Nuclear energy reliable

Like so many of the energy systems we set up to produce electricity - it takes energy to manufacture, build, and maintain an electrical power plant - nuclear, solar, or otherwise. The pay-off in nuclear is only seen after two-thirds of its life-span and then there's the waste, which will outlast our species. I'm just not down with it.
We have been leeching off of the battery called fossil fuel for only a couple hundred years or so as a world population (early oil use and coal use was arguably negligible for producing energy, mainly used for heat before the steam engine.) Before that, what did we do? We certainly couldn't have survived as a species without the microwave oven and cell phones, could we?
All energy on this planet starts with the sun. Energy is not created, the law of thermodynamics clearly defines this. Although some heretofore unknown electrical source could be discovered in my opinion, the highly concentrated energy from fossil fuels is finite and will be inaccessible to us soon. Any infrastructure built to supply energy will require large investment from this finite source, at times negating any energy production gained for the short lifespan of the generator.
Why are we driving our cars still? Why are we dining on delicacies from halfway around the world? I'm not talking about cost in dollars, I'm talking about cost in resources, in energy. The cost to us all as a species. We can go the way of civilisations past, and compete our way to the last resource and die the last pitiful cretin huddled around an oil lamp, wishing for some company. Or, we can go the cooperative route, heretofore (again with the $5 words, eh?) unheard of by exploitative resource-burners, and learn to use less and realise that there is more to life than all the 'advancements' of humanity which really have amounted to nothing more than a raucous side-note in the grand scheme of life in this solar system.

I don't know Fremen I rather like living in a warm cave during the winter months and a cool one in the heat of summer myself. Have you ever tried having sex in a freezing snow bank? All the Viagra in the free market can't talk the worm to come out and play!

Oh before primitive man learned the benefit of fossil fuels they burned trees! A less efficient and more labor intensive carbon based fuel! No wonder boiling water was a technology that came later!

Yes nuclear power is the best alternative for long term clean fuel. But one should try to master the technology of nuclear fusion and fission.

Here we go again.

There's still no solution for the waste problem, outside of jettisoning it into space. And that would be dangerous in itself. Everybody wants nuclear, until somebody wants to dump waste in their backyard....

"The answer is to use the best available and most cost effective low carbon technology for base load generation (nuclear power), increase the focus on energy efficiency in all sectors of the economy, and encourage R&D"

Cold reality of global warming efforts

Just read an article yesterday where finally recent lab experiments addressing "cold fusion" power generation have been replicated at several laboratories. More energy was produced than required! Then of course there is no longer the nuclear waste issue with this technology.

The original scientists who prior to their paper being published were in fact considered leaders in their field then later marginalized and both left the U.S. to do research in France. Now given this push for green energy/renewables there has been more attention given - i suspect there may have been some political/economic skewing in the 70s going on given these new results!

Yes. Cold fusion is not an exact science yet, but it is known to produce heat and electricity. It was featured on 60 minutes on Sunday.

Ironically, the scientists who developed this technology were laughed out of business and the science field back in the 70's.

Now, it is gaining momentum.

Fremen says: [Imitating AO] Well, with the earth going into another ice age, hot fusion may be preferable for a while!

Now you are reading my mind! Sarcasm will get you absolutely nothing but people making assumptions about what you are insinuating!

All kidding aside preliminary results indicate further research is warranted for cold fusion. Hell who knows stranger things have proven to be true. It sure beats the hell out of those gigantic towers the Aussies are promoting and MF. They are simply nothing more than a theoretical proposal and a visual blight upon the landscape at the moment. Surely we can do better that that - or at least lets hope so!

But if not then they are worth consideration. Test and prove first however! I want real data.

A blight? Actually, they would add to tourism dollars as they have elevators to the top for viewing. They would be twice the size of the Empire State building. Plus, they cost nothing to run once built. What other technology can you say that about? And, you can have it for the price of a ballpark.

Okay so what is the period necessary just to re-cover cost of construction?

If I want to take in a view from a height twice that of the Empire State building I will sign on with NASA for the next Shuttle ride!

What effect will this height have on commercial plane routes? Will bird migrations need to re-rout around them! Then of course how much paint (non-lead of course) will be required to improve their aesthetic value?

Then one should also ponder what happens when wind patterns shift do to the climate change their shadows would produce? Let the Aussies build a few first so we can study it further!

$760 million is the price tag. And, of course there will be some maintenance. But, the system is self sustaining. Read the links, bud. It shows the outside elevators leading up the the viewing platform for the public.

