Author Topic: Pro-Nuclear Energy Research (Read 17841 times)

ELTGuy · « **on:** Feb 21, 2003, 10:38 »

Hey all-

Ex navy Nuke (imagine that) and am back in skewl to get my duh-gree....

So for the ol' speech class I have to eventually come up with a pursuasion (I can't spell) speech topic. I am thinking of something along the lines of:

"Why we need Nuclear Energy"

Now... a recent trip to the college library yields a plethora of books on the subject of Nuclear Energy.

"The Comming of the Killer Atom"

"Radioactive Death"

and so on...

Not much in the way to support my topic.

If you all could point me in the correct direction as to who or what industry sources I should check out.. would be much abliged.

HydroDave63 · « **Reply #1 on:** Feb 23, 2003, 02:31 »

here is some food for thought...

http://www.haydenpub.com/nuclear.htm

a review of a hard to find pro-nuclear energy paperback book by the late Dr. Petr Beckmann

and of course, more food for thought on www.nei.org

good luck!

littlebittime · « **Reply #2 on:** Feb 23, 2003, 09:16 »

you might also look in other energy areas for support of nuclear... for example...

"green" energy...
solar - not enough sun consistently in most states for it to be a source of electricity... not bad for heating water though...

wind - dandy iffen the wind is blowin' at the optimum speed and the right direction for the length of time desired. - which leads us to that pesky ol' 25% - 45% efficiency rating... not to mention the fleet of windmills you need to replace one power plant and the land they take up... which by the way has to be clear cut... and the cost... well.. .I don't think you want to get me started there...

ok so then how about hydro... well there's the flooding issues... and the disturbing the wildlife issues.. .not to mention the fact that there isn't much in the way of flowing water left to be damning.

get the idea... look up the negatives of the alternatives...and turn them into positives for your speech.

jsut a suggestion... if you would like some sources... IM me.
good luck

SloGlo · « **Reply #3 on:** Feb 24, 2003, 06:05 »

eltguy.... interesting timing, this thread 'n a parallel convesation i had this weekend with my state rep (suburban area of the 'burgh).... we wuz talking about how us'ns from sw pa continually complain about change, 'n he said that he is getting grief from the environmentalists over the windmill farm in pa. seems they think that scores of windmills looks bad, ruins the mountains scenic value, takes out valuable hiking areas etc.

just thought you'd be interested, sorta goes with what littlebittime sez.

littlebittime · « **Reply #4 on:** Feb 24, 2003, 07:51 »

sloglo... does this mean you actually read what I write? and more over... agree with it? wow... now I have hit the big leagues.

did your state rep mention anything about how inefficient the windmills are? or how much they cost to put up and maintain? or how much land he's taking away from environmentalists who want renewable energy out of thin air? (no pun intended) I am truely interested in the conversation now.... please do tell.

SloGlo · « **Reply #5 on:** Feb 24, 2003, 08:53 »

littlebittime...now yinze wnat me to read? it took sew long to find somebuddy that could tak all this rightin stuff and put it into pictures fo me

that said,...the conversation is pretty much all been related. however, iffen yinze im me expressing concern, i'll contact him 'n see iffen he'd be interested in conveying to you what he has heard.

rysics · « **Reply #6 on:** Aug 03, 2003, 04:03 »

Another detractor from solar power; it takes more energy to manufacture a solar cell than it can ever produce. I read this while doing research in physics, I believe that it was in American Journal of Materiel Sciences but I have no clue what the date of publication was.

rysics

alphadude · « **Reply #7 on:** Aug 04, 2003, 05:48 »

more to produce than output??? that dont seem logical.. the pay back on those units are 5 to 10 years. that cost included the cost to produce.(what u paid for it from the retailer) there would be no pay back if the cost was that high.. the thin film technology is somewhat different than the silicon technology-that was a high cost technology, and silicon technology never made it to market.(in great mass) I understand the pronuclear current here but dont let the desire to maintain a consumer life style cloud the logic of a fully integrated energy policy that would reduce the need for coal and nuke facilities by 40% in this country, which by the way could have been paid for with a few days cost of the Iraq field day.

rysics · « **Reply #8 on:** Aug 04, 2003, 06:49 »

I agree with you fully Alphadude regarding an integrated energy infrastructure. The basis of my post was on the amount of energy required to produce a solar cell vs the amount of energy that a particular cell will produce in its lifetime. Regrettably this is a negative investment as far as energy is concerned right now. With futher research in this field I hope it will become viable, Material Science researchers are coming up with some fascinating and revolutionary ideas. I am in the process of changing careers and moving which precludes finding the paper that I referenced, but if i can find a few hours I'll poke around and let you know.

