Coal & Nuclear power generation

[2ndgenz28]

Free energy would be cheaper though

Just stick a metal pole in the air and drain the sky of its juice, we just need mass storage and surge protection to use it.

[CamaroSkooter]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

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.

Yes, a hydro-electric plant can conceivably generate more power than the largest nuclear power plant, but it's not the norm. Niagara Falls is, by no means, a good example of what an average hydro-electric generating station can produce. Hydro-electric is limited in where it can be placed, and often times requires massive amounts of earthwork and tunneling, as well as potential relocation and reimbursement of landowners where the new reservoir is going to be located.

Nuclear plants can be built pretty much anywhere

Originally Posted by MisterCamaro69

I thought it was pretty

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

Wind farms and solar arrays require massive amounts of land to produce anywhere near the equivalent amounts of power that a nuclear plant can generate. Wind farms require very specific locating to maximize their output. You can't just stick a wind turbine anywhere and have it magically produce a reliable stream of power day-to-day. And coincidentally, if you happen to find a location where a wind farm will be optimal (e.g. west Texas), there aren't any transmission lines nearby to take that power and get it to the grid. So now, not only are you having to spend a boatload on land, a boatload on wind turbines, but now you have to spend a boatload on a transmission line just to get the power to the nearest substation.

As far as solar power goes, the massive footprint required to create a solar array (and I'm not talking about those solar panels you can stick on your roof) isn't very friendly to nearby land owners. I mean, who wants to live next to a massive field of mirrors that move and follow the path of the sun? I definately wouldn't want to be driving on a nearby road during sunrise or sunset... I imagine the maintenance required at a solar array is pretty high as well...

[Steve Dallas]

Methane is plentiful as well, both on Earth and other planets!

[Mr Twisty]

Originally Posted by CamaroSkooter

...........................



Wind farms and solar arrays require massive amounts of land to produce anywhere near the equivalent amounts of power that a nuclear plant can generate. Wind farms require very specific locating to maximize their output. You can't just stick a wind turbine anywhere and have it magically produce a reliable stream of power day-to-day. And coincidentally, if you happen to find a location where a wind farm will be optimal (e.g. west Texas), there aren't any transmission lines nearby to take that power and get it to the grid. So now, not only are you having to spend a boatload on land, a boatload on wind turbines, but now you have to spend a boatload on a transmission line just to get the power to the nearest substation.

As far as solar power goes, the massive footprint required to create a solar array (and I'm not talking about those solar panels you can stick on your roof) isn't very friendly to nearby land owners. I mean, who wants to live next to a massive field of mirrors that move and follow the path of the sun? I definately wouldn't want to be driving on a nearby road during sunrise or sunset... I imagine the maintenance required at a solar array is pretty high as well...

Valid points.... but, can you put a nuclear reactor in your back yard? Wind and solar (even geothermal) are excellent choices for the country dweller that wants to reduce his electric bill.

[Brokinarrow]

Originally Posted by MisterCamaro69

Valid points.... but, can you put a nuclear reactor in your back yard? Wind and solar (even geothermal) are excellent choices for the country dweller that wants to reduce his electric bill.

Yes... if you have $50 million anyway. But really, since this one powers 20,000 homes for 8 - 10 years you could probably sell the excess energy for a profit. Unless you have some sort of secret lab that sucks up that much energy

[8cd03gro]

Geothermal is a good option. None of it will matter when we figure out the Higgs though.

[CamaroSkooter]

I'm talking about solutions on a macro scale, not micro.

If someone wants to put a panel or two on their roof, I completely support that. Granted, the initial cost is a bit steep, but that's absolutely someone's right to do if they so choose.

Wind power for home use is really only practical on farms. You typically need the blades to be a full 20 feet above the roofline and/or treeline of your property to provide any kind of benefit. In some places (like the northeast) that means you'd have to erect a 200-foot-tall pole just to mount the turbine onto. The guy wires alone would probably stretch out way beyond the average homeowners property line to make wind power feasible

[Brokinarrow]

Originally Posted by CamaroSkooter

I'm talking about solutions on a macro scale, not micro.

If someone wants to put a panel or two on their roof, I completely support that. Granted, the initial cost is a bit steep, but that's absolutely someone's right to do if they so choose.

Wind power for home use is really only practical on farms. You typically need the blades to be a full 20 feet above the roofline and/or treeline of your property to provide any kind of benefit. In some places (like the northeast) that means you'd have to erect a 200-foot-tall pole just to mount the turbine onto. The guy wires alone would probably stretch out way beyond the average homeowners property line to make wind power feasible

I've seen little blimp-turbine concepts, haven't heard if any have actually gone into production though...

[DGthe3]

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). . .

If you want to get technical, fusion has been around for billions of years in stars, which is ultimately where we get any energy source from. And controlled fusion of hydrogen and deuterium has been achieved ... briefly. It also consumed more power than it generated but never the less, it could be considered a controlled thermonuclear reaction.

Anyway, near as I can tell for the last 50 years or so, people have been saying that fusion power plants are about 20 years away. Eventually, I'm sure someone will be right but nobody knows when they'll be right, thats the kicker.

