McCain calls for building 45 new nuclear reactors

[Niels Bohr 72]

The burn-up rate of nuclear fuel translate into how much energy one can get from a rod of uranium or plutonium. As we increase the efficiency of these reactors by increasing the burn-up rate, the waste produced will be more hazardous to our environment. The lower the burn-up rate, the less hazardous. The absorbtion dose (human or bio tissue absorbtion) will be high if the nuclear reactors become much more efficient. It doesn't produce any pollutants during operation, but it just stores a much more powerful pollutant that is not disposal or seperable such as sulfuric acid from coal plants. On the hand, some bio-chemists discovered an organism that eat trash, and deficate petroleum. Maybe there's a solution after all for our oil-crisis.

We will get nuclear wastes that takes thousands of years to become stable.

Edited June 19, 2008 by consolemaster

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Nuclear would be a transitional power source - until nuclear power can be made self-sustaining or until efficient alternatives can be made commercially viable.

[GaryC 7]

Nuclear would be a transitional power source - until nuclear power can be made self-sustaining or until efficient alternatives can be made commercially viable.

At some point N-fusion will happen. It may take another 50 years but at some point we will figure it out. We just need to find a way to survive until then. No sense in dismissing viable options just because they are not a permanate fix.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Coal should be done away with in its entirety

[GaryC 7]

Coal should be done away with in its entirety

There are ways of making the emissions green. The soot problem has already been solved and they can now trap the carbon. We have enough coal to run our country for a long time. Why not use it?

[Niels Bohr 72]

Nuclear would be a transitional power source - until nuclear power can be made self-sustaining or until efficient alternatives can be made commercially viable.

At some point N-fusion will happen. It may take another 50 years but at some point we will figure it out. We just need to find a way to survive until then. No sense in dismissing viable options just because they are not a permanate fix.

I will solve that!

I agree coal needs to be done with entirely since, according to the recent WORLD COAL INSTITUTE, we will run out of it in about 140 years or so. It's good to find alternatives. I favor solar cells. Nowadays, to get a wind turbine, you need to be in the right location. As a matter of fact, it costs about 60,000 dollars to have one installed in your backyard. You'll break-even in about 10 years. But, you need to replace it about every 20 years.

I am currently researching how to increase the efficiency of solar cells, and I find it a better option because of the unlimited resource we have from the sun.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Coal should be done away with in its entirety

There are ways of making the emissions green. The soot problem has already been solved and they can now trap the carbon. We have enough coal to run our country for a long time. Why not use it?

From what i understand the process of making the coal "green" adds significantly to the cost of energy production.

Not to mention that the process of extracting the coal is far from clean...

[GaryC 7]

Nuclear would be a transitional power source - until nuclear power can be made self-sustaining or until efficient alternatives can be made commercially viable.

At some point N-fusion will happen. It may take another 50 years but at some point we will figure it out. We just need to find a way to survive until then. No sense in dismissing viable options just because they are not a permanate fix.

I will solve that!

I agree coal needs to be done with entirely since, according to the recent WORLD COAL INSTITUTE, we will run out of it in about 140 years or so. It's good to find alternatives. I favor solar cells. Nowadays, to get a wind turbine, you need to be in the right location. As a matter of fact, it costs about 60,000 dollars to have one installed in your backyard. You'll break-even in about 10 years. But, you need to replace it about every 20 years.

I am currently researching how to increase the efficiency of solar cells, and I find it a better option because of the unlimited resource we have from the sun.

Unless you have $500 electric bills each month you will not break even using your example. Wind farms may supplement our energy but they take up a lot of real estate. We have a big one just down the road from here. Several square miles that can't be used for anything else. Solar is a good option. They need to work on thin film collectors and get the efficency up before it will make much of an impact also. But right now, today, if you want to reduce or eleminate our use of imported oil the only real option is coal and nuclear. If we can find a way to produce electricity in greater quantities than we do today then plug in electric cars start making sense. Also if we had abundent electricity we could use that to make hydrogen to power fuel cell cars. There are ways to reduce and eventualy eleminate our need for oil. But we have to make trade offs to do it.

Coal should be done away with in its entirety

There are ways of making the emissions green. The soot problem has already been solved and they can now trap the carbon. We have enough coal to run our country for a long time. Why not use it?

From what i understand the process of making the coal "green" adds significantly to the cost of energy production.

Not to mention that the process of extracting the coal is far from clean...

It does, but it is still better than burning $150/barrel oil to make electricity.

[Niels Bohr 72]

GaryC,

The Federal Government will help pay for people who want to use alternative energy such as wind power. Some state government will too support this endeavor like Massachusetts. Yes, it does costs 60,000 dollar. But, when the state is give you like 20-30,000 dollars or more I think it would make it off by itself.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It does, but it is still better than burning $150/barrel oil to make electricity.

Right - but if we expand the nuclear programme significantly we can get the country completely off of coal.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Unless you have $500 electric bills each month you will not break even using your example.

The idea is that you sell power to the grid. A wind turbine generates a bit more than your household would use. So, you don't have an electric bill but rather you get paid month after month for the power you make available. Then the calculation works.

[darkhorse 0]

GaryC,

The Federal Government will help pay for people who want to use alternative energy such as wind power. Some state government will too support this endeavor like Massachusetts. Yes, it does costs 60,000 dollar. But, when the state is give you like 20-30,000 dollars or more I think it would make it off by itself.

Hey Jackwad= When you say the government will give you money to make up for it... where do you think the government gets the money? I'll tell you where= from us the people and for an inefficient form of energy- I'll take coal, hyrdraulic or nuclear any day than pay double, triple or more for my electric bill.

When wind and solar energy are efficient enough for consumer cosumption- trust me, someone or a company will produce it and we will all benefit from it.

My basic philosophy is this- A government cannot produce anything (it can only tax and regulate). It takes entrepenuers, businesses and corporations to actually produce the goods or services we all want and need. Think about it for a minute... name a good or service the government actually provides. There will be few answers to that question and then ask yourself how efficient is the government at providing those?

[darkhorse 0]

It does, but it is still better than burning $150/barrel oil to make electricity.

dude, I agree with you mostly but if you find an oil fired electricity plant somewhere, let me know where it is.

Most, if not all of our electricity in the U.S. is either Coal, Nuclear, natural gas or hydro electric.

Most if not all of the oil we use goes toward lubricants and petrolium (gas for cars).

[darkhorse 0]

Coal should be done away with in its entirety

No it shouldnt- Why should we shoot ourselves in the collective foot by doing this?

I tell you what, if you dont like it so much, why dont you live without electricty for a few weeks or months to save the emissions.

But dont try to make me or the rest of world buy off on that hippy green #######.

We as a country have been doing this for years and trust me, if we hadn't been doing it, there wouldnt even be a debate about coal being so dirty because most of us would not be around. My point is, we've enjoyed so much from the benefits of coal fired electrical plants. Without them, American society as we know it would be non existant- so dont demonize coal.

[HAL 9000 96]

Please desist from name calling.

*********************************

Gary- this is a more logical and less impactive (save for the nuclear waste issue- Yucca Mtn and vitrified waste aside), on the environment AND our pocketbooks. Simple proportions here. Increasing the nuclear output will decrease significantly the energy grid part of the petroleum consumption in our market. Vehicles will have a much greater supply pool, and we won't have to seek questionable, short term petroleum deposits offshore.

Gas prices go down, etc.

I doubt we'll get Fusion in the next 2 decades but from what I've heard over in the Physical Sciences Division on campus its not far off after that (on a commercial scale).

Then I hope we can use the Fission reactors for something a little less radioactive.