Poll: Nuclear power

[OneWithWood]

A number of people have cited freeing ourselves from foreign oil as the main goal for more nukes.  How much electricity is gernerated from oil fired plants?  It is my understanding that most electric plants are coal fired,
natural gas fired, or water powered.  All of these sources are domestic.   

[TN_man]

When I voted "yes" on this issue, I did not feel that I was voting "no" to all other forms of alternate power sources.
The fuel for nuclear power is mined from the ground where it is already radioactive. It is not like we make it radioactive, we just purify to a certain grade and bury back in the ground after it is spent. We are exposed to more radiation naturally than you are aware.

[Ed_K]

 No, I'd rather see biomass plants built to burn trash and tree waste. I have 29 cords of pine pulp I'd like to utilize, but its to expensive to bring out of the woods.

[Scuba_Dave]

I voted no. Due to the waste, and the fact that sooner or later, on purpose or by accident; someone is going to blow one up. So far 2 that we KNOW of, have almost gone critical.
Time to start making progress on wind power & solar power
Why do I need to generate 120v to power a 12v radio? A 23w PC bulb.
LED lights use a LOT less energy....
There are tons of ways to save $$ on energy.  Every water heater should have a pre-heat area for warmer areas & to utilize the sun in the summer.
I'm planning on adding a lot of passive solar heating to my house - the back faces due South. Without any improvements my heat has been off since March 12th.  I cut out heating bill by 1/2 by heating mostly with wood last year.  It would of been less but the wife likes it warm. We are also installing a programable radiant heating system in the master bathroom. Next winter we will only heat up the bathroom before we go to work
I think there are lost of steps everyone could take. How many people actually wear sweatshirts around the house & keep the thermostat at 65? I know I don't.  But it was 65 in the house this morning & comfortable, 67 last night (wife's in CA for 3 days).
We have cut out gasoline bill in 1/2 by commuting together - I transferred to a different position in Boston w/same company.
But we both could take the commuter rail in, but that's not "convienent".
I know both of our selections for our next car we will look VERY closely at MPG
I guess I could save $30 in electricty a month by shutting my hot tub off.  But I offset that by installing PC lights everywhere.
But I have a Saltwater aquarium that has (3) 250w lights that burn for 8+ hours...and pumps...heaters
Pool pump in the summer - installing solar heating for the pool

Face it, we all like our "luxeries"

Amazing that MA was very interested in a wind farm off of Cape Cod. Then they found out it wouldn't be in MA waters - no taxes, suddenly they are more against it.....business..... :-\

[slowzuki]

I'm a supporter of the concept of nuclear power.  The Candu (heavy water) reactors here in Canada burn a dirty fuel that can be old nuclear bomb fissionable material, or even nuclear waste from US pressurized water reactors.

The reason the waste typically isn't fuelled is that uranium is cheap cheap cheap.  Most of the mines in Canada have shut down as there isn't a huge demand.

I'm also a supporter of conservation and alternative energy.  Photovoltaics are NOT the answer here, they consume more energy in their production than they will ever produce in their life. The crystals are expensive to grow.

Wind is one form, wave power is much denser energy form of wind.  Most of the planet is wavey ocean...

Cutting consumption by lifestyle and good chioces of technology is key.  The mention of motion sensors on night lights is great, even something simple like better lenses that direct more light down on the surfaces to be illuminated, therefore requireing less power.

Rail transport of goods use much less energy per ton/mile than trucks.  If at all possible it should be used.

I strongly feel the first country to cut its dependence on oil will come out further ahead as a world power when oil reserves begin to dwindle.

[submarinesailor]

I wonder – What would happen to the important of oil, if we had taken the $200 billion, we are spending in Iraqi.  Gone out and brought everyone compact fluorescent light bulbs and new refrigerators? : : : :  But, would the big power companies allow that to happen?

[Tom]

There would be a lot of dead and abused Iraqi's, Sadam would still be in power, the terrorist organizations would  have a free run of more desert and a shield from the world. Kuwait, Israel and the rest of the "free" mid-east (as well as the free world) would be under constant threat of attack and a bunch of people would have new refrigerators.

