August 28, 2008 at 8:16 am
Steve said he favored nuclear, without saying why. The "hot" waste is still an unsolved problem as far as I know. I have heard that some newer breeder technologies reduce the half-life to "only" a few hundred years but require support from other reactors that produce longer lasting waste. Has there been progress? Does anybody have the details?
August 28, 2008 at 8:23 am
Luke L (8/28/2008)
Unfortunately I'm in somewhat of the same boat, living in central Pennsylvania, we don't get much wind and the days get too short in the winter for solar (althoughI'm considering a solar hot water solution to heat my pool), but at least most if not all of the energy we consume in this area comes from the three nuclear plants within the surrounding area.
-Luke.
Luke,
My mom lived and florida, and had a solution like that where the water was pumped through a grid on the roof of the house. in the 'cooler months' (which would be mild up here) she was able to keep the temp of her pool up. I have to say it worked great, basically there was a diverter valve on the filter to run the water through the grid.
Mark
August 28, 2008 at 8:34 am
Yeah I was contemplating using a couple of hundred feet of black hose strung across my roof with a small pump to get the circulation going then letting gravity do the work but, recently my parents solar hot water heater blew, so I'm trying to inherit the 20 or so year old solar panels for heating the pool.
August 28, 2008 at 8:46 am
roger.plowman (8/28/2008)
As far as windmills being green, well, not so much. Apparently there are problems with bats as well as birds, apparantly bats' lungs explode in the low pressure areas around the windmill tips, see this article.[/url]
"If the bat remembers to exhale when passing a wind turbine it should be ok." :laugh:
--Andrew
August 28, 2008 at 9:37 am
Steve, I think you hit the nail on the head with your comment about the high cost of alternative sources. This seems to be the primary reason that so little has been done up to now in new development. Simply put, many people just don't get excited about paying more for higher priced alternatives. Our dependence on foreign oil is founded on adequate supplies of (relatively) cheap oil compared to domestic alternatives. And therein lies the problem. A couple of years ago, no one would even consider paying $3.75 a gallon for biofuel, but now it seems like a pretty good deal. Nonetheless, if OPEC holds oil costs down, American interest for alternative sources may falter in favor of cheaper foreign production. It's happened before. Do we have the resolve to pay more to break the foreign oil dependency? Hard to tell.
There is a strategic argument as well that our national interest is best served by consuming foreign oil first and holding our domestic reserves for when OPEC runs out. Once our domestic oil is gone, we'll be in the worst possible scenario.
Then, too, as a society, we shoot ourselves in the foot by growing criticism of government efforts to encourage this sort of research and develpment because the associated tax breaks are perceived by many as "corporate social security".
It seems to me the reason we don't have a sound energy policy is that, as a society, we really don't know what we want. What do you think?
August 28, 2008 at 9:43 am
Steve wrote, "I still favor nuclear, especially newer, more efficient designs, as a source of electrical power..." and then went on to say that "governments don't necessarily have to just subsidize things."
I'm afraid that these are two contradictory statements. Nuclear energy has never and can never exist without huge subsidies from taxpayers. The investment is cost-prohibitive without government assistance. For those interested in free market solutions, nuclear is not an option.
Nuclear has several other disadvantages:
* While it is potentially safe, such safety relies on the infallibility of ever-so-fallible humans. I read my local paper daily, and I continue to read article after article (usually buried inside squeezed between a couple of huge advertisements) about safety violations at nuclear plants, storage facilities and having to do with transportation of nuclear materials.
* Similar to oil, uranium is limited in supply and requires mining in environmentally sensitive areas and/or relying on foreign sources.
* When we use nuclear energy we encourage not-so-trustworthy regimes to do the same (Iran is claiming that they have just as much right to process uranium as we do. Frankly, I don't know how we can argue with that.)
* The storage of nuclear waste is a political, financial, logistical, and security nightmare.
* Nuclear facilities can be targets for terrorism and other kinds of enemies, endangering the lives of millions.
