Coal & Nuclear power generation

[omegaman]

I'm an energy trader in the west. More nuclear power is the answer for most of the U.S. energy problems plaguing us today. I pray that our government and fellow citizens come to this realization soon.

[Mr Twisty]

[LoneStar]

Originally Posted by MisterCamaro69

What are you doing in MY YARD!

[DGthe3]

Worst case scenario for a nuclear disaster is Chernobyl. But most people were exposed to more radiation by doctors giving x-ray after x-ray trying to diagnose the problems than there was from the disaster itself. The forests around Chernobyl seem to be healthier than before, mainly due to the complete absence of people in the area.

While Chernobyl was tragic, there have been countless more deaths caused by coal every single year, in mining accidents or due to respiratory problems in the general population. But most of the time, those deaths don't grab headlines like 'Nuclear Disaster' would. To me, that is even more tragic.

Originally Posted by Milk 1027

Safe maybe.....
Still doesn't stop the fact that it is harder to dispose of than any type of waste.
Nuclear waste will be around for milions of years after we are gone.

Yes and no. It becomes a question of quantity vs quality. You have millions of tons of coal ash, vs a few hundred tons of nuclear waste. Its accepted that there will be contamination with coal ash, from the various heavy metals to the radioactive elements, and most people never give it a second thought. But it is absolutely inconceivable that there could perhaps be a chance that maybe some radiation will escape a permanent nuclear storage site.

Originally Posted by CamaroSkooter

Hydro-electric also has potential, but you have to create substantial reservoirs behind them to get any kind of reasonable amount of power output. And you'll never get the kind of power output from a hydro-electric dam as you would with a nuclear plant.

As I understand it, most of the places where hydroelectric could be used, it is being used. The capacity can still expand a bit, but not all that much.

As for not matching nuclear, it can and does so on a pretty regular basis. Niagara falls produces a total of about 5000 MW (split between Canada and the US) while the nuclear plants in this province are on the order of 3000-4000 MW, and as I'm pretty sure they're fairly large nuke plants. There are other large hydro electric plants that produce more than typical nuclear plants. But there are many more hydro electric plants that produce far less than nuclear.

Originally Posted by Number 3

I hear depleted uranium penetrates tank hulls very nicely.

Its also good at stopping rounds from penetrating tank hulls

[Mr Twisty]

Originally Posted by LoneStarCamaro

What are you doing in MY YARD!

I thought it was pretty

Wind and solar have a long way to go, but don't write them off just yet.

[2ndgenz28]

Originally Posted by ron10

you probably have a very low property value.

you would think so but no, Oregon is a hot spot everyone wants to move to.
Been a constant boom since I was little.

We also got those 1000ft TV towers everywhere, cell towers, everything the rest of the country throws a fit over, no one seems to care, its nice in Oregon, Ohio.

[Brokinarrow]

Nuclear power is the way to go. Look at how many nuclear plants there are in the world compared to how many accidents they've had, then do a similar comparison between coal plants and the accidents they've had.

Of course, I'm still hoping we can get some Fusion powered plants up and running within the next couple decades. Those will go a LONG way to solving the world's energy problems

[8cd03gro]

We just need NASA to build the space elevator so we can launch nuclear waste into the sun.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Brokinarrow

Nuclear power is the way to go. Look at how many nuclear plants there are in the world compared to how many accidents they've had, then do a similar comparison between coal plants and the accidents they've had.

Of course, I'm still hoping we can get some Fusion powered plants up and running within the next couple decades. Those will go a LONG way to solving the world's energy problems

Fusion is about 20 years away ...

[STL20102SS]

Originally Posted by 2ndgenz28

Find a way for the military to be in charge of the nuke plants and not be called socialism and it would fly better with the EPA n tree huggers.

Its very safe in their hands, but proven over and over again when its a company that first n fore most profits come first, they always take shortcuts somewhere down the line, to please someone above who plays oblivious to it.

Couldn't agree more as I have a daughter and son-in-law that are both Navy nukes. In the nuke program they learn in a little over two years just shy of a four year degree and are considered among the Navy's top 5%.

[Brokinarrow]

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

We just need NASA to build the space elevator so we can launch nuclear waste into the sun.

Japan's space agency is already doing research on one. Wouldn't be surprised if they manage to get one built. Then we'll have to build a bigger one to 1 up them

Here's another thought: Why not power the next generation of space stations with one of those Hyperion Modular Reactors? Could do away with the big, goofy, prone-to-break-down solar panels, and one of those would power a space station for 50 + years I'm sure.

[2ndgenz28]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Fusion is about 20 years away ...

How about a Arc Reactor ???

[8cd03gro]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Fusion is about 20 years away ...

We have already achieved fusion, just not controlled fusion. The modern nuke or hydrogen bomb is a fusion bomb, thus the name hydrogen bomb (uses hydrogen fusion). . .

[Brokinarrow]

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

We have already achieved fusion, just not controlled fusion. The modern nuke or hydrogen bomb is a fusion bomb, thus the name hydrogen bomb (uses hydrogen fusion). . .

Correct, which is what he was referring to as I had said that I'm hoping to see Fusion power plants within a couple decades.