Author Topic: A Solution To Our Problem (Read 59455 times)

alphadude · « **Reply #25 on:** Mar 04, 2003, 05:11 »

Cost of construction (about $2-6 billion per reactor) has long hindered nuclear power development, so orders for new plants in the U.S. may only be placed if the new reactor designs can provide an example of dramatically reduced construction costs.

Nuclear energy holds great promise as an environmental technology that would allow us to reduce our unsustainable consumption of fossil fuels, use less land and other resources, and produce fewer greenhouse gases. However, in order for the industry to reach its full potential, we must find a way to reduce construction costs, address public health and environmental safety issues, and solve the weighty problem of waste disposal.

Full integration of cost, show that nuclear is approximately equal in cost to coal $/kw. However, the "final solution" high level waste disposal cost has not been fully developed.
Maybe this is it in a nut shell.

SloGlo · « **Reply #26 on:** Mar 05, 2003, 06:19 »

use the off the shelf designs and build lots of them little rx. that'll take care of yer construction costs.
start recycling yer used fuel,

, yeah, we do it everywhere else but in the nuke field. that'll reduce yer weighty problem of fuel disposal. tailings from the recycling could be stored 'n utilized in a thermal power generation mode.... ought to be good fer a few k years, heck ya could even take yer coolant 'n snake it under yer access roadway so ya didn't have to clear the snow all winter. 'course ya could do that also around alla yer new nukes also.... perhaps the local populace would relax their anti-nuke stance if they had clear roads 'n no salt damage to their suv and yuppie car population. yinze southerners, yinze don't need no rx, ya gots yer solar, right?
public health and environmental issues? hmmm, see the thread on hormosis, 'n show me the environmental downside from the plants, 'k?

littlebittime · « **Reply #27 on:** Mar 05, 2003, 10:04 »

So let me get this straight...

Quote

As an owner of an off the grid property, yes i do have a solar cell(s) and they work pretty good.

you're an off the grid homeowner - do you live there 24/7/365 ?
And just out of curiosity.... you work in the nuclear industry as what exactly?

Quote

Im looking to buy a wind turbine for about $1100 that will give me lots of kw

so are you suggesting that everyone should have their own personal windmills?? And if so what about those folks in bigger cities? Or apartment buildings? what about migratory birds? what if the wind stops blowing? or what if it blows too hard? are personal windmills in your estimation a good example of base load energy? Or would you classify them more along the lines of part of an energy diversity package, which includes and dare I say... relies on.... the "old standards" to be much help at all?

Quote

and i use composting toilets (sunmar) that converts waste to a high nutrient usable product, but it only produces about 3 gallons of compost a year-however water use = 0.

Ok I'm sorry this is just too much for me... Alph ... honey...
That's just nasty.... falls into the way more then we all needed to know about you category. But since you brought it up....
What on earth constitutes a "usable product" in your mind?

Especially a usable product that takes a year... and is condensed to 3 gallons of "compost"? Are you growin' veggies in your own fecal matter? You don't have a lot in the way of dinner company do you?

Quote

OH yeah! this is sweet... your house meter spins backwards when u send to the grid...

Ummmm.... you stated you were off the grid... are you off or not off?
As for the backwards spin...
I'm not sure if this is true or not... and I don't really care frankly...
because I'm sticking to my original argument which is.. .if you want off the grid then get off.. no one is stopping you... but then don't whine because no one will force bigger companies to buy your power... you want to be in the business of selling power... buy a power plant not a personal windmill or solar cell... You want a personal windmill or solar cell... then it's for personal use... not public. And if that's not enough for you... here’s a bonus I'll offer free of charge... if and when my power goes out... well then you'll have braggin rights. fair enough?

Quote

i know all this stuff, ive done the nuke lobby, nei support, etc.. the issue was- that a fully integrated energy policy is needed in the US. Does anyone disagree with that?

Ummmm... no one disagrees with the fact that we need an integrated energy policy...
and btw... that's not what you said initially.

littlebittime · « **Reply #28 on:** Mar 05, 2003, 10:47 »

What you said intially Alpha was.... a fully integrated energy policy is wasted in discussion... then you took off an some tangent about horses and autos blowing up... only to return to your main mantra which is personal windmills and solar cells are dandy.

Then you continued with.... the decentralized energy (solar etc) is the best way to make this country less vulnerable to attack on the infrastructure.
- BTW so does reading by candle light and wearing long johns made of llama wool Skippy, but you're not gonna find a whole lot of folks to follow you down that dark path - unless of course you move to North Korea where you can ration electricity among other things and people will thank you for it, or windham county Vermont where you have the benefit of too much colligate drug use in the 60's .... although I feel I must warn you... as we've seen with the Human Shields... when the going gets tough... the morally superior and intellectually challenged get going.

