited:
Is a "green" option all that important after all nuclear power is a cleaner form of energy than coal (assuming is doesn't go Chernobyl), there are only so many dams you can build and neither wind nor solar energy is all that efficient at the moment.

When you add in the employment benefit to the economy I think reviving the nuclear industry is a sound move.
We have found a way to make solar more efficient, use NASA's solar cells, (which are three and a half times better than the solar cells used in power plants and other civie things) and a very large and reflective mirror to concentrate all sunlight received onto a small square of these superefficient solar cells.

Australia already has used them. Just don't put your hand in front of the beam of reflected sunlight, it's well over 1,500 degrees.

But I look to Nuclear Fusion as the next big thing, little risk, lots of power, completely clean. It's only a matter of time until we perfect it and consistently get significantly more energy than we put in.
 
We have found a way to make solar more efficient, use NASA's solar cells, (which are three and a half times better than the solar cells used in power plants and other civie things) and a very large and reflective mirror to concentrate all sunlight received onto a small square of these superefficient solar cells.

Australia already has used them. Just don't put your hand in front of the beam of reflected sunlight, it's well over 1,500 degrees.

But I look to Nuclear Fusion as the next big thing, little risk, lots of power, completely clean. It's only a matter of time until we perfect it and consistently get significantly more energy than we put in.

The problem I have with Solar and Wind is that in order to produce a reasonable output you have to use vast tracks of land which just isn't that efficient to date I class those technologies as the equivalent of robbing Peter to pay Paul, one day hopefully they will be the best option but right now I just don't think they are.
 
The problem I have with Solar and Wind is that in order to produce a reasonable output you have to use vast tracks of land which just isn't that efficient to date I class those technologies as the equivalent of robbing Peter to pay Paul, one day hopefully they will be the best option but right now I just don't think they are.
I can't speak for solar power, but the area used for wind farms is irrelevant, as it has no affect on the land usage (with the exception of the 20 square metres or so for the tower footprint.

The farmers who own land where the wind farms are located love them, as that 20 square metres earns them $8000 p.a. far more than could ever be earned off it in any other way.

In early days wind surge was a real problem. as the turbines were not designed to compensate quickly for changes in wind speed, this is now automatically controlled by both swinging the head out of the wind and also feathering the blades keeping the the shaft speeds well within the limits necessary to control phase shifting in the asynchronous alternators which work at 33Kv. This power is then taken via underground high tension circuits to the switch yard where final fine adjustments are made to the power via inductance/capacitance tank circuits before being stepped up to the local transmission grid voltage (275Kv here) This means that the turbines can operate at full capacity over a very wide range of wind speeds.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top