Nuclear Power is not going away.......or is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rah

I think that most people see the accident in Japan as a an accident and not a failing of the nuke industry. Realisticly it is both.

---

Au Contraire, The local Greenpeacers and the Green Party people around here are jumping up and down like the local nuclear plants could be in a similar peril tomorrow. The people who irrationally hate nuclear power, or have their own agenda based on forcing people to do with less through some fiat by government are using this crisis in Japan to further their aims. It is wrong, and dishonest, but there is nothing honest about socialist's who have hijacked the green movement to try to get power over people. Bagwan there is going off the grid, and the amount of resistance the government gives people going of the grid is surprising....they don't like not being needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rah

The main problem I have with nuke power is the cost and time it takes to get going and then de-comission. If the reason for going nuke is to reduce CO2 then it will take too long and be too expensive to be effective. Doesn't mean it should not be part of the solution though.

---

It wouldn't take too long if the opposition to the plants didn't drag out every Enviromental assessment as if nuclear plants were/are new technology. IT takes a long time, but no form of power production that puts out the MW's of power like a nuclear plant will be built over night.

Nuclear power isn't the final way we should be making power, fusion will ultimately be the goal, but until then it works, it's Green house gas friendly (I was told over and over until my head turned blue that this is the "greatest crisis") and other than extreme events and some shady oversights in Japan, it has been bulletproof safe when operated in the west. No other form of energy production has had the track record to match it. The used fuel is the only real constant issue, and if people would let engineers get on with the solution, it would be solved, but 90 miles of red tape surround any attempt to deal with the fuel....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Au Contraire, The local Greenpeacers and the Green Party people around here are jumping up and down like the local nuclear plants could be in a similar peril tomorrow. The people who irrationally hate nuclear power, or have their own agenda based on forcing people to do with less through some fiat by government are using this crisis in Japan to further their aims. It is wrong, and dishonest, but there is nothing honest about socialist's who have hijacked the green movement to try to get power over people. Bagwan there is going off the grid, and the amount of resistance the government gives people going of the grid is surprising....they don't like not being needed.



It wouldn't take too long if the opposition to the plants didn't drag out every Enviromental assessment as if nuclear plants were/are new technology. IT takes a long time, but no form of power production that puts out the MW's of power like a nuclear plant will be built over night.

Nuclear power isn't the final way we should be making power, fusion will ultimately be the goal, but until then it works, it's Green house gas friendly (I was told over and over until my head turned blue that this is the "greatest crisis") and other than extreme events and some shady oversights in Japan, it has been bulletproof safe when operated in the west. No other form of energy production has had the track record to match it. The used fuel is the only real constant issue, and if people would let engineers get on with the solution, it would be solved, but 90 miles of red tape surround any attempt to deal with the fuel....

---

I would hazard a guess and say that the greens in Canada do not represent the majority, or they would be in power. I know what you mean about going off grid, its one of the best bits about renewables, they can be de-centralised and many can be built in a shorter time frame.

Even if you got rid of the opposition to the plants, even the construction takes a long time. But you cannot get rid of the opposition because the opposition to the plants is what makes them so safe. The have to jump through lotts of hoops.

I do know that some scientist are working on a nuke plant design that uses a fission plant with a small fussion plant inside it. The fussion plant runs on the waste of the fission plant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Bagwan, you must be up near Bruce eh? Anyone I know up there says the same thing, they hate the turbines....

---

I am indeed .
There's a direct link between our air quality here and those things .

Enbridge gas becomes Enbridge Energy , and gets the government to subsidize turbines , which gets them credits , which they take to the Chicago hub , and sell , to enable the companies across the lake in Michigan to spew even more into the wind , up-wind from us .
In doing so , they turn neighbour on neighbour , with non-disclosure agreements , and rates that can vary from $5k to $24k per year .

Dirty electrical fields and noise and the strobe effect are all making people and livestock sick , even with 500m setbacks .
Our night sky blinks red .



One main problem is the grid , itself .
If it was decentralized with panels or smaller turbines for each town , it , and we , wouldn't be so vulnerable to black or brown outs .

The other big issue with turbines is that they don't spin when you really want them to , so , without a storage system in place , we end up actually often paying to dump the excess power onto the grid .

A scenario that would be more useful , and one that I , myself want to try to utilize at some point , is to use a mechanical pumping turbine to pump water to an elevated point , thus creating potential power , much like a battery .
When the power is needed , on that hot day when the wind isn't blowing , you use the water to create electricty with a small pelton rotor .

This can be scaled to any size .

Another even better scenario , is changing waste treatment into gas production .
With this one you kill two birds with one stone , taking the methane that would normally be gassed off as the worst accounting for global warming , and , at the same time , replacing the fossil sources that are actually most at fault because they are being released from sequester in the earth's crust .


Those in power like to look green , but the deck of cards with which they play is manufactured by big business .

A good example is the new green Volt . 50 miles on a charge .
Tesla , at supercar speeds , gets 250 to 300 miles on that charge .

That's an independent against a corporation . How could GM get it so wrong ?

Again .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

A good example is the new green Volt . 50 miles on a charge .
Tesla , at supercar speeds , gets 250 to 300 miles on that charge .

That's an independent against a corporation . How could GM get it so wrong ?

Again .

---

I'm not so sure that's a fair comparison.
The Tesla is a 2 seater, the Volt is 4 or 5. I haven't actually checked, but I suspect the Volt is quite a bit heavier since it's built more like a regular car (seats 4 & has room in the trunk). This extra weight is going to be a real drag on the range the vehicle gets. Also, I believe the Tesla costs more than twice as much. Alot of that cost probably goes into either more batteries or more sophisticated (expensive) batteries.