Oh and, I'd LOVE to hear You try telling someone in Syracuse NY that they have to rely on SOLAR CELLS to power their TV, computer and hair dryers... the immediate response would go something like, "go suck eggs". The sun only shines approximately 2 days a year there.
Furthermore, even the granolas in New England know you can't power anything with solar there... In conjunction with your good old standards (oil, natural gas, electric) solar is an effective heat source.... ok, I'll agree with you there... but not everyone can own one... what then? And try to power your blow dryer with a solar cell in New England. Your better off rolling down the window of your 1978 VW Beetle or taking the top off Jeep Wrangler, its way more effective.

Quote

Nuclear energy holds great promise as an environmental technology that would allow us to reduce our unsustainable consumption of fossil fuels, use less land and other resources, and produce fewer greenhouse gases. However, in order for the industry to reach its full potential, we must find a way to reduce construction costs, address public health and environmental safety issues, and solve the weighty problem of waste disposal.

This is actually the only thing you've said that makes any sense at all...

So my question is what about - and please excuse the incorrect terminology as I am not a nuke worker - what about gen2 plants? The ones that cycle their own spent fuel into reuseable fuel... are they a myth? why not take a look at those? do they cost more when factoring in the cost of waste disposal... apples to apples comparing and all.

And just out of curiosity... can anyone tell me... what do coal plants do with their waste? And is it totally environmentally friendly? (aside from the toxic gases of course.)

Nuclear NASCAR · « **Reply #29 on:** Mar 05, 2003, 05:34 »

Finally, a question I can answer.

Many plants built retention ponds (usually called ash ponds) to store the ash they removed from the flue gas. With the change to western coal this has changed a bit but has also led to more recycling of ash because the western coal (low-sulfur) has to be transported via a dry pipe system vs. slurrying it as had been done in the past. I'm not certain of the exact amount but I know our coal plants sell quite a few tons of flyash a year to be used in concrete.

alphadude · « **Reply #30 on:** Mar 05, 2003, 05:46 »

coal plants typically pile their waste or some acutally convert the fly ash to building materials; however, the production of flyash far exceeds the demand for cinder block. ash ponds eventually turn into ash piles and a new pond is created. the waste, high in vanadium-among other things (uranium)-is a waste of special exemption. waste heat is discharged into the heat sink- ponds gulf ocean etc. volatiles- mercury-are not present in the ash since it is discharged at the rate of 1 pound per day in a typical 600 mwe plant of older vintage. low sulfur coal typically has been used since the early 80s and is on the market often.

alphadude · « **Reply #31 on:** Mar 05, 2003, 06:02 »

oh my background- since 1972 i have work in nuclear power production- chemist/environmental scientist/radiation protection and engineer. for about 5 years i was hp supervisor/then waste manager- non nuclear waste. i also served as incident commander in chemical accidents and in the emergency planning section. since 99, i have worked as an engineer in D&D projects mainly weapons facilites. i design plans and facilitate implementation. hence alpha dude- mmmmmmm- plut -me likey! i forgot i also recruit for the company.

oh and if u have a hornets nest that i can stick a stick in let me know!!!

alphadude · « **Reply #32 on:** Mar 05, 2003, 06:10 »

gen 2 facilites are becoming myth in the US. that concept was part of the AEC early nuclear concepts. when the waste cycle was broken-as part of the nuke- non-prolif. treaty. the idea of a nuclear cycle became history in the US. several nations do have this cycle-however they are gov. facilities and not civilian as desired in the US. the treaty took plut prodution out of civilian hands and placed it back into the gov. MOX is kinda sorta some of that concept but we will be burning russian plut.

FREE TIBET!!

SloGlo · « **Reply #33 on:** Mar 06, 2003, 05:51 »

who gives a fat flying (fill in your own personal favorite noun/verb here) who does the fuel recycle? the important issue is to get it done. so other countries have governmental agencies doing the work, la de freakin da! i don't care if it is private, federal government, united nations.... recycle the fuel! we know how to do it, we know how to handle the waste, let's just do it.

littlebittime · « **Reply #34 on:** Mar 06, 2003, 08:24 »

Quote

who gives a fat flying (fill in your own personal favorite noun/verb here) who does the fuel recycle? the important issue is to get it done. so other countries have governmental agencies doing the work, la de freakin da! i don't care if it is private, federal government, united nations.... recycle the fuel! we know how to do it, we know how to handle the waste, let's just do it.

Can I get an AMEN!

