Nuclear Energy - I need to vent/rant

[JoeEllison]

Sure. Solar works alright. That 4 kw a year in the largest solar panel in Germany, equivalent to a train running it's motor, is REALLY efficient.


My understanding is that there's this claim that if we just invest and scale it up, that it will automatically go from providing .4% of the world's electricity to not only surpass the 6.5% of nuclear, but also surpass that into 80%, or even somehow, magically, 100%.

(By the way, that .4% may not include hydroelectric, but it also includes geothermal, which can only be built in certain areas)

I'm sorry, but just claiming it won't make it so. But if you hope hard enough, maybe it will work.

You keep saying "magical", as though magic was actually involved. Why is that?

 

[JoeEllison]

http://www.scandinavica.com/culture/nature/wind.htm

Wind power is also important in Denmark because it is a green, clean and renewable energy. Scandinavians are known for their advanced environmental policies, and wind power has given the Danes a way to reduce their dependency on polluting fuels: 20% of Denmark’s electricity consumption is covered by clean electricity produced at Danish wind farms. At times, wind power supply is able to cover the total electricity consumption of the whole west of Denmark.

Which part of that is "magical"? Is Harry Potter somehow involved?

 

[Lonewulf]

You keep saying "magical", as though magic was actually involved. Why is that?

If you have evidence that wind energy and solar energy can go from .4% to 100% of energy usage, or even 20%, I'll be willing to drop the word "magical". As it is, 20% to 30% efficiency of solar panels, with the biggest solar panel built in Germany (costing mucho gild), gives an average of 4 kw an hour through the year. That's hardly anything.

Until then, I will always see a use for nuclear, and I see your claim as more a pipe dream than anything.

Of course, I'm sure you have hard facts to demonstrate otherwise, instead of just claims, right?

 

[JoeEllison]

Until then, I will always see a use for nuclear, and I see your claim as more a pipe dream than anything.

What claim did I make, besides not trusting American corporations to do it without screwing it up?

I can see that this is a religious and not rational position on your part, based on your need to make up my position in order to have something to attack.

 

[Lonewulf]

What claim did I make, besides not trusting American corporations to do it without screwing it up?

I can see that this is a religious and not rational position on your part, based on your need to make up my position in order to have something to attack.

So you really do have nothing to contribute? Even though nuclear energy has had quite a safe track record for decades, while coal has not? With your only evidence being Chernobyl and your general hatred for American companies?

Sounds pretty religious to me. All worship and fear Chernobyl.

Anyways, until you actually provide any actual meaningful posts, I'll be ignoring you now.

 

[JoeEllison]

So you really do have nothing to contribute? Even though nuclear energy has had quite a safe track record for decades, while coal has not? With your only evidence being Chernobyl and your general hatred for American companies?

Sounds pretty religious to me. All worship and fear Chernobyl.

Why don't we start over?

Here's what I originally posted:

I'm not sure where I fall on the pro/con nuke spectrum. What I DO know is that as an American, I don't trust American companies to build a nuclear power plant.

Your turn?

 

[JoeEllison]

Oh, here's a hint: you should have asked me what I think of Swiss or German engineers building and maintaining nuclear plants....

 

[Lonewulf]

I'm pretty sure where I fall, and I have yet to see evidence that American companies have botched the job.

It's not like we're going to hand them over some nuclear power plants that they've never run before.

So, are you retracting your claim that nuclear power plants will explode?

Oh, here's a hint: you should have asked me what I think of Swiss or German engineers building and maintaining nuclear plants...

Actually, here's a hint: I pretty much don't care what you think. At all.

 

[JoeEllison]

I'm pretty sure where I fall, and I have yet to see evidence that American companies have botched the job.

It's not like we're going to hand them over some nuclear power plants that they've never run before.

So, are you retracting your claim that nuclear power plants will explode?


Actually, I pretty much don't care. At all.

Why don't you care about having an honest discussion? You are obviously emotionally invested... so why not go all the way and engage in a way that we can all gain from?

 

[JoeEllison]

Actually, here's a hint: I pretty much don't care what you think. At all.

Are you going to hold your breath, cry for your mommy, or report this post... after you've had your fun lying about my position?

 

[Lonewulf]

Why don't you care about having an honest discussion?

Ditto. You pretty much started out not willing to have an honest discussion. Just, "American companies can't get the job right, even though they have been for decades! Nuclear plants will a'splode!"

I'm convinced.

You are obviously emotionally invested...

No, I just don't react well to people who post like you do.

so why not go all the way and engage in a way that we can all gain from?

Why don't you start? Or is this one of those "do as I say, not do as I do" things?

 

[JoeEllison]

Ditto. You pretty much started out not willing to have an honest discussion. Just, "American companies can't get the job right, even though they have been for decades! Nuclear plants will a'splode!"

