Nuclear energy going green
-
Dams are also notoriously bad for river systems and habitats. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry!
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.
A co-worker I knew used to work at hanford and in idaho on nuclear stuff. He said that the barrels are often left unaccounted for... And leaking... Freaked me out... I don't really plan on taking any trips to Idaho or Hanford...:~ Not that I think hydro is any better - i know nothin about this topic;P ...Steve
-
I don't think it's the energy that has the reputation, rather the waste. I agree it's a cheap, reliable, safe (these days), way to generate energy, but I still don't think the waste question (i.e. what to do with it, long term) has been adequately addressed (or costed).
Judd wrote:
I still don't think the waste question (i.e. what to do with it, long term) has been adequately addressed (or costed).
Probably true. Then again, we don't exactly do a good job of containing waste from power sources such as coal either. Popular prejudice makes it much easier to be heard complaining about nuclear waste, so perhaps there we have at least a shot at making something happen.
Now taking suggestions for the next release of CPhog...
-
A co-worker I knew used to work at hanford and in idaho on nuclear stuff. He said that the barrels are often left unaccounted for... And leaking... Freaked me out... I don't really plan on taking any trips to Idaho or Hanford...:~ Not that I think hydro is any better - i know nothin about this topic;P ...Steve
-
In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots... ...Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster
Patrick Moore, a founder of Green Peace[^]. Not the best article but a founder of GP advocating nuclear power is a significant move. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry!
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.
-
A co-worker I knew used to work at hanford and in idaho on nuclear stuff. He said that the barrels are often left unaccounted for... And leaking... Freaked me out... I don't really plan on taking any trips to Idaho or Hanford...:~ Not that I think hydro is any better - i know nothin about this topic;P ...Steve
-
the main problem with Hanford is not the waste from Nuclear pwoer plants but the waste from making the first bombs. It still is a problem but so how it has been handled in the past.
Interestin. Well, i guess that lowers my amount of "freaked out"-edness... Thanks. After all, I'll probably have to go thru Idaho on my way to yellowstone someday. Of course, when I do, yellowstone will blow up in a monster sized firey volcano... But that's life... Whaddayagonnado...?
-
I don't think it's the energy that has the reputation, rather the waste. I agree it's a cheap, reliable, safe (these days), way to generate energy, but I still don't think the waste question (i.e. what to do with it, long term) has been adequately addressed (or costed).
There was a paragraph in the article that the waste can and should be recycled and turned into usable fuel leaving much less waste: Nuclear waste will be dangerous for thousands of years. Within 40 years, used fuel has less than one-thousandth of the radioactivity it had when it was removed from the reactor. And it is incorrect to call it waste, because 95 percent of the potential energy is still contained in the used fuel after the first cycle. Now that the United States has removed the ban on recycling used fuel, it will be possible to use that energy and to greatly reduce the amount of waste that needs treatment and disposal. Last month, Japan joined France, Britain and Russia in the nuclear-fuel-recycling business. The United States will not be far behind. John
-
In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots... ...Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster
Patrick Moore, a founder of Green Peace[^]. Not the best article but a founder of GP advocating nuclear power is a significant move. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry!
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.
-
In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots... ...Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster
Patrick Moore, a founder of Green Peace[^]. Not the best article but a founder of GP advocating nuclear power is a significant move. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry!
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.
But do we really need it? I was visiting a research site a few months ago that said a new solar array set in a 100 square mile of Nevada (USA) could generate enough power to supply the entire USA energy needs. Is there a need for nuclear (along with all its waste issues and military target issues) or is the problem a lack of puch into the abundant solar, wind and geothermal sources that seem to be pushed on the back burner? Personally, I would not want to live any where near a nuclear power plant, old style or new, regardless of the claimed saftey. Put out a contest for $1 billions to the most efficent and inexpensive solar, wind and geothermal generators, and we could probably solve the worlds engery woes almost over night.. Rocky <>< Latest Post: SQL2005 Server Managemnet Studio timeouts! Blog: www.RockyMoore.com/TheCoder/[^]
-
Nah. Let's shove it up there farther and smother the obnoxious twerp.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
But do we really need it? I was visiting a research site a few months ago that said a new solar array set in a 100 square mile of Nevada (USA) could generate enough power to supply the entire USA energy needs. Is there a need for nuclear (along with all its waste issues and military target issues) or is the problem a lack of puch into the abundant solar, wind and geothermal sources that seem to be pushed on the back burner? Personally, I would not want to live any where near a nuclear power plant, old style or new, regardless of the claimed saftey. Put out a contest for $1 billions to the most efficent and inexpensive solar, wind and geothermal generators, and we could probably solve the worlds engery woes almost over night.. Rocky <>< Latest Post: SQL2005 Server Managemnet Studio timeouts! Blog: www.RockyMoore.com/TheCoder/[^]
Rocky Moore wrote:
I was visiting a research site a few months ago that said a new solar array set in a 100 square mile of Nevada (USA) could generate enough power to supply the entire USA energy needs.