Hell No we don't glow!!

alphadude · « **Reply #35 on:** Mar 06, 2003, 04:18 »

i think we have come the full circle- uranium is soo cheap that recycle is not needed. U is a byproduct of the phosphate industry and is considered waste-recycle is a waste of time, money and effort. this has been discussed in other forums.

alphadude · « **Reply #36 on:** Mar 06, 2003, 04:51 »

might i suggest that ideas and concerns be directed to NEI. Paul Genoa is a good contact there and can direct you to some good answers. there seems to be a lot of searching for answers here and Paul knows all the politicians and can give u names of those that u can lobby and personnally attack or fund.

wonder what ever happend to cold fusion after the navy bought the rights?

alphadude · « **Reply #37 on:** Mar 06, 2003, 07:41 »

no dead pony here. besides they can be real good if u know how to cook them. but thats a french thang. ahh i love it when people think, debate, look at the other side, see the world etc.

alphadude · « **Reply #38 on:** Mar 06, 2003, 07:47 »

little i didnt answer some of your questions. one of them was why connect to grid when you are independent- one simple answer=building permits. cant build a house without being hooked to the grid. there are some areas where u dont need permits to build but no where near civilization. so many answers so little time!!

alphadude · « **Reply #39 on:** Mar 06, 2003, 07:50 »

what is it you do for a living little. you seem to have a stake in nuke someway or the other?

littlebittime · « **Reply #40 on:** Mar 07, 2003, 06:53 »

Can't I just admire clean energy? Or do I have to get paid by the industry to appreciate the beauty of nuclear power? The fact is... I'm a web/graphics designer. I happen to be married to a nuclear engineer... but I was pro nuke before I married him - which is how we met.

And just for the record... "building permits" doesn't answer why you'd be whining about not getting paid for your excess electricity - I didn't say you couldn't or shouldn't be on the grid... I said if you chose to remove yourself from the grid - and there are many places where you can remove yourself from the grid... perhaps not in the south... but they do exist - don't whine about big companies not wanting to pay you for something they didn't ask you to give them.

(analogy alert) I have in the past knit socks for my kids - they weren't pretty mind you... but that's not the point - I have 3 kids... if I went ahead and knit a 4th pair... should I then call Hanes and demand they buy them from me because I knit more then I needed??

Same principle. The answer for the record is... NO! Nor should I go around stomping my feet and calling foul if I am silly enough to insist they buy them and they say forget it.

Go ahead and make your own solar/wind/hydro/squirrel on a wheel power... no one is saying you can't... you want to invest in making your own power... go right ahead - all the power to ya as it were... just don't expect anyone to buy your left overs... that is my point.

Pet_Cow · « **Reply #41 on:** Mar 07, 2003, 02:24 »

Quote

Can't I just admire clean energy? Or do I have to get paid by the industry to appreciate the beauty of nuclear power? The fact is... I'm a web/graphics designer. I happen to be married to a nuclear engineer... but I was pro nuke before I married him - which is how we met.

And just for the record... "building permits" doesn't answer why you'd be whining about not getting paid for your excess electricity - I didn't say you couldn't or shouldn't be on the grid... I said if you chose to remove yourself from the grid - and there are many places where you can remove yourself from the grid... perhaps not in the south... but they do exist - don't whine about big companies not wanting to pay you for something they didn't ask you to give them.

(analogy alert) I have in the past knit socks for my kids - they weren't pretty mind you... but that's not the point - I have 3 kids... if I went ahead and knit a 4th pair... should I then call Hanes and demand they buy them from me because I knit more then I needed??

Same principle. The answer for the record is... NO! Nor should I go around stomping my feet and calling foul if I am silly enough to insist they buy them and they say forget it.

Go ahead and make your own solar/wind/hydro/squirrel on a wheel power... no one is saying you can't... you want to invest in making your own power... go right ahead - all the power to ya as it were... just don't expect anyone to buy your left overs... that is my point.

Nice parable, but it is not that simple. Socks are not regulated the way utilities are. A community/ state/county decides who gives them power. They can buy power from anyone they want. Utilities, up to now, have enjoyed a monopoly. It is time to make them compete. What you are saying is only those private utilities who monopolize energy have the right to supply power to the grid. You have ended competetion.

alphadude · « **Reply #42 on:** Mar 09, 2003, 03:23 »

waste not want not

littlebittime · « **Reply #43 on:** Mar 10, 2003, 06:12 »

Ok... first off... isn't making your own power the same as choosing? which means you've defeated the "big boy monopoly" simply by choosing to make power for yourself over choosing to buy power from them?
And I suppose it could be argued that your neighbor could do the same thing... if he/she wanted to that is.

And as far as the monopoly thing goes... lets take it a step further...If you'd like to make power to sell to the grid... well then I suppose that would be fine... but then you should kick in for your own meter - or what ever regulatory device you need... and proabably pay for the up keep and maintenance of the system... lines, poles, the big metal thingies on the poles, big metal thingies on the ground that hum, you know basically the stuff it takes to get your power on the grid and over to your neighbor .... just like all the other companies... that would be fair then... and I would say...have at it... you should in fact be able to do that.