[Mark M]

I voted yes. The waste is a problem but we need to start doing something because it takes a long time to build power plants and the old ones will soon be obsolete. I live within 50 miles of 4 or 5 big coal fired plants and they are expected to last about 30-35 years. The last one was built about 20 years ago. I would rater see wind and solar developed but we need different sources.

Something else and I've even thought of doing this myself - I would like to see is an "award" presented to chronic wasters of energy,something like the orchids and onions awards our city gives to business that take good care of their properties and to those who are eyesores. Every morning when I drive by the Menard's store every single light is on including all the demo light fixtures of which there are several hundred. This is an hour or two before they are opened. Also they have a single door instead of an "air lock". That door opens wide open when someone gets close. Needless to say it isn't always nice and warm out here and those poor clerks are all wearing parkas in the wintertime. How many other business waste power like this?

[Don_Papenburg]

Slowzuki, If photovolt panels are more expensive to build than the light energy that they will produce ,Why can I buy a Photovoltic path light (includes battery lamp fixture photocell and a plastic housing) cheaper than a regular electric path light?  Granted this thing will not power my table saw but ...............

[Woodcarver]

I voted no because of the waste issue, also.  We have yet to arrive at a national answer to that problem.  The Nevada state government is determined to block the completion of the storage facility there that the federal goverment has spent billions on.

The waste is an even more inviting target for terrorist than the nuclear plants.

[beav]

   I voted no. Centralized generation and highly toxic waste piles leave us wide open to terrorist attacks. Nuclear is VERY expensive, and will most likely  be subsidized to the point that  we never know how much it really cost.
    We waste so much power. AS a nation we're going to learn conservation either proactively or kicking and screaming reactively. Energy costs are on a long march upwards, no matter where it comes from. In the long view, renewables make the only sense. The sooner the better, because there are much better things to do with oil & nat gas, etc , than burn them.
   The solar (pv) panels that power my house will put out over 20 times the power than was used in their manufacture. This is a very conservative estimate, because none have worn out yet. The most energy intensive part of their manufacture was the aluminum frames- by a significant amount. Think of that next time you pop an aluminum-canned beverage.
   I heat with wood (100%), live off-grid, have solar hot water, and use a wood-mizer(had to add that). Not for everybody, but I'll gladly sell my CO2 credits to the highest bidder... ;)

[OneWithWood]

There would be a lot of dead and abused Iraqi's, Sadam would still be in power, the terrorist organizations would  have a free run of more desert and a shield from the world. Kuwait, Israel and the rest of the "free" mid-east (as well as the free world) would be under constant threat of attack and a bunch of people would have new refrigerators.

Well, except for Sadam being in custody that pretty well somes up the current status of Iraq and the middle east.
The new refridgerators would have been a great boost to the economy rather than a drain.  And as to the nuclear issue, well Iran and North Korea are chasing after 'nuclear power' with a vengeance. ;)

Sorry. Tom, I just could not let that one pass  :D

[Tom]

  Doesn't hurt my feelings. I wasn't being a smart Aleck just stating facts.  "Those people", in my opinion, are downright nuts.  They have been for as long as we've been recording history.  There must be something to the fact (if you read the Bible as fact) that God would give his Prophets/generals/Kings instructions about how to rid the world of a certain tribe or town.  It usually went something like this. "Kill every man and beast.  Tear down the walls and burn the city to the ground.  Wipe them from the face of the Earth".   He would use words like asunder and smite, strong stuff, even today.   I know that isn't a quote but it is how I read some of the passages.   Looks like God might know something we don't.  Perhaps a well placed nuclear weapon or two is what it would take. Perhaps we need to start thinking like them and quit codling the Middle East.  They want the rest of the world dead and I don't think it is such a good idea. (being the rest of the world and all)  Maybe total annihilation of those who threaten would be more in God's keeping than to keep feeding and getting our hand bit.

The point I was making, if there was a point, is that buying stuff and handing it out (like refrigerators) doesn't help, but in the short run.  It just leads to a more socialist State and a society that quits working for itself. 