Provided the entire US lived within a few hundred miles of NV, transmission losses beyond that distance become prohibitive. Also solar's more expensive than most methods of power production. And in any event, if someone attempted to build a solar array that big they'd be shut down by environmentalists because it threatened the habitat of an endangered sand flea, or the like.
-
Rocky Moore wrote:
I was visiting a research site a few months ago that said a new solar array set in a 100 square mile of Nevada (USA) could generate enough power to supply the entire USA energy needs.
Provided the entire US lived within a few hundred miles of NV, transmission losses beyond that distance become prohibitive. Also solar's more expensive than most methods of power production. And in any event, if someone attempted to build a solar array that big they'd be shut down by environmentalists because it threatened the habitat of an endangered sand flea, or the like.
dan neely wrote:
Also solar's more expensive than most methods of power production.
Actually, they site I was visiting said this new method was much more cost effective to produce. This uses a large tower in the center with a large array of reflectors around it. This new model is even able to produce power through out the night from the residual energy in the tower. While I do not have a great knowledge of solar power generation, I was quite interested in the few sites I found about the large scale production of power. Out here where I live in southern Oregon USA, they are building natural gas power plants like crazy. I think it will only get worse since they are talking about putting in a 36" pipe from the coast all the to our town were one of the major pipelines comes there for natural gas. These plants still pollute and I would much rather see our area develop geothermal plants with our abundance of geothermal resources here. Anyway, the new solar production is pretty interesting. Those things could be built anywhere in the mid to southern parts of the USA. Rocky <>< Latest Post: SQL2005 Server Managemnet Studio timeouts! Blog: www.RockyMoore.com/TheCoder/[^]
-
dan neely wrote:
Also solar's more expensive than most methods of power production.
Actually, they site I was visiting said this new method was much more cost effective to produce. This uses a large tower in the center with a large array of reflectors around it. This new model is even able to produce power through out the night from the residual energy in the tower. While I do not have a great knowledge of solar power generation, I was quite interested in the few sites I found about the large scale production of power. Out here where I live in southern Oregon USA, they are building natural gas power plants like crazy. I think it will only get worse since they are talking about putting in a 36" pipe from the coast all the to our town were one of the major pipelines comes there for natural gas. These plants still pollute and I would much rather see our area develop geothermal plants with our abundance of geothermal resources here. Anyway, the new solar production is pretty interesting. Those things could be built anywhere in the mid to southern parts of the USA. Rocky <>< Latest Post: SQL2005 Server Managemnet Studio timeouts! Blog: www.RockyMoore.com/TheCoder/[^]
Actually, they site I was visiting said this new method was much more cost effective to produce. This uses a large tower in the center with a large array of reflectors around it. This new model is even able to produce power through out the night from the residual energy in the tower. I don't think I've ever heard of this design before. Got a link?
-
Actually, they site I was visiting said this new method was much more cost effective to produce. This uses a large tower in the center with a large array of reflectors around it. This new model is even able to produce power through out the night from the residual energy in the tower. I don't think I've ever heard of this design before. Got a link?
This is "Solar One" and "Solar Two" projects which have now spun off a commercial 15 mw 24 hours a day plant in Spain called "Solar Tres": http://www.solarpaces.org/SOLARTRES.HTM[^] Another interesting page is: http://www.eere.energy.gov/solar/cfm/faqs/third_level.cfm/name=Concentrating%20Solar%20Power/cat=Applications[^] I like the question about the area required for power and it says that a 10-20 square mile region would be able to generate as much power as the Hoover Dam. And that is mostly FREE engergy. They do require a bit of space and can be expensive to get opperational, but after that, I would imagine they will pay for themselves. Rocky <>< Latest Post: SQL2005 Server Managemnet Studio timeouts! Blog: www.RockyMoore.com/TheCoder/[^]