Build Nuclear Power Stations

[JamesHunt]

We have 3 options

1) Middle East dependancy
2) Return to horseback and candles
3) Build more nuclear power stations

[russtafa]

more nuclear power stations except in earth quake prone areas

[Ineeda SM]

You forgot....

4) Solar, wind, water, natural gas, bio fuels,........

We have had the technology to do it for years now. All we have to do is fund it, and we could break our addiction to polluting oil and coal, and dangerous nuclear energy. Japan, Russia, and our own 3 Mile Island (2 miles from me) has proved that nuclear is NOT the way to go. I hope we never get that stupid to depend solely on nuclear power.

[trish]

There are more options. The world's coal reserves, at the present rate of consumption, will last another millennium. There's also wind power, geothermal, and milking the power produced by 6.7 billion people as they amble around the virtual world of the matrix.

[JamesHunt]

You forgot....

4) Solar, wind, water, natural gas, bio fuels,........



I think it's about time we got real about this wind/water power business. A typical nuke can generate enough power to supply a city the size of New York, convert that to wind/water power, and we'd need the land area of Arizona to build them:geek:

[trish]

One square meter of land captures about a kilowatt of energy. So a square of land one kilometer on each side captures a gigawatt of energy...enough to power a good sized city. With hydro, solar, wind, bio, & geothermal there's no nasty storage problem, and no release of long sequestered greenhouse gasses.

[JamesHunt]

One square meter of land captures about a kilowatt of energy. .

You talkin bout solar energy?

[Ineeda SM]

I think it's about time we got real about this wind/water power business. A typical nuke can generate enough power to supply a city the size of New York, convert that to wind/water power, and we'd need the land area of Arizona to build them:geek:

That's not true. Arizona and New Mexico already have windmill turbines powering several good sized cities. Water means where there is a flowing river, you have a clean and safe power source. Natural gas can make plenty of steam to turn several turbines enough to power the biggest cities. It is a gazillion times safer than nuclear, cheaper by far, and as good or better than nuclear.

Each type of power source is not for just anywhere. But we have enough methods of producing energy to make it work. We just need to fund it. Natural gas can power a car as well as gasoline, and do it much more efficiently. Hybrids of NG and electric could save people all kinds of money.

Be an optimus. Of course we can do it. We have already proved it. It's no longer a gussing game.

[trish]

You talkin bout solar energy?Correct. My above post referred to solar.

BTW The power that passes through the area swept out by the blades of a wind turbine is proportional to the cube of the wind speed, so the yield of a wind farm in the right place can be quite impressive.

[russtafa]

I have heard that they are dangerous to people living near them

[Stavros]

This article appeared on the BBC news site, offering an alternative viewpoint with some good points. The link is at the end.

