Still support nuke power plants?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@DSeid

Post 300, but to save you the effort here is the wind resource link again.

a network of land-based 2.5-megawatt (MW) turbines restricted to nonforested, ice-free, nonurban areas operating at as little as 20% of their rated capacity could supply >40 times current worldwide consumption of electricity, >5 times total global use of energy in all forms. Resources in the contiguous United States, specifically in the central plain states, could accommodate as much as 16 times total current demand for electricity in the United States …

Well let’s see…

From your link the US currently uses 1,075 GW of power. If my math is right you’d need 430,000 of those wind turbines to meet that.

And “ice free” areas"? I am not sure but I would not be surprised if you just cut out about 2/3 of the US where you can site these things.

And, according General Electric’s brochure on those turbines you need a wind speed of 12.5 m/s (about 28 mph) for peak generating capacity. Anything under that and the power curve diminishes quickly. Given how wind is hit or miss (where do you know that the wind regularly blows at 28 miles per hour?) seems to me to guarantee that 1,075 GW of power you’d need a whole lot more than those 430,000 turbines.

Then, to add to the problems, is power distribution. The farther electricity travels the more inefficient the system is. We lopped off 2/3 of the US that has ice (make it 1/2 if you prefer). Your transmission troubles will make these wind farms woefully inefficient. So, add yet more to that 430,000 number.

Now to the cost. According to this those turbines cost (doing some math) $4,142,012 each (let’s just say $4million). Not even sure that includes towers and installation. For your 430,000 turbines that’d cost $1,720,000,000,000 (trillion). As noted you’ll need a lot more than that.

I had trouble finding costs on building a nuclear power plant but I found this which is Europe’s newest nuclear reactor built at a cost of about $4.5 billion. Two reactors will put out 860 MW each. So, just those two are a bit more expensive than the wind turbines for the same power. Except the station has two more reactors coming online. Reactor 4 was approved and would be another 1000-1800 MW. Nuclear starts looking better price-wise.

As that article also notices 80% of the operating cost of a Natural Gas plant is the gas itself. Swings in the price of gas (which it does) would see your power bill fluctuate dramatically. As noted earlier the “cheap” gas available is running out in a decade or so. Yes, there is lots more to be had but it will become more expensive to mine thus raising energy costs.

Again, I want to be clear that I am all for wind power and solar power and other technologies and would like to see them used where possible (i.e. make sense). Their use can mitigate the number of coal/gas/nuclear power plants we would have to build.

I am just not seeing a way around nuclear power. Coal and gas are finite resources. I am not saying we are running out very soon but even if we consider a 100 year horizon we need to bring a lot of new generating capacity online in that time (need to replace the 70% that is currently coal and gas). Given such generating capacity takes a lot of time and investment (even wind…I imagine building 430,000 turbines would take awhile) we need to start now. Especially in nuclear, if we’d like to take advantage of safer and less expensive designs that are less polluting, the research and development needs to be started now.

[gonzomax]

The logic of how many wind plants will be required to replace all the nuclear and coal in disingenuous. Wind is part of the solution. Solar is part of the solution. Each and every clean energy is party of the solution.
There are lots of interesting and fairly radical technologies being created today. There is wave energy for instance.
Several nations have buried their money in solar technology and have cut way back on coal and nuke dependence. Wind is supplying some countries with a large amount of their energy. In America, we lag way behind.
It is possible to green your home. You can personally cut way back on your use.That is where we should start. Meanwhile we can work on the next energy source.

[FXMastermind]

Dude, the simple truth is that many people who use power, they would rather a million babies die of radiation sickness than decrease their electric use by even 1%

Asking for them to not use one out every five lights in their house (or run the lights 20% less, or watch less TV, turn off computer or game console some of the time, or live with a slightly warmer home in summer, slightly colder in winter, turn down the hot water, insulate the attic, sub floor and put in triple pane windows, at that point many people would rather a billion people die of radiation sickness that you tell them what to do.