Cheers,
Rysics

alphadude · « **Reply #9 on:** Aug 04, 2003, 09:36 »

the a-silicon types are basically history, colo state has a process which will reduce cost to $1 watt-pretty cheap stuff.(that will hit the market next year.) the major cost is mass production limitation-if factories geared up to stamp out solar the cost would drop dramatically-

remember 1/3 of the world is without electricity-and never have hopes of nuke (dont know if we want them to have it anyway) and little hope of fossil-no oil or coal, besides you gots to have da wire to get it there-solar is a hope of raising those up out of the dust.

rysics · « **Reply #10 on:** Aug 05, 2003, 03:46 »

It would appear that your info is more up to date than mine...cool. Can you get me a link to the Colorado State information, I like to keep current if I can.

Regarding the use of solar in areas without other energy options. Sounds like a reasonable option. Especially with low population densities and other geo-political concerns.

Rysics

peteshonkwiler · « **Reply #11 on:** Aug 05, 2003, 04:28 »

Quote

the a-silicon types are basically history, colo state has a process which will reduce cost to $1 watt-pretty cheap stuff.(that will hit the market next year.) the major cost is mass production limitation-if factories geared up to stamp out solar the cost would drop dramatically-

remember 1/3 of the world is without electricity-and never have hopes of nuke (dont know if we want them to have it anyway) and little hope of fossil-no oil or coal, besides you gots to have da wire to get it there-solar is a hope of raising those up out of the dust.

I am glad to hear that you're making the big bucks where a $1/watt is "pretty cheap stuff". Personally, I rant and rave at paying close to 17 cents per kilowatt for my residence. However, your elitist attitude toward whether a third of the world should have hope of nuclear power production of electricity stirs a beat of antipathy in my spirit.

Post data intake modification to message - Reading the article posted by Phurst, I see why you are saying that $1/watt is pretty cheap. By using what is in the article the ratio is $1.50/watt to 8 cents/kWhr, which seems good. However, my current house billage is at 7.3 cents/kWhr, yet when all taxes, tariffs, and assorted surcharges are factored into the bill, it works out to 17 cents/kWhr. So, it would appear that the championing of this form of electric generation will bring less expensive areas of the country into line with what I have been paying for years. Welcome to the club.

Phurst · « **Reply #12 on:** Aug 05, 2003, 06:54 »

I believe there is a huge solar plant near Barstow.( http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy01osti/28751.pdf Perhaps they would like to share data. I think the shift for the no nukes has turned to radwaste (fuel and debris). So you have to address that issue also.

SloGlo · « **Reply #13 on:** Aug 05, 2003, 09:56 »

well 'n good, but this doesn't do me a bit of good in the mid-atlantic region of the country. build me a nuke 'n power me up, scotty!

alphadude · « **Reply #14 on:** Aug 05, 2003, 11:30 »

well that is $1/watt is cost to build, not output cost. that means a 50 watt panel would cost $50 to build. what does nuke cost to build per watt today?

alphadude · « **Reply #15 on:** Aug 05, 2003, 11:47 »

pete im sure u enjoy paying your power bill and keeping those overpaid VPs in 4000 ft2 houses, not to mention the $1000/day retirements. energy independence would allow u to keep more of that money, fuel cells, solar, improved transmission,petroleum advanced cracking techniques for heavy crude, all add up to savings for you. helping others get out of poverty via solar is not an elite attitude, its good geopolitical actions that would provide a more stable world.

littlebittime · « **Reply #16 on:** Aug 05, 2003, 11:56 »

Quote

well that is $1/watt is cost to build, not output cost. that means a 50 watt panel would cost $50 to build. what does nuke cost to build per watt today?