4 April 2011 Last updated at 18:44
Viewpoint: Fukushima makes case for renewable energy

By Antony Froggatt Senior Research Fellow, Chatham House
The Fukushima accident has highlighted one of the most important issues concerning nuclear power - that of safety and risk.
Fukushima was put at one in a million, per reactor per year
The accepted wisdom has been that the consequences of a catastrophic nuclear accident may be large, but that the frequency is low.
The industry and nuclear regulators calculate this on the basis of the likelihood of an accident for any one operating year. In the case of the design of the first four reactors at Fukushima, the Japanese Nuclear Energy Safety Organization estimated in 2002 (http://www.ansn-jp.org/jneslibrary/AccidentManagement.pdf): "The frequency of occurrence of a core damage accident is 1/100,000 or less per one year for one reactor and the frequency of occurrence of an accident leading to containment damage is 1/1,000,000 or less per one year for one reactor."
Whereas nuclear costs have tended to go up, renewables have gone down”
Given that only a few decades, rather than millennia separate the accidents at Fukushima, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island (which were also thought to be at minimal risk of core damage) it is clear that nuclear operators and/or regulators are significantly underestimating the inherent risks associated with nuclear technology.
The Cancun Summit in December 2010 agreed (http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_16/application/pdf/cop16_lca.pdf): "Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time and that all Parties share a vision for long-term co-operative action."
To meet UN targets, emissions must be cut by about 80% by 2050, which will require decarbonising the energy sector.
At the same time, traditional energy forecasts anticipate rapid increases in energy demand, driven primarily by the need to fuel the growing economies in Asia, particularly China and India. The International Energy Agency (IEA) assumes that global energy demand will increase by 47% by 2035.
Energy efficiency
Supporters of nuclear power believe that it should play an increasingly important role in this new, highly efficient, zero-emissions energy sector.
However, nuclear power is not currently a global technology, being employed by only 30 countries with just six - USA, France, Japan, Germany, Russia and South-Korea - producing almost three-quarters of the nuclear electricity in the world.
The total contribution to global commercial energy production is around 6%, compared to 25% for coal 23% for natural gas.
For nuclear power to play a significant role in meeting future energy demand a significant scaling up of its use will therefore be required, amplifying many-fold the existing problems of nuclear safety, siting and waste management, as well as causing new worries about the proliferation of nuclear materials.
Given the scale and urgency of the problem, it is essential that low-cost technologies with a proven track record of coming in on time and budget, and with global appeal, are prioritised.
The number one priority must therefore be energy efficiency, which not only addresses climate change and energy security problems simultaneously, but also brings demonstrable and rapid economic benefits.
Renewables along with energy efficiency can deliver all or virtually all of our global energy needs”
The second area is renewable energy, which, to the surprise of many, has entered the mainstream in the last few years. For example in the EU, renewables installations provided the majority of new capacity in 2008 and 2009, while in Germany they are now bigger contributors to electricity than nuclear power.
This deployment at scale has demonstrated not only the technical capabilities and environmental advantages of wide-spread use of renewables, but also the economic benefits, with reduced dependencies on fluctuating fossil fuel prices.
Nuclear power on the other hand has, at best, had a chequered history of delivery. The most recent example in Europe is the infamous Olkiluoto reactor in Finland, whose original start-up date was May 2009 but which is now at least three-and-a-half years late, and more than 50% over budget.
So whereas nuclear costs have tended to go up, renewables have gone down, and in many conditions are now the cheaper option.
Cascading problems
As a result of Fukushima, most commentators believe that the engineering and financial costs associated with nuclear power will increase further.
electricity
In particular it is expected that there will be a greater emphasis on protecting plants from broader environmental threats such as flooding, storms and droughts (which are expected to become more frequent as a result of climate change).
It is also likely that the cascade of problems at Fukushima, from one reactor to another, and from reactors to fuel storage pools, will also affect the design, layout and ultimately the cost of future nuclear plants.
Numerous studies have shown that renewables along with energy efficiency can deliver all or virtually all of our global energy needs, and that therefore nuclear power does not have to be part of the future (see Related Internet Links at the bottom of this page).
Meanwhile, the ongoing disaster at Fukushima has highlighted the environmental, societal and economic impact that nuclear power can have in extreme conditions.
As Japan addresses the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami, too much worry, time and effort are having to be spent trying to secure and make safe one facility that provided just 3% of the country's electricity.
Antony Froggatt is a Senior Research Fellow in the Energy, Environment and Resource Governance programme at Chatham House, in London.
His viewpoint follows an earlier argument in favour of nuclear power made Oxford University's Wade Allison -Viewpoint: A new way to look at radiation (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12860842)
Link
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12960655

[russtafa]

Australia has huge deposit's of high grade coal but the greens don't want us to utilise it

[trish]

And with good reason.

[russtafa]

Why?

[trish]

Burning coal unlocks greenhouse gasses, mainly carbon dioxide, that were sequestered by natural processes eons ago and releases them into the atmosphere. That's the main reason "the Greens" would be opposed to utilizing coal as an energy source on a global scale. That's a good reason to be against it. Moreover, burning coal releases sulfur into the atmosphere which is the cause of the acid rain that is destroying the tourist industry in Greece, Rome, Southeast Asia and modifying PH levels in arable lands. Burning coal also releases mercury and other heavy metal toxins into the environment. All good reasons for anyone with "Green" interests to oppose coal as a global source of energy.

There are also good reasons for adopting coal as a global source of energy. One is that we've already done so, the infrastructure for coal is already in place. Another is the abundance of coal. It is projected to last another millennium. Another is that it's cheap to mine, simple to burn.