Regardless of the outcome in Japan, the nuclear renaissance prompted by climate change is now under intense scrutiny and renewed opposition.
There is one simple proposition: if this can happen in an industrial and technological superpower, what greater risks lie with reactors in less advanced countries, including those on some the world’s most active fault lines?
And beyond natural disasters, how vulnerable is nuclear energy to military attack or to terrorists?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@gonzomax

The logic of how many wind plants will be required to replace all the nuclear and coal in disingenuous. Wind is part of the solution. Solar is part of the solution. Each and every clean energy is party of the solution.
There are lots of interesting and fairly radical technologies being created today. There is wave energy for instance.
Several nations have buried their money in solar technology and have cut way back on coal and nuke dependence. Wind is supplying some countries with a large amount of their energy. In America, we lag way behind.
It is possible to green your home. You can personally cut way back on your use.That is where we should start. Meanwhile we can work on the next energy source.

Most countries that do this are small (actual landmass) compared to the US.

Israel for instance has solar power all over the place. That’s great when you live in a desert.

If you are in a country with a lot of wind then wind power makes sense.

As mentioned transmission of electricity is a problem. The further you go the more electricity you use and the more inefficient the system is. This is not a big deal when your whole country is the size of (say) Illinois.

Comparing to the US to them is apples and oranges.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@FXMastermind

Dude, the simple truth is that many people who use power, they would rather a million babies die of radiation sickness than decrease their electric use by even 1%

Such hyperbole is worthless and counterproductive.

It has been repeatedly cited in this thread that coal has killed far, far more people than nuclear ever has…even today. One dam break in China killed 170,000 people by itself (maybe more).

Why not spend that vitriol on those technologies?

[levdrakon]

@Norse

There are nuke plants, and there are nuke plants, just as there are cars and there are cars. If you’d used a minimum of rational thinking and bothered to read the whole of my post, you’d have the answer to your “question”. I’ll repeat the key point here just in case you can’t be bothered to scroll up and re-read my post:
But I guess that that would have ruined your chance for a snark. :rolleyes:

I’m using the pro-nuke rationale, and you’re going to have to deal with it. And probably some snark too.

Chernobyl, and its design, are irrelevant when it was human fuck up at fault. Chernobyl was, and is, perfectly safe if you run it the way it’s supposed to. The proof is in the pudding. There was only one fuck up, and it was 100% human.

Nuclear power is safer than cars. I’m not making that up. That is the pro-nuker position. Look, you can’t make a power omelette without cracking a few human eggs. That is the pro-nuke position.

Chernobyl was perfectly safe! Don’t blame Chernobyl for human fuck ups.

Again, you can’t make an energy omelette without cracking a few eggs. That, is the pro-nuke position. Don’t blame me.

[Lobohan]

This thread really needs this: http://xkcd.com/radiation/

[FXMastermind]

@Whack-a-Mole

Such hyperbole is worthless and counterproductive.

Now you know how I feel about all the ridiculous commentary about how this disaster isn’t that bad.

@Whack-a-Mole

Why not spend that vitriol on those technologies?

I can certainly do that. It will make no difference to the coal industry, or the people who support it.

[FXMastermind]

@Lobohan

This thread really needs this: http://xkcd.com/radiation/

Note that the chart stops at standing next to a unshielded reactor, and doesn’t take it to the next step.

[levdrakon]

@Lobohan

This thread really needs this: http://xkcd.com/radiation/

If you read the whole thing, the creator of your chart there makes it clear the chart isn’t “real.” It’s not meant to be in anyway accurate. It’s an “everybody poops” child’s explanation of radiation doses. If that’s the sort of thing that makes pro-nukers feel all warm & cuddly, I shudder.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@levdrakon

I’m using the pro-nuke rationale, and you’re going to have to deal with it. And probably some snark too.

Chernobyl, and its design, are irrelevant when it was human fuck up at fault. Chernobyl was, and is, perfectly safe if you run it the way it’s supposed to. The proof is in the pudding. There was only one fuck up, and it was 100% human.

Nuclear power is safer than cars. I’m not making that up. That is the pro-nuker position. Look, you can’t make a power omelette without cracking a few human eggs. That is the pro-nuke position.

Chernobyl was perfectly safe! Don’t blame Chernobyl for human fuck ups.

Again, you can’t make an energy omelette without cracking a few eggs. That, is the pro-nuke position. Don’t blame me.

The point is Chernobyl was singularly susceptible to human fuck ups.

It is not news that mistakes happen. You want the machine you are running to be tolerant of those mistakes.

