Nuclear power

Status
Not open for further replies.

gar

Senior Member
Location
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Occupation
EE
101013-2121 EST

In the Fall 2010 issue of Michigan Engineer is an interesting article on nuclear power. Some useful facts are provided, but scattered thru the article. Go to http://www.engin.umich.edu/newscenter/pubs/engineer/engineerfeatures/nuclear/

The essence is that renewable sources are not going to replace coal in the near future, but nuclear can.

My comment is that if nuclear is restarted as a major energy source in this country, then central power plant generation cost may not rise like proponents of solar predict. In fact, if fusion can every be made to work, then rates might come down.

.
 

ericsherman37

Senior Member
Location
Oregon Coast
I don't have any particular issue with nuclear power, other than the question of where all the waste will go. Dumping it in a concrete bunker and forgetting about it may seem like a decent short-to-medium term solution but with that kind of material, long-term (really long) solutions should probably be at the forefront.

That being said, I think it would be a fine idea. Coal power is dirty and non-renewable and it really needs to go the way of the dodo. But as James Howard Kunstler has stated, "No combination of solar, wind, tidal, wave power, or other currently popular renewable energy solutions can or will produce enough energy to even remotely satisfy a fraction of the world's current energy needs." He goes on to say that the only real solution is simplifying and downsizing society. I partially agree and partially disagree with this, but that's beside the point.

Nothing wrong with nuclear power! France has shown us that it can be done well if properly thought out! Cool article, thanks for the link.
 

LEO2854

Esteemed Member
Location
Ma
101013-2121 EST

In the Fall 2010 issue of Michigan Engineer is an interesting article on nuclear power. Some useful facts are provided, but scattered thru the article. Go to http://www.engin.umich.edu/newscenter/pubs/engineer/engineerfeatures/nuclear/

The essence is that renewable sources are not going to replace coal in the near future, but nuclear can.

My comment is that if nuclear is restarted as a major energy source in this country, then central power plant generation cost may not rise like proponents of solar predict. In fact, if fusion can every be made to work, then rates might come down.

.

20101014-0119 EST
Thank you for your post :)
We need to move in that direction fast ,it is the lowest cost energy form that we can put to work fast,
the only reason we don't is Because they wan't to make the use of electricity to costly for reg people and that is just plain wrong.

as for the question of where all the waste will go how about outer space we have the rockets there is plenty of room out there.
 
Last edited:

hillbilly1

Senior Member
Location
North Georgia mountains
Occupation
Owner/electrical contractor
I vote for hydro electric, it's clean no hazardous waste, efficent. Most of the power supplied from my utility provider is Hydro (TVA). The enviromentalist jump up and down about species nobody knows, that were going extinct anyway, and it also creates recreation areas. It has the same problem as wind power though, there are limited areas that it can be used.
(We had to wait many years to replace an exsisting bridge for studies about a Bog turtle that had never been seen, but conditions were favorable for it to live there.)
 

zog

Senior Member
Location
Charlotte, NC
I vote for hydro electric, it's clean no hazardous waste, efficent. Most of the power supplied from my utility provider is Hydro (TVA).

Not even close, TVA sources are as follows:
Pumped storage Hydro 1,532MW - 5%
Combustion turbines - 1,952MW - 7%
Conventional hydro- 4,404MW - 17%
Nuclear 5,517MW - 20%
Coal - 14,590MW - 51%
 

zog

Senior Member
Location
Charlotte, NC
There are currently 14 new licences approved to build reactors in the USA, 2 will be new sites (Out of 6 canidates) and the rest will be completion of abandoned projects or addition of a reactor at an existing site. Maybe 6 or so of these will actually become operational reactors.

But nuclear fission is soooo 1970's and is simplay a tempory solution until the real energy solution, nuclear fusion is perfected. We have a few "working" fusion generators, but as of now it takes more energy to run than they produce. But the potential is huge. The sun pumps out some 383 quadrillion watts of energy every second thanks to fusion.
 

hillbilly1

Senior Member
Location
North Georgia mountains
Occupation
Owner/electrical contractor
Not even close, TVA sources are as follows:
Pumped storage Hydro 1,532MW - 5%
Combustion turbines - 1,952MW - 7%
Conventional hydro- 4,404MW - 17%
Nuclear 5,517MW - 20%
Coal - 14,590MW - 51%

The TVA has 7 conventional hydro plants and one nuclear within in 50 miles of my house. So most of the electricity I use IS from hydro, the rest of the plants are nowhere near me. Georgia Power even has a hydro plant within 30-40 miles of me, but we are not connected to that plant.
 

LEO2854

Esteemed Member
Location
Ma
i think electricity should be expensive, people are blowing their money on stupid things right now

Where is that? things are pretty slow right now.
And feel free to pay your power company as much money as you want after all its your money:)
 

dmagyar

Senior Member
Location
Rocklin, Ca.
I think Nuclear power is stalled here for the forseeable future

I think Nuclear power is stalled here for the forseeable future

According to what I've been reading and the timetables for the new revised and streamlined NRC licensing, more nuclear power in this country is a long way off. This recent article that I read (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wirestory?id=11871616&page=2) underscores that which along with the much higher initial costs and no end in sight licensing gaunlet (imho) effectively kills them.

Besides we want instant gratification, unlimited power when we turn on the switch or remote, and nothing in our back yards. We can have it all? Right?
 

nollij

Member
Location
Washington
I agree, people would conserve more if it costs more, in theory. But that theory was proven somewhat wrong in CA a few years back.

Well, to be honest it was the industrial facilities who were getting dinged by Enron's shenanigans. It costs them millions of dollars to be down for a day. Granted they are losing money on their product, they still have to make product to cover overhead.

We need to move in that direction fast ,it is the lowest cost energy form that we can put to work fast,
the only reason we don't is Because they wan't to make the use of electricity to costly for reg people and that is just plain wrong.
.

I am pretty sure the biggest hurdle is actually getting the approval to build these nuclear facilities.

Sites like the one in Hanford, Washington are the reason people still hold onto the idea about the awful environmental impact.
 

BJ Conner

Senior Member
Location
97006
Calvert Cliffs unit 3 has been canceled. Construction was mobalizing and shovles would have been in the ground early next year. The fee the owner would have had to pay for a Loan guarantee was to big. 880 million on a 10 billion dollar loan
 

jghrist

Senior Member
There are currently 14 new licences approved to build reactors in the USA, 2 will be new sites (Out of 6 canidates) and the rest will be completion of abandoned projects or addition of a reactor at an existing site. Maybe 6 or so of these will actually become operational reactors.

But nuclear fission is soooo 1970's and is simplay a tempory solution until the real energy solution, nuclear fusion is perfected. We have a few "working" fusion generators, but as of now it takes more energy to run than they produce. But the potential is huge. The sun pumps out some 383 quadrillion watts of energy every second thanks to fusion.

They've been pouring money into fusion research for fifty years and they still can't generate useful energy. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for nuclear fusion to be practical.
 

zog

Senior Member
Location
Charlotte, NC
They've been pouring money into fusion research for fifty years and they still can't generate useful energy. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for nuclear fusion to be practical.
That is what Ernest Rutherford and other so called experts said about nuclear fission too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top