But if what you're asking is that I agree that you should be able to make power.. and - without compensation for use of the lines , poles, and little metal box thingies that someone else paid for and is paying to maintain - that you be able to put your extra power out there for consumption AND that all the other companies would have to pay you for that power...
well then that's not exactly fair trade either is it?
You shouldn't be able to jump on the band wagon without playing in the band.

Of course that's just my opinion.

alphadude · « **Reply #44 on:** Mar 10, 2003, 11:30 »

yep a fully integrated energy policy is not too popular here. nuke has its problems and so do most other energy supplies. i really wouldnt call it clean energy, its just less obvious. take for example CY- called a model of nuke power for years until they shut down. polluted ground water, dumping of radioactive soil all over the site, rad dirt in peoples yards.. now mind u that is just one example and may be a bad one, but nuke is not usually considered on the clean side of the fence. mill tailings, phosphoric acid pits in florida, native american miners with lung cancer from mining U, etc. just be open to alternative ideas and dont be brainwashed by big industry.

althought u dont support alternative energy plans, i did state and its a known fact that if all homes that could be fitted with solar were fitted, a major reduction in the need for new power plants of any kind would be realized and a less vulnerable infrastructure of energy supply would be realized.

Pet_Cow · « **Reply #45 on:** Mar 10, 2003, 06:37 »

Greenpeace boke into Sizewell nuclear station and were able to scale the reactor dome and place the word "DANGER" in large block letters going down its side (about 10 feet each).

"Terrorists are unlikely to blow up a wind farm or make a dirty bomb from a solar panel," added Rob Gueterbock.

http://www.greenpeace.org/news/details?news_id=108507

SloGlo · « **Reply #46 on:** Mar 11, 2003, 03:30 »

"Terrorists are unlikely to blow up a wind farm or make a dirty bomb from a solar panel," added Rob Gueterbock.

terrorism by definition brings into play any target that will have an effect on the population to be effected.... wind farms are in, 'n what chemicals are in a solar panel - could they be utilized to the detriment of a populace?

LaFeet · « **Reply #47 on:** Mar 11, 2003, 04:47 »

I am truly amazed at how far some will take the MONOPOLY hype. I am mainly interested in elliminating my dependence on the local grid.

I am for the continued used and improvement of nuclear power. But I also believe that we should conserve where we can and reduce the amount of money that we pay to these monopolies.

I am very fortunate to have joined a CO-OP. I pay less per kW-hr than most others nearby. And I get to talk to a human when I have a question or complaint. My CO-OP is also a Net Metering company and will purchase any excess electricity at the same price I would have had to pay.

My reasoning is driven by need and not environmental concerns. Out here in BFE Oklahoma, all of the power, cable, and telephone lines are above ground in order to allow the monopolies to benefit from the twice annual ice storm. This way they can shut down grid sections, hire additional crews and drive up the electricity rates.

Back in Florida they learned ealry that underground cables are easily serviceable and safer from weather concerns.

As to the terrorist concerns, I guess you couls shred a solar panel and create a silicon based dust to spray with a crop duster. But the launching of a high speed wind turbine blade into the seats of the superbowl or any Nascar event would have a nasty effect.

Rain Man · « **Reply #48 on:** Mar 11, 2003, 08:19 »

Wind mills of mass destruction.....sounds like the UN Weapon's Inspectors should move on to the Netherlands after Iraq. Dutch pacifists my a**.

LaFeet · « **Reply #49 on:** Mar 11, 2003, 10:07 »

Thanks Rain Man....... I guess the Dutch might be next on our death wish list... or may be not.

The whole point of this topic is should we build more nuclear power plants.

My answer is a solid and loud YES.

With the technology we have today we could build safer and easier to service plants for our future. Take all of the leasons learned by the commercial plants (as well as those no longer classified by the military) and we are sitting on a gold mine.

The approved NRC designs would allow greater dispersal of smaller plants throughout the good ole US of A.

Just think how many more light bulbs we could leave on. We could all turn our thermostats up 15 degrees in the winter and down 20 in the summer !

I am not concerned about not having work for the next 20 years. But I would like to see more HPs, RCTs, RCMs and other nukes have a job.

Oh, and Rain Man..... solar panels coupled to a capacitor make a great fuse for a boomy device.......

Author Topic: A Solution To Our Problem (Read 59455 times)

alphadude

littlebittime

littlebittime

alphadude

alphadude

alphadude

littlebittime

alphadude

alphadude

alphadude

alphadude

alphadude

littlebittime

Pet_Cow

alphadude

littlebittime

alphadude

Pet_Cow

LaFeet

LaFeet