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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

Extradite from is easy to say. Hydrogen can be extracted from water but it takes electricity to do it!

---

Not so. One of the most efficient ways to produce hydrogen is by heat... which most people associate with electricity or another means to create heat. A nuclear plant deals with removing heat on a regular basis. There were some very interesting Department of Energy studies about combining the two. Not only could the heat of a nuclear plant be used to produce hydrogen, it could also be used in pressure vessels to compress the hydrogen, taking another of the disadvantages of hydrogen use away from the equation.

If there were viable alternatives in place I might think differently, but right now nuclear power is still one of the safest and greenest long term solutions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

Not so. One of the most efficient ways to produce hydrogen is by heat... which most people associate with electricity or another means to create heat. A nuclear plant deals with removing heat on a regular basis. There were some very interesting Department of Energy studies about combining the two. Not only could the heat of a nuclear plant be used to produce hydrogen, it could also be used in pressure vessels to compress the hydrogen, taking another of the disadvantages of hydrogen use away from the equation.

If there were viable alternatives in place I might think differently, but right now nuclear power is still one of the safest and greenest long term solutions.

---

Green-- ROFLMAO!

There is no such thing as green but to even call nuclear even by that misnomer- thngs get curiouser and curiouser.

If you don't mind reading and have the time, here is an article/interview that discusses Cold Nuclear Fusion.

http://share-international.org/archi..._chunveil.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

Not so. One of the most efficient ways to produce hydrogen is by heat... which most people associate with electricity or another means to create heat. A nuclear plant deals with removing heat on a regular basis. There were some very interesting Department of Energy studies about combining the two. Not only could the heat of a nuclear plant be used to produce hydrogen, it could also be used in pressure vessels to compress the hydrogen, taking another of the disadvantages of hydrogen use away from the equation.

If there were viable alternatives in place I might think differently, but right now nuclear power is still one of the safest and greenest long term solutions.

---

But doesn't the nuclear station use the heat to drive steam turbines? Are you saying they have significant left over heat? If so why is this not used to drive more turbines?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by race aficionado

If you don't mind reading and have the time, here is an article/interview that discusses Cold Nuclear Fusion.

http://share-international.org/archi..._chunveil.html

---

Great read RA,
I had no idea of anything like this in the works. It's a great platform for conspiracy theorists. Something special interests have fine tuned an opposition for. (that is my conspiracy theory) ;) Actually I am more interested in practical application. For instance How practical would it be for your garden variety Necrophiliac.
Can it simultaneously be used without a dedicated refrigerant, because I think I could use the heat gain on Billybob's wood-chucker as I think she is actually an ice queen? A cold calculating minx. (to say nothing about donkey’s old lady) turning my king-size into a caldera of Yellowstonian proportions.
On the other hand, If it could be used to power a heat exchange aka refrigerant, it could be the Necrophiliac’s stock in trade
R.A. these are the questions that must be addressed

:s ailor: moving forward on the ground!

http://a1.l3-images.myspacecdn.com/i...0ceb11ce/l.jpg

We've come for your daughter Chuck

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

If there were viable alternatives in place I might think differently, but right now nuclear power is still one of the safest and greenest long term solutions.

---

Whilst nuclear is definitely far greener and safer than most other power sources its expense and the long lead times required to build a new powerplant (both for political and engineering reasons) mean it doesn't make sense for a lot of countries though it still does for others.

Countries will have to look at nuclear power with their own needs in mind. Australia does not need nuclear power as it has abundant coal and has a population that doesn't appear to be calling for cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. Japan may well carry on with its nuclear programme as the reason it was started, to reduce dependence on imported oil and gas, hasn't changed. For most other countries, especially those in Europe, I think nuclear power is dead in the water and has been for a while. Gas fired powerplants are far cheaper and even wind power is cheaper and more acceptable to the population than nuclear.

Wind cheaper than nuclear? Not a chance!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

Wind cheaper than nuclear? Not a chance!

---

Once you take into account all the hidden costs and also the subsidies available for the former, it is.

Although I am talking from the POV of the private sector which is the sector that is actually involved in producing these plants. The overall costs might be similar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

Once you take into account all the hidden costs and also the subsidies available for the former, it is.

Although I am talking from the POV of the private sector which is the sector that is actually involved in producing these plants. The overall costs might be similar.

---

You sure?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/..._ghosts_1.html

Quote:

---

having looted the taxpayers of Spain, Portugal, and Greece, seeks to expand upon their multi-billion-dollar foothold half a world away on the shores of the distant Potomac River. European wind developers are fleeing the EU's expiring wind subsidies, shuttering factories, laying off workers, and leaving billions of Euros of sovereign debt and a continent-wide financial crisis in their wake. But their game is not over. Already they are tapping a new vein of lucre from the taxpayers and ratepayers of the United States.

---

Quote:

---

The ghosts of Kamaoa are not alone in warning us. Five other abandoned wind sites dot the Hawaiian Isles -- but it is in California where the impact of past mandates and subsidies is felt most strongly. Thousands of abandoned wind turbines littered the landscape of wind energy's California "big three" locations -- Altamont Pass, Tehachapi, and San Gorgonio -- considered among the world's best wind sites.

---

Quote:

---

From its beginnings as a slogan of the anti-nuclear movement, wind energy has always been tied to taxpayer support and government intervention. Wind farms got their first boost with the Carter-era Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) which encouraged states to enact their own tax incentives.

---

Quote:

---

Without government intervention, utilities normally avoid wind energy.

---

Quote:

---

No coal or nuclear power plant has ever been replaced by wind energy.

---

Fact:
Western nations, i.e. North American and Europe are by far the largest per-capita consumers of natural resources, including energy.

Fact:
Nuclear fission is the only viable energy source capable of sustaining the world’s continually growing demand for electricity. Fossil fuels are a non-renewable source that are being quickly depleted, and as has been mentioned, solar and wind simply are woefully inadequate and unreliable.

Fact:
When all is considered, the long-term cost of electricity produced from nuclear fission on a $ per kilowatt-hour basis, is comparable with coal-fired production.

Fact:
Over the last ~50 years there have been far more human deaths and long-term health issues due to exploiting fossil fuels than nuclear energy production.

I can’t be bothered to post links. Google it for yourselves.