With energy there are always pluses and minuses. When you're talking about producing power by the gigawatt, it doesn't matter how you do it, it will be a dangerous endeavor. Hydroelectric damns need to be carefully maintained all the time if you don't want to put the lives and livelihoods of those living downstream in jeopardy. Wind turbines can destroy whole populations of pollinators that our agriculture depends upon. Nuclear waste remains a lethal for millions of years. Finding the right balance of sources to meet our "needs" and minimize the hazards to our climate, our agriculture, our industries, our cities and our heath is tricky tricky business.

[Faldur]

They burned coal on Mars, and now the temperature change is matching ours.

[trish]

Faldur, you're skull is sooo thick, it's a miracle you were able to pack it with so much bullshit.

[russtafa]

i don't care Australia has lots of coal and it's cheap and Australia produce less than 1.5 of the worlds carbon emissions

[Faldur]

Faldur, you're skull is sooo thick, it's a miracle you were able to pack it with so much bullshit.

It's called a difference of opinion. I look at the facts and come up with a different conclusion. Sorry if that bothers you, but it's my skull full of bullshit and I will remain a independent thinker.

[trish]

Independent thinker, ROTFLMAO. I haven't seen you argue one point concerning global climate heat i[n]balance. You simply troll with one liners and idiotic jpegs. You looked at the facts. I seriously doubt it. But okay, I give you the benefit of the doubt: you looked at the facts and developed an opinion that one of the facts doesn't fit with your political perspective. I can understand that, but it doesn't mean we have a difference of opinion: it simply means you're unable to look at the facts and accept them, let alone draw an objective conclusion.

The variation in the Sun's activity over the period of the industrial revolution to the present is not sufficient to cause the measured climate changes we see on Earth. That's a fact. Mar's is not undergoing solar-driven warming. That is a fact (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7136/full/nature05718.html), not an opinion.


it's my skull full of bullshit...A note upon which we can agree.

[trish]

i don't care Australia has lots of coal and it's cheap and Australia produce less than 1.5 of the worlds carbon emissionsThat's a valid, if provincial, opinion based on facts. Nations with higher emission rates shoulder more of the responsibility for the consequences of those emissions and therefore should probably adopt more responsible energy policies.

[Faldur]

That's a valid, if provincial, opinion based on facts. Nations with higher emission rates shoulder more of the responsibility for the consequences of those emissions and therefore should probably adopt more responsible energy policies.

Unless they are China, it seems the world turns a blind eye to their practices.

[JamesHunt]

We have China and India rising up through the GDP ranks, they have massive populations, and they all want the lifestyle of North America and Western Europe. Do you honestly think us 'do gooders' pointing our fingers at them, telling them to embrace wind and solar power is seriously going to work?

[JamesHunt]

As a sidenote, I read somewhere that Saudi Arabia wants compensation off the west when they run out of oil

[Ineeda SM]

Independent thinker, ROTFLMAO. I haven't seen you argue one point concerning global climate heat imbalance. You simply troll with one liners and idiotic jpegs. You looked at the facts. I seriously doubt it. But okay, I give you the benefit of the doubt: you looked at the facts and developed an opinion that one of the facts doesn't fit with your political perspective. I can understand that, but it doesn't mean we have a difference of opinion: it simply means you're unable to look at the facts and accept them, let alone draw an objective conclusion.



You just described the entire right wing conservative movement in America with grace and accuracy. I couldn't have said it with more eloquence. Well done baby.

[Cuchulain]

http://inmotion.magnumphotos.com/essay/chernobyl

Photographer Paul Fusco's images of children born near the Chernobyl disaster.

[Faldur]

Photographer Paul Fusco's images of children born near the Chernobyl disaster.

Amazing story told by and equally amazing photographer.

[markyboy21]

Tidal and wave energy should be harnessed more, rather than solar and wind, as the two former types are always available, whereas the latter two are not. If you have 1,000,000 wind turbines you still can't shut down one coal, gas or nuclear power station, because you have to have the power on demand and it takes hours for a plant to come online. In others words you need back-up when the wind stops and the sun goes behind a cloud. Industry pay high premiums to have higher on demand peaks and large additional fees if they ever exceed these peaks.

[russtafa]

Our Prime Minister has told the Japanese that Australia can provide all it's coal,gas,uranium needs while she still want's us to have a carbon tax?