Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

  • Don't miss out on all the fun! Register on our forums to post and have added features! Membership levels include a FREE membership tier.

Wow, an energy plan that actually generates energy.

o-bamma didn't sponshur it, not gonna fly. Probably won't even hear a blurb about it on the "news".
 
Nimby's kill Nuclear time and time again. Worked on a project were Mitsubishi was going to give a nuclear reactor to a village free of charge. Special intrests killed it.

I think this energy bill they dreamed up in a joke imo. 100 reactors? In 20 years? I don't buy it.

Both sides have sat there for the past 20 years doing nothing but arguing about crap that is not realistic, or viable.

When they come out with a plan that includes, oil and natural gas development, nuclear, clean coal, and hydro... a actual plan. Not just some garbage thrown together so they can point fingers and say "look it is their fault" I will have a bit more faith. But with our great "leaders" I am not holding my breath.
 
Don't forget, they tried to force nuclear back in the 70's. Dang near bankrupted a bunch of power producers, when the greenies started protesting, and shutting down plants, an piling regulations on them.

I like nuclear, but you have to get them built before the greenies get organized, and get a new crop of politicians in office, that shut the projects down mid stream. An unfinished nuclear complex, is worse than worthless.

Heck just start building nuclear power plants, you don't have to shoot for a 100. Get 10 started. That would be a great change.
 
It's certainly one of the cleanest and most efficient forms of energy known to man. Ironically, the "green" sources aren't very clean when you consider the resources needed to build them.
 
Don't forget, they tried to force nuclear back in the 70's. Dang near bankrupted a bunch of power producers, when the greenies started protesting, and shutting down plants, an piling regulations on them.

I like nuclear, but you have to get them built before the greenies get organized, and get a new crop of politicians in office, that shut the projects down mid stream. An unfinished nuclear complex, is worse than worthless.

Heck just start building nuclear power plants, you don't have to shoot for a 100. Get 10 started. That would be a great change.

Ah, but here's an interesting thing.
The greenies (their leaders anyway) have publically admitted the worst mistake they have made was fighting nuclear energy. The alternative is much worse. They openly admit they should have pushed for nuclear power instead of fighting it.

I don't think you would see the opposition to it as long as you put in the proper context. That being, one nuke plant replaces 3 coal plants.

Also, building 100 nuke plants in 20 years, no problem. We just waisted more money than it would take to build em.
 
It's certainly one of the cleanest and most efficient forms of energy known to man. Ironically, the "green" sources aren't very clean when you consider the resources needed to build them.

A wind turbine takes about 6 months to net zero, then it is all beneficial after that.

That plan would be great, if we had a place to put the waste I believe that is the only issue right now with them.
 
Last edited:
A wind turbine takes about 6 months to net zero, then it is all beneficial after that.

That plan would be great, if we had a place to put the waste I believe that is the only issue right now with them.

course our infrasturcture is ready to run nuke power. And we still need better storage for wind and the whole wind turbines in the horizion, etc

You read that book I told ya about yet?
 
The problem with wind turbines is you need wind to make them work. Funny thing is that average wind speeds are falling off. What do you do for power when the whirly birds are still?

http://www.knmi.nl/samenw/hydra/faq/u_trend_en.htm

Netherlands = World? and why does the graph only go to like 5 m/s? Must be averaged data. Since wind power is not linear with wind speed, averaged data doesn't do much to talk about power output of a wind turbine. It does, kind of..

So are you assuming that wind will fall off to zero? No more wind? :eek: That means no more weather...

Anyways, what you do is turn on the generation that was initially displaced by the wind in the first place.
 
Last edited:
course our infrasturcture is ready to run nuke power. And we still need better storage for wind and the whole wind turbines in the horizion, etc

You read that book I told ya about yet?

like ten pages...

Actually it is not ready for nuke power. Well it depends. Where you putting those nukes? Were ever you put them, you need lots of transmission, and only one line section to a load center is poor from a reliablity stand point.

Yep lots more storage would be good, but more transmission gets rid of that issue, and the ability to vary load (demand side metering) has the effect to take away some of that. Geographic dispersion is another means though..
 
Ruffy hits on a good point.
Power generation isn't the only problem.
Power distrobution is also a huge problem. Our power grid has been allowed to degrade to the point it is actually pretty fragile. That is why when Obama said he wanted to infuse a lot of cash into the infastruture of the country I was all for it. Too bad he didn't follow thru.
 
That is why when Obama said he wanted to infuse a lot of cash into the infastruture of the country I was all for it. Too bad he didn't follow thru.

Yep, I was disappointed in that too, greatly disappointed. I guess we just have different definitions of "infrastructure"... lol
 
Yep, I was disappointed in that too, greatly disappointed. I guess we just have different definitions of "infrastructure"... lol

Well I guess if you consider dog parks, personal airports for senators, free housing and such as infastruture, he did all right.
 
Nuclear waste:

There is a technology under development that allows for the reprocessing of the spent fuel rods that will get rid of 99% of the radioactivity. Technology will be ready in 10 years.

I read that on Popular Mechanics in the latest issue......

So even that argument of "where are we going to put all this waste" seems to be a red hearing.

If people are so worried about spent fuel rods, I volunteer to put all the spent fuel rods in protective containers in a cave below my house.......
 
I believe it is in Japan.
They have small sealed, self contained nuclear reactor. They are small, about the size of a pickup. Produce enough power to power a small town for 10 years. Then just replace the whole thing with a new one.
 
Nuclear waste:

There is a technology under development that allows for the reprocessing of the spent fuel rods that will get rid of 99% of the radioactivity. Technology will be ready in 10 years.

I read that on Popular Mechanics in the latest issue......

So even that argument of "where are we going to put all this waste" seems to be a red hearing.

If people are so worried about spent fuel rods, I volunteer to put all the spent fuel rods in protective containers in a cave below my house.......
It's called a "Fast Reactor" (Discover Magazine)

INL Proposal

Wikipedia
 
like ten pages...

Actually it is not ready for nuke power. Well it depends. Where you putting those nukes? Were ever you put them, you need lots of transmission, and only one line section to a load center is poor from a reliablity stand point.

Yep lots more storage would be good, but more transmission gets rid of that issue, and the ability to vary load (demand side metering) has the effect to take away some of that. Geographic dispersion is another means though..

I guess I forgot about that part of it...the old can't stand alone grid.

Put your head down and by like chapter 10 the book gets good...course your kinda nerd like so you will like all of it.
 
Premium Features



Back
Top