Ya know, Boan, you always have questions that you could answer yourself, if you just took the initiative to click on the links provided. They were provided here:

Now I have been in the Columbia Tower and the view is spectacular from the ladies room in the private dinning club! I am on board if I can get the same service in this huge tower that i enjoyed in Seattle's tallest building!

Do your own work, Boan. Get off that dead ass of yours and DO some research yourself for a change.

Geezus Fucking ker-rist!

So you can't do it? is that what I heard? So just maybe that was something from the show you watched? That's the only question I asked. Unless you have a link to the show, I've done about as much as I can.

Boan...

I've got a turkey in the roaster with company coming in two hours. It blew a fuse and took out my monitor. Now, I'm on my other computer. I just don't have time to babysit you today.

Get on google, and watch the 60 minutes segment from last week Sunday.

You CAN do that, can't you?

You fail....

That is sick MF - poor Bambie is confused and out of his environment. Poor dog is not thrilled either as most likely his owner hasn't informed him about minority rights and their political correctness!

Note that Bambie has horn buds on his head! Is this photo from San Francisco or maybe Perez Hilton's private collection or his website - Butt Welders United or the Fudge Packers Union site!

I assume you're taking the piss, but this is definitely one thing they won't need to worry about.

That's certainly the truth, and it all winds up here in Jersey!

As for the cost of the Solar Updraft Tower, here is some information:

The project will cost about one billion Australian dollars (about US $500 million). As of 2004, it had the support of the government and had been granted major project facilitation status. (6, 13) However, the materials are simple – just land, concrete and turbines, as well as the glass/polycarbonate/plastic film the greenhouse will be made out of. After the tower is built, it will be very easy and cheap to maintain. In fact, it would only require a staff of roughly 15 people to run it, unlike dams, which are both expensive to build and can take up to 20 million dollars a year to maintain.

There is more in depth information about the project and the technology involved here:
http://www.brynmawr.edu/geology/206/gruenstein2.htm

So can one be built in Jersey first? Better yet maybe a series of them can be constructed along the east coast. Their shadows extending westward would help decrease global warming significantly!

Thanks for the information Gidget!
So here is the issue I see with these plants. Take Charlotte, NC for an example.
Charlotte, NC has 230,556 households and a landmass of 280 square miles.
These plants will power 47,000 households. So for Charlotte, NC 5 plants would be needed. (six realistically). they would have to give up 18% (almost 1/5) of their land mass just to build these plants. The cost would be 2.5 Billion dollars. (21% of land mass and 3 Billion for 6 of these)this cost doesn't include the price of the land it's constructed on. One can easily see the logistical problems here.
That would leave rural areas to use this technology which I believe will have a hard time getting the money for them.

Electricity is way more important to us than food and seeing the stars at night.
I think that using our fuels up until they can not be reasonably harvested is the best way to deal with the electricity situation, then rely on technology to pull us into the next era of power production. We'll manage, we're human beings.

So we should just sit tight and hope for the best? No thanks.

Like it or not, fossil fuels aren't getting any cheaper and the only way to stem the rise in oil prices is to develop suitable alternatives BEFORE it's too late. I'd rather pay a little more now for R&D than wait until we're in it up to our noses before finding a solution.

Aw, come on, Joe - ye of little faith! We'll find a way to produce massive projects to power our cities without the massive amounts of carbon fuels to build them, don't worry. The pyramids were built without oil!

Thanks, Gidget.

Boan is once again mistaken. All he had to do was read the thread. He missed a ZERO here. These plants power 500,000 homes at 80% capacity. That is what they would run at on a winter's day.

I also agree with the rest of what you posted, Gidget as it jibes with the information that I saw. Try not to get into it with Boan. He will waste your time as he has done here. He'll question EVERYTHING that is against his philosophy (whatever that is) and agree with EVERYTHING that is with his philosophy (A-G-A-I-N, whatever that is.

You get the drift.

Reduce the price by increasing the supply! Drill baby Drill and mine that coal, pump the natural gas and watch the Palm islands sink in the sand as you sip a ice cold Mint Julip! It is all about supply and demand! So I say out supply our demand. Tax the profits to underwrite the R&D!

Even if you want to discount what this article states, Even the builder of this project doesn't make the outrageous claims you are.

Conservation is something that we all can do to reduce consumption of fossil fuels that would have an immediate impact.

In the meantime I see no reason for not drilling and mining resources we know we have to help reduce further our foreign dependency on energy supplies.
At the same time we need to encourage further research in alternatives but let the capitalist fund the majority of that activity.

Involve government and it will only screw things up and delay the productivity!

