PickensPlan

nuclear power option

Listened to Mr. Pickens on Larry King last night. Why no questions on Nuclear power?? Isn"t Nuclear a better long term solution??

Views: 32

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Auntie Tutu on December 25, 2008 at 4:10pm
Someone has to use PV solar NOW to make it come down in price for the future. I have had a solar powered house since 1997, and it was practical then and it is practical now in our NEW house.
Nuclear, on the other hand, is capable of contaminating large areas of the earth with just one incident, visa vis Chernoble, 1988. THey were having a sale on reindeer skins in Sweden in 1988, because thousands and thousands of their domestic reindeer had to be slaughtered because of radiation contamination from the Russian accident.
I think it is unconscionable to let our descendants inherit a planet powered by Nukes. It will poison the earth for 500,000 years, and probably outlast the human race. So yes, if you want to LOSE the human race, build Nuclear Power plants and wait.
Permalink Reply by Kenneth Koch on December 25, 2008 at 8:03pm
Please!!

Threats, fear, unsuported statements
Permalink Reply by Auntie Tutu on December 27, 2008 at 2:47pm
There is no help for those who have had their heads buried in oil sand for the past forty years, or perhaps been born too late to hear about Chernobyl, THree Mile Island, etc,, Go rent the movie The China Syndrome, which was coincidentally just making the rounds of theaters when the Harrisburg plant went down. Most of us got a heads-up then. BUt some always keep their head down.
Permalink Reply by Kenneth Koch on December 27, 2008 at 3:23pm
Numbers are a little be more honest than Jane Fonda,

The US consumes 2,000,000,000,000 wattes. How many 1000$ solar panels is that?
The US also needs 2,000,000,000,000 wattes at night.

There are nuke designs that can not melt down BTW. Google IFR reactor.
Permalink Reply by Auntie Tutu on December 27, 2008 at 4:00pm
Gosh , I didnt know that I couldn't use PV solar power at night. Thanks for the tip, Ken. And here I have been watching Jay Leno for twelve years in my solar powered house and sending out emails at night and all this time I had no idea. Wow. That's really something! Just goes to show how much smarter WASP males are than womenfolk.
Permalink Reply by David on December 20, 2008 at 5:06pm
In the current form, No. Why? Because the only way that someone will put 7-10 billion or more into a nuclear power plant is if they are guaranteed a market. Under the previous rate-of-return regulatory rules, utilities wanted to build nuclear power plants. Under the current free market regulatory rules, no utility will build a nuclear power plant.
Permalink Reply by Dr. Paul A. Curto on December 22, 2008 at 9:43pm
And with oil at less than $40 per barrel, nuclear is not economical even against fossil fuel! We're importing 84% of our uranium now. Does it make sense to keep up the charade?
Permalink Reply by Ida-Russkie on December 23, 2008 at 11:27pm
I question your claims that nuclear is not economical.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html


It will certainly be competitive when Obama puts in Cap and trade. Nuclear give off no CO2

Areva , a French company, is building two uranium enrichment plants in this country. Why would they do that if there is no Uranium to enrich? Why not build them in Canada? Why would another French company buy up the biggest Nuclear power plants on the east coast. If there are nonnuclear options then why aren't the french taking them?

A LFTR reactor would need materials research for sure but it should not take that long to figure out which metals are best. most likely hastelloy and other metals not available during the 1960's
Permalink Reply by Lock Piatt on December 27, 2008 at 9:29pm
Dr. Paul

is this the same guy I debated with about oil prices going to under $50/bbl by year end six months ago. I guess science is just not always right???
Permalink Reply by Ida-Russkie on December 29, 2008 at 6:08am
Science is just not always right? Of course not, but you better do the math on anything you try. I never mete you before. why would it matter if I was the same guy?

The price dropping has to do with a lot of other people not doing the math in the financial sector. It seems the price was supported by all the speculation on the price and the demand placed on it by the economy. Who were the speculators? That would be all those people with a 401 k and other institutional investors. Home mortgages taken by people the banks knew could not pay them back and the banks then buying insurance on these that had no backing. The selling the crap to other suckers and taking the profit and running.

How is this a condemnation on not doing math? or of science?

http://www.china.org.cn/environment/pic ... 897630.htm

Here is a view of what China is doing with American technology. Each one of these reactors is 1250 mega watts. I am sure they are not spending 10 billion a piece for them.
Permalink Reply by David Scott on February 10, 2009 at 10:57pm
No, it is not. Renewable energy sources are a better choice. And they can sit on our highways and collect solar energy. They can plug into our highways as a grid. It can be a fault tolerant, distributed solution that brings many ideas together. So why would we want a nuclear solution? It is the opposite of a distributed, fault tolerant risk. That we might need a few plants to tune the system is different. Check out Solar Roadways.
Permalink Reply by Ida-Russkie on February 11, 2009 at 6:15am
show me the math.

You still need spinning reserves for when the sun does not shine or when the wind does not blow. Or a really big battery( which is just as or more costly than a power plant and more polluting to produce). A smart grid only helps to cut people off when you are near the edge. The utility still has to pay for the spinning reserve unless you are prepared to have people get their ac and other high load devices cut off at anytime the big o utility feels like it then the smart grid does almost nothing to help.

I would hate to be one one of those solar power highways when a cloud goes over or on a rainy morning. Since it is distributed system the extra power could not be transmitted from afar unless you connect them with larger wires . then where is the saving then?

YOu can build smaller distributed reactors as well and get a more reliable system

RSS

© 2013   Created by PickensPlan.   Powered by

Badges  |  Community Guidelines  | Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service