A better thing to do with the billions would be to pay off national debt, rid ourselves of big government, decrease taxes, provide incentives for people to make it on their own, encourage small business, get a control on health care costs, quell the litigious sectors of the population, do away with public housing, food programs and welfare that encourages out-of-wedlock births.

Put that money, if it is really available, into law enforcement, fire departments, road works and utilities.  Put it into things like AIDS research, cancer, Alzheimer's, nerve regeneration,  and start looking out for the population without making it a hand-out.  With some that is left over, it wouldn't hurt for the educational system to get a little bit and get the government out of the schools.  Start teaching RRR again and quit this nonsense about the government backed schools thinking that they are to replace the home.  Give the teachers the authority, again, to discipline and give them the guidelines to do so based on the More's that we want the country to have.

The countries war machine needs to be kept up but, rightfully so, it shouldn't be used for civilian control.   Take some of that money and start the draft again.  Not for the war machine, there are too many namby pamby's in the society today that don't understand the need, but for civilian emergency service.  Give our youth a place to learn authority, respect, brotherly love as well as thinking on their own, responsibility and other things that have been lost since the mandatory attendance of a Boot Camp was eliminated with the Volunteer Army.  This group could be used for disaster recovery, Federal Road care and roadway trash pickup.  There are a myriad number of jobs that could be done for the sake of the Nation that the Military isn't allowed to perform.  Bring something like Roosevelt's CCC back.  If someone needs a home, they can have a barracks. If they need family housing, they can work for it.  If they want to live in the civilian sector, they can learn to perform.

A billion dollars is a lot of money, not to mention the trillions that we owe.  If the plan were to  dole it out as income to even everybody up,  then the government has no business with it anyway.

Holy Smokes, how'd I get onto this rant? :D

[DanG]

I guess yer just a cantankerous old curmudgeon. ;D  I like that in a guy. :D :D

[Mark M]

So where do we go to vote for Tom? I like what he says!

[tnlogger]

Tom and i thought you was getting mellow in ya old age  ;D now i see the reason you just wait till you have something of value to say.
Maybe this one should be sent to the higher ups naw they would just wipe something with it and i dont think it would be their noses  :D

[rebocardo]

I voted yes, but, after seeing what happened to the WTCs, I have to ask myself, how harden (really) are these plants to a fully fueled 747 plane at 400-600 mph? It is kind of like how they blew up the America to see what it really takes to sink the nuke carrier. Until you test the containment vessel and structures with a real world head on crash (without the nuke materials present) , can you really say 100% that a plane can not take one out and wipe out 1/2 a state?

[Frank_Pender]

I voted yes because I do not want our water shipped to the South Left Side of the Left Coast.   Every year there is more and more indication of wanting more juice to the South of the Pacific Northwest.   The Columbia and it tributaries are getting taxed to the hilt, litteraly and figuratively.   Water is getting to be a hard comodity of dealing with in our region, with the Salmon issues and all, water is more valuable to the fish than that of man and therefore beginning to put greater burdens on those of us as uses of the juice that is produced with hydrology. :'(

[Gipper]

Well said Tom!!!!  I don't think you got into a rant.  It couldn't be said any better.  I'm with Mark M.  Where do we go to vote for Tom?   8) 8)

[slowzuki]

I guess I have to update my solar cell knowledge from the 80's!  Back then they used about 1.25 times the energy to make than they were expected to produce in their life.  This number would be related to how sunny your area is too.  Up north here I don't know what the energy payback time is...

[Stan]

I voted yes because I do not our water shipped to the South Left Side of the Left Coast.   Every year there is more and more indication of wanting more juice to the South of the Pacific Northwest.   The Columbia and it tributaries are getting taxed to the hilt, litteraly and figuratively.   Water is getting to be a hard comodity of deal with in our region, with the Salmon issues and all  water is more valuable to the fish than that of man and therefore beginningto put greater burdens on those of us as uses of the juice that produced with hydrology. :'(

I worked 30 years for the LADWP a major consumer of your water and can tell you without reservation that we didn't want it. The Canadians were happy to sell us Peace River Water power from Gordon Shrum, but BPA nixed the deal.
The reason nobody recycles the fuel rods is Jimmy Carter forbid it when he was the President, with an Executive Order. Write GW a letter and suggest he supersede it with one of his own.
The biggest reason there aren't more is economic. The fuel decays at the same rate, reguardless of the power output of the plant. Many utilities have a problem with too much base load, and not being able to reduce generation at night to match the demand.  Adding generation with the same problem won't help. What we need is economical peaking generation, not lower loads at night.
Oh by the way I voted not in my backyard, Palo Verde seems to be ideally sited, hardly anybody lives within a hundred miles of that place.

