Nuke power on the rebound

[keith]

Nuclear power slides back onto the agenda

"The use of emission-free nuclear power saves roughly 600 million tons of carbon emissions annually — twice what the unratified Kyoto treaty is designed to save."

 

[brianl703]

Good. I attended the annual meeting of the Northern Virginia Electric Cooperative and they stated that 30% of the power they distribute comes from natural gas-fired power plants.

I briefly thought, during the questions and answers session, about asking why we don't make more of an effort to develop nuclear power in this country. Maybe I'll ask that question next year.

 

[T-Keith]

With Nuclear power so safe and environmentally sound, why are the environmentalists jumping on this bandwagon? Sure there's the problem of waste disposal, but doesn't a few barrels of radioactive waste under a remote mountain location seem better then billions tons of toxic waste floating around every populous area?

-T

 

[haley10]

We saved a lot here in the TVA system, since most of the nukes were shut down by the NRC most of the time. All Americans pay this tax burden whether they realize it or not.

Chenobyl and 3-Mile island were non-polluting.

I see the Hartsville Fast-Breeder remnants; a monument to our stupidity. Billions and not a single KW ever produced.

Who will pay the cost when the Connecticut plant has to be de-commissioned as required and everything buried in Hanford, Washington??

I think we have to be realistic and weigh all the factors. I'm not trying to be mean and I'm not anti-nuclear, but it's not a panacea.

 

[Dan4510]

It depends on one's assumptions...nuclear is bad...repeat till you believe it.

As with all decisions, its always a balance of costs and benefits. There is no way to make the costs "0" as the eviornmentals think. There is always costs associated with any benefits.

Nuclear is good in many ways and will keep carbon out of the biosphere. But unfortunately, carbon is a byproduct of life.

Dan

 

[GROUCHO MARX]

Dan, please stop exhaling, you're polluting MY air.

 

[Al]

quote:

---

Originally posted by haley10:
Who will pay the cost when the Connecticut plant has to be de-commissioned as required and everything buried in Hanford, Washington??

---

The Utilities as a precondition to operate are required to have the decommisioning costs.

 

[Shannow]

quote:

---

Originally posted by brianl703:
Good. I attended the annual meeting of the Northern Virginia Electric Cooperative and they stated that 30% of the power they distribute comes from natural gas-fired power plants.

---

Brian,
when I'm King, using natural gas to generate electricity will be illegal. Our high quality portable fuels like oil and gas should be being used as to their best advantage, being used for transport, and piped to where they are needed for heat.

Burning them at 27 to 35% efficiency, losing 10% of that in transmission, then turning it back into heat at the other end should be a criminal offence.

It shames me that Australia's stand on nukes is that we'll dig up and ditribute OUR uranium, but will not use it ourselves.

 

[Shannow]

That being said, if the company that I work for gets nukes, I'm moving interstate.

 

[Shannow]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Al:

quote:

---

Originally posted by haley10:
Who will pay the cost when the Connecticut plant has to be de-commissioned as required and everything buried in Hanford, Washington??

---

The Utilities as a precondition to operate are required to have the decommisioning costs.

---

Al, there was an article in NEw Scientist recently about some of the utilities "deferring" their payments into the system, and running it like many other companies run their retirement benefits plans.

That sort of behaviour has to be stopped.....can't pay ? can't generate then either.

 

[MNgopher]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shannow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by brianl703:
Good. I attended the annual meeting of the Northern Virginia Electric Cooperative and they stated that 30% of the power they distribute comes from natural gas-fired power plants.

---

Brian,
when I'm King, using natural gas to generate electricity will be illegal. Our high quality portable fuels like oil and gas should be being used as to their best advantage, being used for transport, and piped to where they are needed for heat.

Burning them at 27 to 35% efficiency, losing 10% of that in transmission, then turning it back into heat at the other end should be a criminal offence.

It shames me that Australia's stand on nukes is that we'll dig up and ditribute OUR uranium, but will not use it ourselves.

---

Hear Hear! I could not agree any more with you in regards to burning natural gas to produce electricity! And folks still haven't figured out why natural gas costs have risen so much the past few years...

I recognize the need for some quick on/off types of power supply that natural gsa is good for, but as a baseload generator, it makes me cringe.

 

[Al]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shannow:
That sort of behaviour has to be stopped.....can't pay ? can't generate then either.

---

I agree

 

[Gary Allan]

The situation is simply a matter of costs. Limerick nuke station is essentially identical to one in Florida. The Florida plant (pre TMI) cost 275 million. Limerick (post TMI)..4 billion and has already exceeded the almost universal life expenctancy of 30 years on line. They could have produced many natural gas powerplants that would have a far longer life expectancy at a fraction of the cost.

At that capital cost ..and a lifetime (several actually) of decomissioning costs, the things just don't make sense to build unless you take them out of the free enterprise system. Limerick was built to provide power to southern New Jersey. They put the power on the grid for $0.025/kwh....we pay $0.147/kwh to provide it to them ..and bear all the costs when it never produces another electron for anyone. In Peco country (where Limerick is) ..it's litterally cheaper to produce your own power if you can afford the capital outlay and manage it properly (an impractibility for most).

The numbers just don't support them at this time. Hopefully some other technology proves at least equally as expensive ..but doesn't have the residual side effects.

Why didn't those two guys that were discussing cold fusion get it right? (visions of two guys sitting across the table from each other, one holding up a glass of water, saying ..this could produce enough power to run a major metro city for 3 days..)

 

[Shannow]

The U.S. Navy is spending hundreds of millions per annum on cold fusion, and reportedly have started to see some helium 3 in their results.

Interesting.

 

[keith]

Cold Fusion Back From the Dead

 

[Gary Allan]

Great

Sure they'll prove cold fusion works and is a totally viable energy souce. Clean, non toxic to the evironment, and easy to produce (after they learn to jump through the hoops) ...but NATURALLY (the invariable "X" factor) ..it will only work with palladium and will there run the cost of any energy produced from it to 10x the current fosil fuel energy sources. Palladium shortages ....etc.

Why not just plain dirt ..or tin ..iron.. rice husks....human waste ..bird droppings

Still don't believe in a supreme being?? The "box" can't naturally be this difficult to get out of.