Three Mile Island saw very serious fuck ups. Despite those fuck ups and melting half the reactor its design saved the area from something much worse.

Chernobyl…not so much.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@FXMastermind

I can certainly do that. It will make no difference to the coal industry, or the people who support it.

Are you suggesting we abandon our modern industrial society and go back to living in the trees?

Because if not then any power technology you care to cite has issues.

How many babies will die if we abandon power generation and something like a modern hospital cannot function (not to mention manufacturing that needs power to make medicine)?

[FXMastermind]

You may not have ever been in a situation where a disaster knocks out the power. For a long time.

You probably haven’t ever lived with out electricity running to your home from a power plant. You may be surprised to learn that most people don’t have electricity, like you do. Many people don’t have it at all.

They never have. In fact, in the history of the planet, the majority of people have never had electricity. It’s not needed to live. Of course it’s vital to an advanced society, to technology, to almost everything we hold dear. But you don’t need it.

You certainly don’t need the 15% that would go away if all the nuclear power plants shut down due to an earthquake. Somebody mentioned that industry needs the power plants. That is 100% true. People do OK when the power goes out, they can survive, mankind has a long history of surviving with out a power plant.

Unless the water supply depends on the power plant, then things go downhill very fast.

But industry, it can’t survive with out cheap steady power.

[Nancarrow]

@levdrakon

If you read the whole thing, the creator of your chart there makes it clear the chart isn’t “real.” It’s not meant to be in anyway accurate.

No, it is meant to be, and is, accurate in two very important respects - it quantifies absorbed radiation dose from numerous events, and puts the radiation doses from the Fukushima events in their proper numerical perspective. The chart is perfectly ‘real’ in that respect.

What you would wish to interpret as an admission of unreality, is the typical boilerplate ‘there may be mistakes’ disclaimer that every author includes in every textbook I have ever read. Also there’s a bit about not basing one’s entire radiation safety procedures on that chart. No one here is doing that.

Sorry if numeracy and perspective are foreign concepts to you.

[FXMastermind]

I’m ramping up for a coal rant, but I need to do some research first.

Meanwhile, the first images of sick and dead radiation victims are leaking out of Japan. I don’t think the Japanese Government gets it. The internet isn’t going to be censored, what happened will end up getting put.

[Lobohan]

@FXMastermind

Note that the chart stops at standing next to a unshielded reactor, and doesn’t take it to the next step.

Sitting on it? I’m actually confused by what you mean.

[Lobohan]

@levdrakon

If you read the whole thing, the creator of your chart there makes it clear the chart isn’t “real.” It’s not meant to be in anyway accurate. It’s an “everybody poops” child’s explanation of radiation doses. If that’s the sort of thing that makes pro-nukers feel all warm & cuddly, I shudder.

It’s a comic with a disclaimer. It’s to illustrate the relative doses from different sources.

[Nancarrow]

@FXMastermind

Note that the chart stops at standing next to a unshielded reactor, and doesn’t take it to the next step.

Is this some kind of joke?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@FXMastermind

Note that the chart stops at standing next to a unshielded reactor, and doesn’t take it to the next step.

FWIW it shows what standing next to the Chernobyl reactor would do to you in ten minutes and that was decidedly unshielded.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@FXMastermind

You may not have ever been in a situation where a disaster knocks out the power. For a long time.

You probably haven’t ever lived with out electricity running to your home from a power plant. You may be surprised to learn that most people don’t have electricity, like you do. Many people don’t have it at all.

They never have. In fact, in the history of the planet, the majority of people have never had electricity. It’s not needed to live. Of course it’s vital to an advanced society, to technology, to almost everything we hold dear. But you don’t need it.

You certainly don’t need the 15% that would go away if all the nuclear power plants shut down due to an earthquake. Somebody mentioned that industry needs the power plants. That is 100% true. People do OK when the power goes out, they can survive, mankind has a long history of surviving with out a power plant.

Unless the water supply depends on the power plant, then things go downhill very fast.

But industry, it can’t survive with out cheap steady power.

Yeah, people have lived without electricity in the past and people do so today.

Comparatively those times/places are shit holes.

Mortality rates are far higher than in places that have access to reliable power.

Again, do you want to be in a hospital with no access to power that can do things like sterilize their equipment or be in one with power?

Which hospital would you want your child born in?