Alpha...
Is this for a personal home type solar panel? And how many of the trees surrounding my house, which help to reduce my fuel cost in the winter by adding a wind break and help reduce my cooling cost in summer by providing shade, will I have to cut down in order to conserve energy and break my current - no pun intended - desire to maintain a consumer life style which is clouding my logic?

Did you have a link? I believe you mentioned Col. State...and great things in the future...
you have a link for that?

And while I'm asking questions.. I couldn't help but notice that all the times I can recall reading of your "fully integrated" world plan energy ideas... they don't include new nukes... why is that? why can't new nukes - more efficient and gen 2 plants - be part of your integrated world plan?

Just wondering... I'll wait for that link now...

peteshonkwiler · « **Reply #17 on:** Aug 05, 2003, 12:36 »

Alphadude, I am sorry, I didn't realize your solar energy personnel would be willing to take drastic paycuts in order to promulgate the venue. Perhaps they have a statement somewhere that shows they are willing to live more modestly, say a 2k sq. ft domicile, $350/day retirement. I obviously missed that in the propaganda issued thus far. Please note my modification to the previous post on this thread re: my alleged savings. However, I am still non-plussed, at best, re: your stance on wanting one third of the world to have nuclear power generation capability.

alphadude · « **Reply #18 on:** Aug 06, 2003, 05:52 »

these are old issues and often stir emotions.. as most of you know, if you watched the engergy policy review today on the cspan.. coal is what the adminstration wants- the simple statement made- "coal is our largest energy reserve" tells the tale. we know different.. but you gets what u vote for.

SloGlo · « **Reply #19 on:** Aug 07, 2003, 04:35 »

whyinell didn't ya say yinze wanted to go jaggin around wid the gov? ya wanna renewable energy source? ya wanna large energy reserve? yinze wanna have clean eneryg? go meth! alla yer landfills fer organics are piped to collect methane 'n they light it off.... duh! put a boiler over that flame 'n boilz yer water, makez yer steam, 'n spins yer turbine. ya wanna have cheap energy directz to yer peeplz? takes yer meth, blend it down to reduce yer volatility 'n color yer flame abit, den pipe it to yer consumer fer his furnace, hot water heater, kitchin stove, gas grill ona deck.
longz we throw out garbage, we gotz plenty of gas.... watchin the recycle movement fer the last 30 years tellz me we gotz gas until my grandkids depart terra firma.

my apology mike, i wentz 'n mixed up dem werdz agin.

jamesd · « **Reply #20 on:** Apr 12, 2005, 11:36 »

It's a pity I didn't get here in time to mention the IFR taht Argonne developed for President Carter specifically to be proliferation-resistant that could be fueled on "nuclear waste". That might have made for an interesting speech.

Nuclear_Dog · « **Reply #21 on:** Apr 15, 2005, 08:16 »

Quote from: alphadude on Aug 05, 2003, 11:30

well that is $1/watt is cost to build, not output cost. that means a 50 watt panel would cost $50 to build. what does nuke cost to build per watt today?

When you dial capacity factors into the equation, wind/solar 15-30% to nuclear 80-95%, you need to multiply that $1 a few times

alphadude · « **Reply #22 on:** Apr 19, 2005, 07:33 »

dog thats out of context.. those panels are for indepents (home panels) the power is there because the home owner has stored it.(100% ready) those figures you quote are based on large arrays and dont take into account other factors such as the home owner tayloring the demand to what is "stored" onsite in the bank.(which scares utilities) the numbers you use are based on if no one changes their demands and jim bob chevrolet down the corner keeps adding in flood lights on those anti-american gas hogs he sell. ($$$ to saudi)

Author Topic: Pro-Nuclear Energy Research (Read 17841 times)

ELTGuy

littlebittime

littlebittime

rysics

alphadude

rysics

alphadude

rysics

alphadude

alphadude

littlebittime

alphadude

jamesd

alphadude