There are ways to avoid nuclear power

[Demos]

captstan wrote:

<quoted text>
HEY MIDDLE AMERICA -- Read the Sun-Sentinel article dated Jan 14th, "Adding nuclear plants makes for disaster." The artilcle also draws the conclusion that de-centralized co-generation provides energy efficiency that makes more nuclear power unnecessary.

That was an opinion piece, not a "Sun-Sentinel article". Don't waste my time like that again, I'm on a very slow connection here. Anyway, the central point of the "article" promoted continued dependance on fossil fuels.

[captstan]

NO REBUTTALS?

Remarkably, no one wants to discuss De-centralized Co-generation.

Could it be that survival of the electric utilities as a growth industry is dependent on supressing fuel-efficient, decentralized co-generation, and promoting nuclear power?

Is Ms. Weinstat right or wrong when she claims that energy efficiency and decentralized cogeneration will make nuclear power plants unnecessary?

[captstan]

Demos in Stockholm:
First of all, doesn't Sweeden still have a post-Chernobyl moratorium on nuclear power plant construction?
And, I think you missed the point: Decentralized Cogeneration uses half the amount of fuel and as a Centralized power plant -- and cuts Co2 emissions in half.
I believe this involves one of the principal laws of Thermodynamics called Entrophy.
Please correct us on this point if the laws of thermodynamics are different in Sweeden.

[Demos]

captstan wrote:

Demos in Stockholm:
First of all, doesn't Sweeden still have a post-Chernobyl moratorium on nuclear power plant construction?
And, I think you missed the point: Decentralized Cogeneration uses half the amount of fuel and as a Centralized power plant -- and cuts Co2 emissions in half.
I believe this involves one of the principal laws of Thermodynamics called Entrophy.
Please correct us on this point if the laws of thermodynamics are different in Sweeden.

You must be assuming I'm from Sweden, I'm only here for a week. I don't know if they have a moratorium, know they shut a couple of plants down over the last few years. I overheard at the office today so I don't know how true it is that they did turn down a massive oil deal with Norway in exchange for a piece of Volvo or something like that. Maybe they're just more energy independent and don't need more plants.
Investing in cogen is still an investment in fossil energy, perhaps not the smartest move a utility could make nowadays. There's an awful lot of hype over this and the nay-sayers always point to Chernobyl. Well, the good thing about Chernobyl is now we've seen the worst that can happen. I don't hear anyone mention Bhopal these days and the death count there was greater by a factor of nearly a thousand. There isn't a country in the world that would licensee a Chernobyl-type reactor. There's too many cheaper, safer more efficient choices and the "accident" was largely a function of design, I italicized "accident" because the operators really had to try to make that happen.

[seaape]

HEY MIDDLE AMERICA wrote:

<quoted text>and as always you provide nothing to back up your empty rant against anything that improves the quality of life for all

Well hi there, HMA,

Aha! I will rise to the challenge!(I just assumed educated people would know this stuff, and it was hardly a rant, just affirmation of the original posting. And how characteristically disingenuous of you to assume that anything that disagrees with your delusions is detrimental to “the quality of life for all.” LOL!)

Firstly, check out the Price-Anderson Act, it exempts the nuclear industry from liability and dumps it on the tax payers. The risk assessment professionals of private industry will not insure nuclear plants for liability! They will insure against tsunamis and hurricanes, but not nuclear incidents. Think they know something?

The disposal of nuclear wastes is a problem. Even if Yucca Mountain is opened (seismically active) it’s capacity is not great enough for existing wastes, not to mention those of the future. The mining and processing of nuclear fuel presents environmental and health problems and expenses that are externalized (dumped on the tax payers again.)

Then there is the security risk, the thermal pollution, the decommissioning problem, and the siting problem, and it’s effect on property values.

[captstan]

Sorry, I spelled Entropy with an "h" -- but nobody seemed to notice. I'm not a physicist -- but I think Entropy involves energy lost -- such as an incandescent bulb system that wastes 75% of the energy in the form of heat and only converts 25% of the energy into light; whereas a flourescent bulb converts 95% of the energy into light and only 5% into heat.

Lowes stores here advertize 13.6 watt flourescent bulbs that produce the equivalent of a 60 watt incandescent light bulb. Stated another way: More light from less fuel.

So why use a centralized electric power plant that sends 60% of the energy up the smokestack? Decentralized cogeneration only wastes 20% of the energy up the smokestack. And, decentralized cogeneration yields twice the amount of useful energy -- for work -- than centralized power plants without cogeneration.

The decentralized plants are the bridge to a renewable energy future and natural gas is the transitional fuel.

Unfortunately, greed and profit are determining energy policy. Nuclear power is three times more profitable for the utility company.

[msliberty]

Luddite Lucille is from another time and place. Everything she said has been proven wrong
The US will never be independent of "foreign oil" in our lifetimes, without nuclear power. We are now falling behind the civilized world with that thinking of the last century.
Our few nuclear plants have plugged along without problems for decades, and if you're concerned about waste, then reprocess, and recycle.....that means reprocess and reuse for another several decades. Join the
21st century science.

