Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Quigley_Sharps, Apr 12, 2011.
Japan and energy: What's the alternative? - CNN.com#
An interesting read.
Germany is planning off shore wind farms:
Offshore Wind: Home
It takes a whole Passel of Wind Farms, to equal one single Nuke Plant.... I have often wondered what the Cost Benefit Ratio is between the different forms of Energy Generation. Hydro and Nukes have a High initial cost, but for KW Produced/Cost Ratio, is really High.... I wonder how the rest stack up.... I suspect, that Wind and Solar are at the very bottom, but do not know for sure....
I'm no fan of nuke energy until they get the disposal problem worked out.....seems incredibly stupid to store spent fuel on site in a simple water pool that requires constant refill.....BUT the one huge advantage of a source like nuke power over wind is the ability to produce a fairly constant amount of power.
With wind, you would have to WAY OVER build to compensate for low wind periods, or come up with some kind of very cheap storage, which basically doesn't exist at this time, in order to meet demand of customers.
While both wind and solar are great supplements to the grid, you really can't go large scale on using them primary, IMHO.
I don't give a crap about what the greenies say, the only way period to get decent electric prices is coal.
I don't see wind or solar generating the power that is needed.
I did a search and according to some sites a 110 x 110 mile array located in the south west would power the nation. As there isn't much trust anymore I don't know whether to believe or not.
England built a huge number of offshore windmills. Then winter came along and iced up the blades. Almost all of the units were shut down because the ice caused the blades to be unbalanced. Some of them tore themselves to pieces. Bet you didn't see any stories on this in the USA news, did you?
A shaker generator..may work...If someone could design one..
They seen to have plenty of earthquakes'...
One's off the English coast were shut down due to ice the Germans plan to build them in the North Sea?
Last I looked, the per MWH installed for nuke and coal were about the same when the pollution controls required on coal (and heavy oil) plants are included. The fuel cycle costs for nukes is WAY less. Spent fuel disposal (or recycle) remains an open question.
Advantage: Nuke on economics of operation alone.
Mining coal is earth volume intensive by comparison to uranium; and with breeder reactors, mining uranium becomes even less volume intensive.
Even with air pollution controls, coal burning puts more pollution in the air than nukes.
Coal ash and flyash disposal is landfill intensive, there's none with nukes.
Mine tailings containment and hazards from uranium and coal operations are the same (more or less) for both.
Siting complaints from NIMBYs and OBBYs approximately equal for nukes and coal, no matter which. (The same can be said for wind, solar, and hydro. Considering the areal requirements for these, there can be no further thought about them other than as supplemental in remote areas.)
That leaves oil and natural gas. Obviously, oil is limited in the near term, and gas will be in the medium term. Siting gas plants is relatively easy, so remain a medium term solution. (We do have lots of gas, at least for now.) Both can serve to bridge the gap until nukes can gain more acceptance and the economic size reduced to allow more diversification of siting. The big base load plants we have now are too vulnerable in the sense that taking one out represents too big a bite for reliability of the grid. The trend was to build 1000 (and greater) MW plants. New designs are on the order of 600, and the trend is down.
Advantage: Gas in the mid term.
Advantage, still nuke, in the near, mid and long term.
Thus spake me, and maybe me only.
I'd ask what the plan is for after dark.....which, as it turns out, is when most folks use lights.......ahahahaaaaaa
If we stopped being consumer zombies living in enormous, energy inefficient mansions, and instead started building sensible, greener homes (like earthships or even half earthships) we could easily -very easily manage with wind and solar for ALL our energy needs.
Hydro ruins the environment and chokes waterways
Nuclear is all out deadly, no matter how safe it is made, it is not perpetual
Coal is good with today's technology, but still impacts the environment (mountains disappearing)
It's simple. Change our core philosophies, change the world.
Definitely ask, but will they answer? LOL
I also wonder about the heat generated by 110 x 110 mile array. There was an article which mentioned such an array would require millions of gallons of water for cooling; however, I can't find it now.
I haven't trusted either sides information for years; the most recent example of why was the East Anglia climatology group's rigged program.
How can anyone decide when we know both sides are more than willing to lie by tweaking data??
Separate names with a comma.