I'm not trying to knock the Tesla - I'd love to try one. I just think it's not really a fair comparison, seeing as the cars were built for 2 very different customers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

I am indeed .
There's a direct link between our air quality here and those things .

Enbridge gas becomes Enbridge Energy , and gets the government to subsidize turbines , which gets them credits , which they take to the Chicago hub , and sell , to enable the companies across the lake in Michigan to spew even more into the wind , up-wind from us .
In doing so , they turn neighbour on neighbour , with non-disclosure agreements , and rates that can vary from $5k to $24k per year .

Dirty electrical fields and noise and the strobe effect are all making people and livestock sick , even with 500m setbacks .
Our night sky blinks red .



One main problem is the grid , itself .
If it was decentralized with panels or smaller turbines for each town , it , and we , wouldn't be so vulnerable to black or brown outs .

The other big issue with turbines is that they don't spin when you really want them to , so , without a storage system in place , we end up actually often paying to dump the excess power onto the grid .

A scenario that would be more useful , and one that I , myself want to try to utilize at some point , is to use a mechanical pumping turbine to pump water to an elevated point , thus creating potential power , much like a battery .
When the power is needed , on that hot day when the wind isn't blowing , you use the water to create electricty with a small pelton rotor .

This can be scaled to any size .

Another even better scenario , is changing waste treatment into gas production .
With this one you kill two birds with one stone , taking the methane that would normally be gassed off as the worst accounting for global warming , and , at the same time , replacing the fossil sources that are actually most at fault because they are being released from sequester in the earth's crust .


Those in power like to look green , but the deck of cards with which they play is manufactured by big business .

A good example is the new green Volt . 50 miles on a charge .
Tesla , at supercar speeds , gets 250 to 300 miles on that charge .

That's an independent against a corporation . How could GM get it so wrong ?

Again .

---

Actually an easier way to store energy would be to use the excess to produce hydrogen. Then burn that in the down time.

The problem with the Volt vs Tesla is the battery capacity difference which drive a cost difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

I am indeed .
There's a direct link between our air quality here and those things .

Enbridge gas becomes Enbridge Energy , and gets the government to subsidize turbines , which gets them credits , which they take to the Chicago hub , and sell , to enable the companies across the lake in Michigan to spew even more into the wind , up-wind from us .
In doing so , they turn neighbour on neighbour , with non-disclosure agreements , and rates that can vary from $5k to $24k per year .

Dirty electrical fields and noise and the strobe effect are all making people and livestock sick , even with 500m setbacks .
Our night sky blinks red .



One main problem is the grid , itself .
If it was decentralized with panels or smaller turbines for each town , it , and we , wouldn't be so vulnerable to black or brown outs .

The other big issue with turbines is that they don't spin when you really want them to , so , without a storage system in place , we end up actually often paying to dump the excess power onto the grid .

A scenario that would be more useful , and one that I , myself want to try to utilize at some point , is to use a mechanical pumping turbine to pump water to an elevated point , thus creating potential power , much like a battery .
When the power is needed , on that hot day when the wind isn't blowing , you use the water to create electricty with a small pelton rotor .

This can be scaled to any size .

Another even better scenario , is changing waste treatment into gas production .
With this one you kill two birds with one stone , taking the methane that would normally be gassed off as the worst accounting for global warming , and , at the same time , replacing the fossil sources that are actually most at fault because they are being released from sequester in the earth's crust .


Those in power like to look green , but the deck of cards with which they play is manufactured by big business .

A good example is the new green Volt . 50 miles on a charge .
Tesla , at supercar speeds , gets 250 to 300 miles on that charge .

That's an independent against a corporation . How could GM get it so wrong ?

Again .

---

IF you believe those bogus numbers for the Tesla I will warn you; if some is trying to sell you a bridge in New York City, it is not for sale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Firstgear

I'm not so sure that's a fair comparison.
The Tesla is a 2 seater, the Volt is 4 or 5. I haven't actually checked, but I suspect the Volt is quite a bit heavier since it's built more like a regular car (seats 4 & has room in the trunk). This extra weight is going to be a real drag on the range the vehicle gets. Also, I believe the Tesla costs more than twice as much. Alot of that cost probably goes into either more batteries or more sophisticated (expensive) batteries.

I'm not trying to knock the Tesla - I'd love to try one. I just think it's not really a fair comparison, seeing as the cars were built for 2 very different customers.

---

Tesla is working on a version to compete with electric cars at half the price .

The point is , that even with essentially , repurposed cell phone batteries arranged in a block , the Tesla has more range than the volt , and you can bet the new version will as well .

Everyone who owned an EV-1 loved it , and wanted to buy out the lease .

On the TV show on Discovery , they had a story about a 17 year old who had converted a Ford ranger into an electric vehicle .
He spent $15.00 /month on his electricity bill .

You can buy kits for converting small vehicles for $12-15k .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rah

Actually an easier way to store energy would be to use the excess to produce hydrogen. Then burn that in the down time.

The problem with the Volt vs Tesla is the battery capacity difference which drive a cost difference.

---

On your hydrogen point , it takes a fair whack of energy to separate it out , and along with the inefficiency of the circuitry , might cost a fair bit more .
On the other hand , when you burn it , you get water , something also useful .

I heard a talk with a bunch of energy analysts a few years ago , where I heard Ballard suggest that nukes coupled with fuel cell make an almost perfect combo .
Hydrogen takes care of the swings upward from the baseline that the nukes create , and the nukes create hydrogen when demand drops below .

If you couple that with his idea that the fuel rods could be recycled (US reactors , not CANDU unfortunately) up to 100 times with modern robotics , and you even start to clean up the nukes .

A story for the myoptic, batteries are a god-send group.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/mosl...d-element.html

A story for the myopic, batteries are a god-send group.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/mosl...d-element.html