While we're on the topic of energy, I read the following article this morning (buried in the back of my newspaper) about the fact that Global Warming in the Arctic is creating potential access to possible additional sources of oil. Canada is claiming that passage to such areas belongs to them while the international community claims otherwise. In addition the U.S., Canada, Russia, Denmark, Norway and others are trying to "assert jurisdication".
Read this quote (and then read it again): "Moscow dramatically staked its claim to the region by using a submersible to dive thousands of feet below the surface and drop a Russian flag on the ocean floor at the North Pole last year."
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080827/D92QU3AO0.html
My friends, we have got to break our addiction to oil...entirely.
August 28, 2008 at 10:15 am
dgreatho, great points about us not knowing what to do. I think that's a problem, and don't know where we can go with that. Who should decide? Business wants to go where profits are. Government tends to go where business wants. Each person has their own ideas. Hard to know.
I'm not sure the nuclear has gotten huge government subsidies. If they have, they've also paid huge costs to the NRC for regulatory requirements. I think we have to be careful with nuclear, but we also have to be more reasonable. People are scared of it without understanding anything.
I used to work in a plant. Are there violations? Sure, there are violations in most manufacturing places, including other power generation types. Nuclear tends to scare us because there are huge potential issues if something major goes wrong. It's unlikely because there are so many failsafes, redundancies, and procedures, but it's good to have someone watching over them. That should continue.
Regarding the fuels, there are other ways to build them, not just U-235, and they can be made cleaner. Is it better than oil? Hard to say, but it lasts a long time and can generate HUGE amounts of power. France and Japan have proven it and they have decent amounts of terrorism in those places. Not sure that's a good argument.
Other regimes. It's a valid point, we can by hypocritical to some extent, but really the world needs an inspection force that visits all plants in all countries if they have nuclear.
Waste storage - It's a problem, we've dealt with it in a half-a**ed manner. Some of that is our doing, the older plants, which are running fine, generate too much waste. Newer designs product a small fraction. Is there a good solution? Not sure. Reactors that resuse spent fuel from current plants.
Drilling under the ice? Continues the current schemes. I hate $4/gal gas, but it's a good thing. It's forcing us to re-think what we do. I'm not sure that I want 90% nuclear, but what about going 40% nuclear? What about 20% wind, maybe 20% solar, 20% oil/gas/coal/misc. Use that 20% when we need it.
I'd also like to see smaller, more numerous nuclear plants. Generate closer to the demand, put a few in most states when it makes sense.
There is information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor
Some advanced designs are there. Pebble bed, Thorium, etc.
August 28, 2008 at 11:49 am
With regard to subsidies for nuclear energy--
From the 10/7/07 of the Washington Post (emphasis mine):
"...there is still a lot of worry about the economics of nuclear power. Nuclear plants are hugely expensive to build; they have long lead times and a history of cost overruns. Bottlenecks loom for key components if more than a few plants are built. The price of uranium has soared in recent years. So has the cost of construction materials and skilled labor, which is in short supply. Politicians, environmentalists and business still can't decide how to dispose of radioactive waste.
"If I were an investor, I'd be squeamish," said Jim Harding, a consultant and former director of power-supply planning at Seattle City Light.
To ease financial concerns, the nuclear power industry has turned to Congress. Among the biggest reasons for renewed interest in nuclear power are the tax breaks, loan guarantees and other subsidies in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Those benefits were "the whole reason we started down this path," Crane said after filing NRG Energy's license application. "If it were not for the nuclear provisions in there, we would not have even started developing this plan two years ago."
For each nuclear plant seeking federal approval before the end of 2008, the act provides tax credits of up to $125 million for eight years, loan guarantees for up to 80 percent of a plant's cost, shared application costs and insurance that would cover the costs of regulatory delay.
Nuclear plants also receive other subsidies, including local tax breaks and limits on liability for catastrophic accidents.
Many utility executives, however, say they need more..."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/07/AR2007100701324_pf.html
To review:
* significant tax credits plus...