[DJ NUKEM]

You are missing a few points still capstan. CoGen is still fossil, a little more efficient than a typical coal/oil/gas plant but still fossil. 20% wasted energy is still no where in the ball park of the efficiency that you get from a nuclear plant. You can hardly compare the two when it comes to cost, CO2 emissions and reliability. If we ever want to be rid of our dependence on fossil fuels we have to go nuclear. Wind is another argument that I have seen in here, it is one that should (and is) being explored, but the amount of wind turbines needed to generate 850 MW of power like a typical plant would take up a few hundred square miles.

Another bogus argument that I keep seeing on here is Chernobyl. That plant was run by people who had absolutely no idea how to operate a plant, and trying a very risky test that would never be done in the US. Furthermore, Chernobyl's reactor didn't have any sheilding above it. It was basically sitting under a shed. Our reactors are inside a containment building so that if a hydrogen explosion (Not a nuclear explosion in case anyone has that misconception... that can't happen) does happen, it would be contained inside the building.

When TMI melted, radiation was released to the public in a controlled manner, that was a horrible accident and the industry has struggled ever since. Lessons have been learned. The industry now polices itself with INPO, along with the NRC, it has dramatically improved its training so that operators have a much better understanding of the plants they are running, and when newer reactors are finally built in the US we will see the fruits of all this experience.

[Demos]

Hmmm. I see the defenders have geographic telltales. Jupiter (Port St. Lucie), Pleasanton (Vallecitos). My isp came up as Stockholm but I was actually in Vasteras. I suspect DJ Nukem and msliberty may have heard of the place.

[msliberty]

I by accident passed by this article & postings. I'm glad most comments have been pro- nuclear power. It is our only solution that can provide ENOUGH power, FAST enough, and cheap enough. There are NO negatives...just NO carbon ! Right now 40% of our fuel goes to dirty POWER plants. IF that 40% were FREED up, there would be no gas shortage..which would drive the greens crazy. They've tried since the 70's to get us on bikes. We could drive plug in cars..but NOT UNTIL we have clean NUCLEAR to plug INTO ! Those folks are SO confused. Of course IF they had let us continue to construct some more NO-CARBON NUCLEAR plants when they started PROTESTING & BLOCKING them.....GEE.....there wouldn't have BEEN too much DIRTy CARBON..since our plants DO NEED some.!
Today, Patrick Moore, the FOUNDER of GreenPeace says NUCLEAR POWER is our ONLY salvation !!!!

[Puneet Dan]

I think you were a little tipsy when you wrote that. So try again.

Sandip Kushwaha wrote:

I do not where to begin. The writer is deluded. Every argument here is a generalization, none of it actually is going to stand up actual scientific scrutiny.
And the stuff about Greenpeace saying this and that.....good grief...she needs to listen to Dr James Lovelock (Greenpeace founder)
Typical leftist, ignorant, incorrect, scare mongering garbage....
I do not wish her well...she is actively trying to destroy the one chance we have to get out of the mess we are already in...

[Pete Abel]

Demos wrote:

<quoted text>
That was an opinion piece, not a "Sun-Sentinel article". Don't waste my time like that again, I'm on a very slow connection here. Anyway, the central point of the "article" promoted continued dependance on fossil fuels.

You need to stop being racist and think about the children

[bigdaddy]

Heres one for you rocket scientists,where are we disposing of the spent plutonium rods at present? were not, their stockpiling them at the plants and most are at or nearing capacity. Yucca disposal site? Nope, they dont want it in their state either,gee,maybe we can dump it in the oceans like we do most everything else?

[Greenmeanie]

When the 3 mile island incident occured,radiac meters showed only 1 millirad of radiation.When you get a x-ray at the dentist's office you receive 5 millirads.There is too much overhype and fear about nuclear fallout.More nuclear power is needed.

[blood money]

soon our pets,livestock,and ourselves will be walking around with a catalytic converter sticking out our asses :)

[bloodmoney]

Were the dumbest animals on earth,were killing ourselves,thats partly why cap and trade was passed,to create more ,supposedly cheaper nuclear power and cleaner air.Whose gonna end up paying for this cleaner air?Corporations? YEAH, AND IM THE POPE. Count on rates skyrocketing within the nextyear as the giant corps. buy the cap limits to add to their own from smaller businesses. Within the next few years small businesses will go under leaving us To the fate and pricing of the GEs and stock market conglomerates of the world whose goals are profits so more folks will buy their worthless stock,its all a game,on the taxpayer.Revelations says the world will end by fire, define radiation in the dictionary. Laugh all you like but the lil guy is getting screwed. 3 cheers, the recessions over,for corporate america,things are going to get much worse than betterfor the average citizen. We build more nuclear power plants,rogue nations will and are following,will progress to uranium enrichment and then the firestorm starts.Well just dump the radioactive waste in the ocean in 1000 year sealed containers,hah, Most are followers, we need true leaders.Laugh while you can because the future isnt going to be pretty in the situation we are in and wont get out of anytime soon.I could go on about china,japan,or europe selling our treasuries and the effects but will just leave this post stating,we should have just took the pain like was taken in the depression.Because we are now in for a long term of pain.

[bloodmoney]

If the icecaps are melting,If, there wont be a port saint lucie :)

[bloodmoney]

Also, with the reduced usa fuel being used at present a few refineries have slowed production. Gas prices then rise? Get smart people.Its a game.