[slowzuki]

Stan brings a good point.  We are lucky in our province to have similar sized hydro dam matched to a nuclear station.  The hydro has a response time of a couple of seconds and can deal really easy with peak demands.

Conservation affects peaking load too.  I'll still do what I can to reduce base load and peaking.  Every bit helps.

[Ron Wenrich]

Back in the '80s, there was talk of putting in a hydro dam in one of the valleys that would produce electricity during the day, and pump water at night to fill the dam.  It didn't get off the ground, but sounds like the kind of solution you are suggesting. 

[jrdwyer]

I voted no due to the waste, excessive costs to build , and possible meltdown from human mistakes or terroism.

I live in the best and worst of the electricity areas. It's all coal and lots of it. The rates are very low so our heating with a heat pump and a/c are also very inexpensive. But coal is still quite dirty and they spend million every few years to make the plants cleaner (which I am in favor of and pay for). But they still admit to problems with mercury pollution from the stacks. It's a shame, but they don't recommend eating fish from our lakes and rivers here on a daily basis due to mercury contamination in the water.

I am a big proponent of conservation and renewable sources. I have thought about adding a solar water heater and floor radiant heating in the basement, but 25 year old houses are somewhat difficult to retrofit. I do plan to add the Australian 2 stage toilets that use .8/1.6 gallons per flush instead of our old 3.2 gallon ones.  New dual pane, low e vinly windows will replace the last of our leaking aluminum ones this summer. I looked into solar electricity (panels/shingles), but that's still way too high.  The wood I burn is in a fireplace and mostly for looks (a shame, I know). Lots of little ways to save here and there. It all adds up.

On the fuels front, I read an article about using algae in ponds on a large scale to produce oils for burning.  Whether this or from soybeans, diesels will be a bigger part of the future now that they are coming up with soot filters and cleaner fuel. 

[maple flats]

I voted no. Quite well said Tom, I agree with most of what you said. I live about 50 miles from 2 nuke plants, directly down wind, and proposals are on the table to add a 3rd at the same location. That's probably less than a minute away in nuke disaster real time so that wind really wouldn't be that important to someone this close, we would just be vaporized before we knew it. In my backyard we also have trash burning plants that I feel are a good alternative, with proper state of the art emissions controls. We also have 2 wind farms and these things are truly great. As I drive my school bus at different points I can see the nuke plant steam exhaust and several huge wind mills. The wind turbins get my vote. As well as wave powered, solar (did I mention that we are planning a house that will have solar and wind power) and hydro. WE WASTE TOO MUCH POWER. OUR house has cut our elec. usage several ways over the last 25 years, efficient lighting, wood stove, super insulation, wear something warmer and turn the heat down (except one room where we have 2 highly handi-capped clients, their room has it's own heat system). Of course our bill never shows the savings in $ unless we compare KWH usage over the long run. We also need to develope an energy storage plan, (batteries?). This is done very well with hydro power on reservoirs. I like most forms of generation that use a free energy source or get rid of a problem. By this I mean wind, wave, solar, hydro, and trash to energy coming to mind. In places highly populated they usually need to go to the mountains, dam up resivoirs for water for all of the people. These are a downhill run to point of consumption thru huge pipes, seems like a good place to also hook up hydro a few times on the way to usage. When usage was at it's peak for water, it would also be peaked for elec. For hydro we also do not need HUGE, HUGE plants. I read years ago that China has a gen plant every time a river or stream drops 5 feet. This may have been an exageration but is sounds good. Small plants, each adding to the grid. I'll get down off my box now.