[Mr Twisty]

Originally Posted by Brokinarrow

Yes... if you have $50 million anyway. But really, since this one powers 20,000 homes for 8 - 10 years you could probably sell the excess energy for a profit. Unless you have some sort of secret lab that sucks up that much energy

Originally Posted by CamaroSkooter

I'm talking about solutions on a macro scale, not micro.
It's already big and keeps getting bigger... Fossil fuel accidents and nuclear power fears are driving it forward, I believe.

If someone wants to put a panel or two on their roof, I completely support that. Granted, the initial cost is a bit steep, but that's absolutely someone's right to do if they so choose.

Wind power for home use is really only practical on farms. You typically need the blades to be a full 20 feet above the roofline and/or treeline of your property to provide any kind of benefit. In some places (like the northeast) that means you'd have to erect a 200-foot-tall pole just to mount the turbine onto. The guy wires alone would probably stretch out way beyond the average homeowners property line to make wind power feasible

You might be surprised at the folks using the earth's renewable sources and their God given intelligence to live simply. Living off the grid is becoming a lost art. Your great grandfather probably knew how.

[Hemlawk]

I live 1 mile away from the nuclear plant that I work at. My property taxes are HALF the cost of the surrounding towns.
I have no issues with a reactor in my back yard. The nuclear industry is constantly improving and learning from past mistakes.

[CamaroSkooter]

Originally Posted by Brokinarrow

I've seen little blimp-turbine concepts, haven't heard if any have actually gone into production though...

I can just see all those dirigibles floating away from improper moaring

Originally Posted by MisterCamaro69

It's already big and keeps getting bigger... Fossil fuel accidents and nuclear power fears are driving it forward, I believe.

I don't have a clue what you're trying to say here. What's already big?

What I meant by my statement was this:

I'm trying to address ways to solve our energy "problem" with centralized power production. If people want to reduce their reliance on "the grid" by putting solar panels on their roofs and floating some dirigibles up in the air like Brokinarrow has suggested, then I absolutely support that. But we can't force every household to adhere to this idea of self-sustainability. There has to be a strong grid with a backbone that can handle the power needs of every man, woman, and child in our country at peak demand.

Given the timing, it's pretty obvious that we are not currently meeting that criteria due to the number of regions that are having to perform rolling brownouts to prevent system overload.

Nuclear power can provide a massive amount of electricity to meet our needs if people would get past the stigma that Homer Simpson and others have created over the years.

The fact is, if I take all of the electricity consumption that I will use over the course of my ENTIRE life, and determine how much nuclear waste would be produced because of my usage alone, I would be able to fit all of that waste into a neat little package the size of a D-cell battery.

Compare that to how much equivalent waste is produced by a traditional coal fired plant, and I begin to wonder why this debate is still continuing...

[Mr Twisty]

Wind farms are generating a good amount of power already... Not micro scale at all.

3 mile island and Chernobyl made quite an impact on the baby boom generation. Thousands of people can die in auto accidents and it barely makes a blip on the screen... One plane goes down and kills 100 people and it's a tragedy.

Someone needs to do a cost per watt calculation of the various power generation methods, I imagine nuclear will come out on top... Anyone know the numbers?

The fact is, if I take all of the electricity consumption that I will use over the course of my ENTIRE life, and determine how much nuclear waste would be produced because of my usage alone, I would be able to fit all of that waste into a neat little package the size of a D-cell battery.

There's still a scale problem with that argument, how much space do 7 billion D-cell batteries take up?

If a D-cell is 3 cu. in. A rough estimate is 1 square mile, 50 inches high... per generation. Can we afford to store that till something better comes along? Shouldn't be too tough.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by MisterCamaro69

Wind farms are generating a good amount of power already... Not micro scale at all.
I think I heard somewhere that the entire global wind power output is equal to the electrical consumption of the United Kingdom, which isn't all that much when you figure the UK represents less than 1% of the world's population

3 mile island and Chernobyl made quite an impact on the baby boom generation. Thousands of people can die in auto accidents and it barely makes a blip on the screen... One plane goes down and kills 100 people and it's a tragedy.

yep

Someone needs to do a cost per watt calculation of the various power generation methods, I imagine nuclear will come out on top... Anyone know the numbers?

Coal is almost always the cheapest. Nuclear plants have a tendency to have delays and cost over-runs that end up driving the real cost above that of coal. But, I wonder what would happen if you added in the health cost associated with coal ... hmm ...


There's still a scale problem with that argument, how much space do 7 billion D-cell batteries take up?

If a D-cell is 3 cu. in. A rough estimate is 1 square mile, 50 inches high... per generation. Can we afford to store that till something better comes along? Shouldn't be too tough.
Don't forget the size of the container for the waste. Round up to 4 cubic inches maybe? lol

Oh, and that amount of earth (1 mi x 1 mi x 50") can be removed in about 2 weeks by one of these machines:

they're commonly used for removing overburded for open pit coal mining ...

see bold