I'm convinced.


No, I just don't react well to people who post like you do.


Why don't you start? Or is this one of those "do as I say, not do as I do" things?

Here, for the last time:

I'm not sure where I fall on the pro/con nuke spectrum. What I DO know is that as an American, I don't trust American companies to build a nuclear power plant.

 

[Lonewulf]

Are you going to hold your breath, cry for your mommy, or report this post... after you've had your fun lying about my position?

Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[JoeEllison]

Welcome to my ignore list.

So, you can't have a discussion about it? Fine, we'll carry on without you.


So, for everyone else: based on the current state of industry, with its recalls and breaking-down infrastructure, and "lead in the toys" screw-ups, why would we trust industry to build and maintain nuclear power plants on a large scale?

I have no doubt that safe plants can and have been built... I just don't know that I trust it if it becomes the sort of "race to the bottom" industry like so many other things have become in this day and age.

 

[Belz...]

Not particularly... except that a screwed-up coal plant won't spew radioactive material far and wide.

I think you underestimate the chemicals they do spew...

So, you can't have a discussion about it? Fine, we'll carry on without you.

So, for everyone else [...]

Hah! So you insult people until they decide to ignore you, and then declare them 'yella ?

What a fine debating tool.

 

[Hindmost]

I'm not sure where I fall on the pro/con nuke spectrum. What I DO know is that as an American, I don't trust American companies to build a nuclear power plant.

Not particularly... except that a screwed-up coal plant won't spew radioactive material far and wide. It would probably just catch on fire or shut down.

The fact of the matter is that coal plants actually spew more radioactive material than any nuke...even TMI. (don't compare with chernobyl...that plant didn't have a containment.) There is uranium in the coal along with carbon 14.

Having worked in the industry for a long time, I can say American workers to a good job. The nuclear industry is the most regulated industry in the US. (and should be) Considering all the regulations, testing and inspections a plant goes through, they are safe. I would rather work there than any other type of plant. And the safety record is great.

glenn

 

[Hindmost]

Just a quick observation - "base load" is to a significant extent a self-fulfilling prophecy. Consumers are encouraged to heat water and perform other high-energy tasks at "off-peak" times to spread the need for electricity out a bit, but this is precisely because it is more convenient to run conventional power plants all the time. Thus the "base load" is artificially high.

If the bulk of our electricity came from sources like solar and wind, we would adjust our usage habits so that we used more electricity when there was more electicity being generated.

Things like factories running 24/7 create a real base load which is insensitive to changes in how we supply power, but a lot of what pro-nuke spokspeople call "base load" is no such thing.

Customers are encouraged to conserve from the utilities. Building any kind of plant is risky and the utilities try to avoid it whenever possible. Electric plants don't cause demand--people buy stuff and demand increases. Plasma TVs are a perfect example. They use about 4 times the electricity of an ordinary CRT. The utility is not out there actively promoting people to buy them. Utilities are promoting compact flourenscent bulbs.

Utilities encourage using power at off peak time to smooth out the load curve. This would limit the amount of swing units that would have to change with that power--which is generally inefficient from an energy point of view. The utility has to have enough reserve for their largest plant to trip without taking down the grid. By encouraging people to shift things like laundry to the weekend and evenings, the utility needs less peak/expensive electricity.

"nuke people" didn't apply the concept of base load. Base load was around long before nuclear plants existed. There is nothing artificial about it. For base load to be reduced, hospitals would have to shut down in the evening. Refineries would have to stop producing petroleum products. Everyone would have to shut off their refrigerators, home heating, computers etc. 40% of the power use is industrial. As factories shutdown for the weekend, the load is reduced. However, it never goes below about 35-40% of the total. US comsumerism was in no way developed because utilities build power plants. Show me one utility advertisement that encourages people to buy energy wasting products.

I suggest you look up how much energy we use in the US alone and then see what it would take with solar and wind power and geothermal. With the exception of geothermal, solar and wind are just not reliable sources--in the past, they were never competitive.

The world needs to use a diverse source of power...we need it all.

glenn

 

[Hindmost]

double post...don't get coffee and post at the same time

 

[Lonewulf]

Wait, 40% of power use is industrial? Does that make the other 60% residential?

 

[Hindmost]

Wait, 40% of power use is industrial? Does that make the other 60% residential?

The rest is split between commercial and residential. This link shows what type of load comprises each sector. aobut a fourth of the way down the page.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/prim2/toc2.html

This link shows the distribution of energy in the US and it is different from what I said...rats a mistake...Have to find where I got the 40% number.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/infosheets/electricitysales.html

with residential at about 37%, industrial and commercial take up the bulk of power. In general, they get cheaper rates due to high usage.

glenn