Indeed, and that would be perfectly fine by me if the supply was infinite, but it isn't (or at that's what we're led to believe.)

They were also built without iPods and Playstations, so no thanks.

Finally!

Boan presents a debating point worthwhile of discussion.

Nice job, Boaner. I knew you could do it! Those are numbers that I can understand and a mea-culpa is in order from me to you here. However, that number of 200MW is based upon a test model.

http://pesn.com/Radio/Free_Energy_Now/shows/2006/10/28/9700213_EnviroMission_solar_tower/

Gee. That's over ten times what YOU quoted, using Gidget's link and not mine. So, here's some home work for you.

Here are its limitations:

JoeConti wrote:

Well potable water is not infinite so shall we stop pumping it? Common there is a huge supply of carbon based fuels that are not being used. Then there is nuclear too which needs to be expanded. If we can't develop a reasonable replacement before they are depleted then we certainly don't deserve to be on this planet.

Some would say we are already there...

That is not 10 times what I quoted. It's confusing because they (people reporting) switch back between MW, GW, GwH, KwH.
Here is a link.

• The 200 MW quoted was also on the manufacturers website.
• Watt, Megawatt, Kilowatt are measures of POWER
• KwH, Mwh, GwH are measures of ENERGY USED.
• oops gotta go to work....long story short 350 gigawatt-hours is 350 MW not even double the 200 MW earlier mentioned.

As you can see, Boan, its improving with time and saves over 900,000 lbs off carbon waste being dumped into the environment annually. Either way, its good to see you do your homework, ... for a change!

Fremen wrote:

It's conscience, spirituality, or morality that may concern a person (or not).

Go figure. I guess dumping tons of carbon deposits into the environment and having no place to put nuclear waste is not an issue to you. I'll let the Nuclear Commission know that you are up for putting it in your back yard!

I think scale is a very important component of this debate. We all receive electricity when we plug things in, but have no concept of the infrastructure required to make the sparky thingies in the funny holes. If a plant somewhere was burning Somali babies to produce electricity, folks wouldn't see it through the outlet, so they wouldn't know unless someone could show them. Then they would be faced with the responsibility for their consumption and the excuses would begin to fly. This goes with every modern energy-consuming activity we engage in: driving (what is the actual energy cost, let alone other costs, to get that gallon of fuel into our car?); eating (how many calories of energy are required to get that boiled egg into your stomach and deliver 76 calories?); energy (Google 'Chernobyl' and see the effects of widespread suffusion of the waste from our nuclear plants - just for electricity). Make it mandatory that people be responsible for their consumption and see the freak show start.

That kind of education is important and needed in our instant gratification of today. Most, if not all, is not of concern if it is working. Its when the power goes out, that all hell breaks loose. That's about how much the Joe Average consumer thinks of it.

Potable water isn't a good example since supplies are naturally renewed with the water cycle. We don't have an infinite supply, but it sure as hell isn't finite like oil. You can also obtain potable water from the sea with reverse osmosis plants.

The problem here isn't whether or not we're capable of finding replacements for fossil fuels or nuclear power, but if we're actually willing to do so. By "we" I don't mean you or I, but the people who can invest sufficient money into developing these alternatives.

JoeConti wrote:

Well let me see the capitalists are all running scared right at the moment and government isn't known for its efficient levels of productivity - so maybe we should hope taht the Chinese or Russians will take over the research!

Be careful in suggesting capital be provided by capitalists who fund free markets here Joe - you will get nailed by all the "Fair Share" folks!

Now I would be happy to invest in more mining, drilling and nuclear power plants, but not if I am going to be taxed unfairly for making the investment! See the problem with our current administrations policy of spreading the wealth so every one gets their fair share? What is fair and what is not fair has become a nebulous concept recently.

Like all the major energy producing methods this one also have many disadvantages

the waste produced after nuclear fission is highly radioactive and the baron atoms after fission become highly dangorous also

Nuclear energy is too dangerous!  If there is an alternative then it would be better if we make use of it.

IN my country, there is a place that uses wind energy and it is supplying the whole region.

Problem is Wind and Solar cannot supply enough juice for major population centers nor for Industry.  Nuclear so far in all sense of reality the best we have until we find something better.

It is whether fusion or fission, first the government across the globe sit and again start the talk of nuclear non-proliferation to contain the spread of nuclear test. All major economies are today nuclear powered sovereign and everyone want to have a pie in clear energy production. so, lets stop talking and start working towards this.

Nuclear energy is also becomming un-reliable.

Many countries are importing nucliar resources from the other countries, how long would this continue?

May be till the other countries have exhasted their nuclear contents...