* loan guarantees "for up to 80 percent of a plant's cost"
* government subsidizes application costs
* government subsidizes insurance costs
* government limits liability for "catastrophic accidents"...(I thought they said it was safe).
* local tax breaks
* "Many utility executives, however, say they need more..."
Steve, I'm sorry to be contentious, but for the reasons stated in my earlier post, I strongly believe that we the people, to our detrimate (and to the benefit of the utility executives mentioned above), are allowing/encouraging our representatives in Washington to put us at huge financial, environmental, economical and security risk when we start going down the nuclear path again...
For me, it's a no brainer--stay away from it. We have other options that are far superior.
(Incidentally, the safety issues I mentioned previously were not insignificant. Some quality time with Google, will provide lots of evidence to support my assertion.)
August 28, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Have you guys checked out RoofRay.com? Here is a small article and sample video to see how it works. Then you can go to the site yourself and map out your house.
http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2008/08/12/calculate-your-roofs.html
August 28, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Chris makes some very good points.
However, I'm concerned that we're going to wind up with a stalemate, really.
To repeat my previous comment, any solution to the problem of energy will cost something.
I might add, doing nothing will cost, too.
To me, energy has become more than anything else a security issue. For example, there is concern that Europe is becoming too dependent on oil from Russia:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4512472.stm
If Russia starts to threaten a cutoff of oil, they could change the politics of Europe more effectively than the days of the old cold war.
I've sat in on a lot of conversations that go like this:
Person 1: We need energy - let's drll for our own oil.
Person 2:Can't do that; global warming, you know.
Person 3:Let's build nuclear, France has done it safely for years.
Person 4:Can't do that (all of Chris's arguments and then some).
Person 5:Let's build windmills.
Person 6:Can't do that; kills birds and messes up my view of the ocean.
etc.....
Let me repeat: We need to do everything (including our own oil, coal and nuclear), and we need to do it now. And we need to learn to live with the costs of each. I appreciate the optimism about alternatives and I'm happy that we're pursuing them. But solar, wind, and other alternative sources just aren't going to be producing what we need any time soon. Having conversations about how oil, coal, and nuclear aren't pretty enough is just making us more and more vulnerable each year...
___________________________________________________
“Politicians are like diapers. They both need changing regularly and for the same reason.”
August 28, 2008 at 12:31 pm
August 28, 2008 at 12:54 pm
There is something bad about everything.
Is doing nothing better than putting up solar arrays or windmills that will have different but very real negative consequences?
What negative consequences are willing to tolerate? That may be the final quaetion that will have to be answered. Do we sacrifice bats, birds, and ecosystems so we can have cleaner power? Or, is having the cleaner power too detrimental in other ways leaving us with nothing?
August 28, 2008 at 2:21 pm
I've often wondered about birds and windmills too. The following article suggests that windmills are perhaps not their biggest threat:
http://www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/swbirds.html
Kevin
August 28, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Chris,
not saying you're completely wrong, but you're quoting journalists, who may or may not be correct. This whole thing is an opinion.
Loan guarantees are made all the time, on all sorts of projects. It's a guarantee that the lender gets repaid, and I don't think any nuclear company has defaulted. Its worth noting, but in context.
Liability - It's a valid point, but companies don't like unlimited exposure. I'd disagree that we should allow this. Perhaps there's a compromise.
I think nuclear is a viable option. Not believing in anyone in DC, but because I've worked at a plant and seen it work well. Other countries have done well with it.
August 28, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Chris,
not saying you're completely wrong, but you're quoting journalists, who may or may not be correct. This whole thing is an opinion.
Loan guarantees are made all the time, on all sorts of projects. It's a guarantee that the lender gets repaid, and I don't think any nuclear company has defaulted. Its worth noting, but in context.
Liability - It's a valid point, but companies don't like unlimited exposure. I'd disagree that we should allow this. Perhaps there's a compromise.
I think nuclear is a viable option. Not believing in anyone in DC, but because I've worked at a plant and seen it work well. Other countries have done well with it.
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 33 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply