Any Lefties Anywhere Want To Tell Us How Great Cancelling Nuclear Plants Was?

[tommywho70x]

just guesssing, entergy acquired rather than built those plants and the statement reads like misinformation from a shareholders press release. in cost/KwH nuclear is still one of the most expensive under ideal conditions. three mile island and chernobyl show how expensive nuclear can get when something less than ideal happens.

Comparisons
Special thanks to Cold Energy ::: The Future of Power for permission to use material from their painstaking compilation.

.

Traditional Power Generation
Lowest price listed first

Method Cents/kW-h Limitations and Externalities
Gas

Currently supplies around 15% of the global electricity demand. 3.9 - 4.4 Cents/kW-h Gas-fired plants and generally quicker and less expensive to build than coal or nuclear, but a relatively high percentage of the cost/KWh is derived from the cost of the fuel. Due to the current (and projected future) upwards trend in gas prices, there is uncertainty around the cost / KWh over the lifetime of plants. Gas burns more cleanly than coal, but the gas itself (largely methane) is a potent greenhouse gas. Some energy conversions to calculate your cost of natural gas per kwh. 100 cubic feet (CCF)~ 1 Therm = 100,000 btu ~ 29.3 kwh.
Coal

Currently supplies around 38% of the global electricity demand. 4.8 - 5.5 Cents/kW-h Increasingly difficult to build new coal plants in the developed world, due to environmental requirements governing the plants. Growing concern about coal fired plants in the developing world (China, for instance, imposes less environmental overhead, and has large supplies of high sulphur content coal). The supply of coal is plentiful, but the coal generation method is perceived to make a larger contribution to air pollution than the rest of the methods combined.
Nuclear

Currently supplies around 24% of the global electricity demand. 11.1 - 14.5 Cents/kW-h Political difficulties in using nuclear in some nations. Risk of widespread (and potentially lethal) contamination upon containment failure. Fuel is plentiful, but problematic. Waste disposal remains a significant problem, and de-commissioning is costly (averaging approximately US $320MM per plant in the US).

.

Conventional, Renewable Power Generation
Lowest price listed first

Method Cents/kW-h Limitations and Externalities
Wind

Currently supplies approximately 1.4% of the global electricity demand. Wind is considered to be about 30% reliable. 4.0 - 6.0 Cents/kW-h Wind is currently the only cost-effective alternative energy method, but has a number of problems. Wind farms are highly subject to lightning strikes, have high mechanical fatigue failure, are limited in size by hub stress, do not function well, if at all, under conditions of heavy rain, icing conditions or very cold climates, and are noisy and cannot be insulated for sound reduction due to their size and subsequent loss of wind velocity and power.
Geothermal

Currently supplies approximately 0.23% of the global electricity demand. Geothermal is considered 90-95% reliable. 4.5 - 30 Cents/kW-h New low temperature conversion of heat to electricity is likely to make geothermal substantially more plausible (more shallow drilling possible) and less expensive. Generally, the bigger the plant, the less the cost and cost also depends upon the depth to be drilled and the temperature at the depth. The higher the temperature, the lower the cost per kwh. Cost may also be affect by where the drilling is to take place as concerns distance from the grid and another factor may be the permeability of the rock.
Hydro

Currently supplies around 19.9% of the global electricity demand. Hydro is considered to be 60% reliable. 5.1 - 11.3 Cents/kW-h Hydro is currently the only source of renewable energy making substantive contributions to global energy demand. Hydro plants, however, can (obviously) only be built in a limited number of places, and can significantly damage aquatic ecosystems.
Solar

Currently supplies approximately 0.8% of the global electricity demand. 15 - 30 Cents/kW-h Solar power has been expensive, but soon is expected to drop to as low as 3.5 cents/kW-h. Once the silicon shortage is remedied through artificial silicon, a solar energy revolution is expected.

.

Non-Conventional, Available, Renewable Power Generation Technologies
Lowest price listed first

Method Cents/kW-h Limitations and Externalities
Tide

2 - 5 Cents/kW-h Blue Energy's tidal fence, engineered and ready for implementation, would provide a land bridge (road) while also generating electricity. Environmental impact is low. Tides are highly predictable.

.

Non-Conventional, Emerging, Renewable Power Generation Technologies
Lowest price listed first

Method Cents/kW-h Limitations and Externalities
Atmospheric Cold Megawatts

.03 - 1.0 Cents/kW-h Typical installation requires 1 - 2 pipelines approximately 300km in length. Endpoints are placed to maximize historical atmospheric pressure differentials. After construction is complete, however, maintenance is minimal, no raw materials are required, and no environmental externalities are produced.
Thermal Electric

3 - 15 Cents/kW-h ENECO Chip is a "solid state energy conversion/generation chip" that will convert heat directly into electricity. Is more efficient than solar and substantially cheaper. Can be applied to waste heat as well.
OTEC (Ocean Energy Thermal Conversion)

6 - 25 Cents/kW-h Presently not functioning but two plants are to be built. One (agout 1.3 megawatts) is to be started in Kona next year and the other much larger one (about 13 megawatts) is also to be built somewhere in the state later on for the military. I believe that the military spending guide lines state that there must be a reduction in expenditures for electricity over the next few years. A Breakdown of the technology by OCEES Internation, INC.

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

One area in which I wish we resembled the French is in the area of using nuclear power as a major energy source.

Considering the negative effects of our petroleum dependency - oil spill and national security risks - do any of the Lefties want to explain why closing nuclear power plants and preventing new ones from being built was such a good idea?

Oh look, the rightwing braintrust has produced another way to try to blame this on liberals. Did Limbaugh think of this one too?

 

[boedicca]

There is a difference between use and advocacy, they are not synonyms.

Subjective observation, fly over the L.A. basin and tell me what you see.

This is called a strawman. Fairly typical of the type too.

Outside of the basin, a lot of desert within reasonable distance for transmission lines.

Didn't say outside the basin. The point, which you keep trying to obsfucate, is that there are small towns, cities, etc. almost everywhere, plus when chernobyl blew the radiation travelled halfway around the world. Please show me a place in this country that would be immune to such a disaster.

Sorry bub - but you are assuming that plants must be located in densely populated areas.

They don't.

Your strawman's stuffing is falling out.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

i think if she wants it so badly it should be next door to her.

Why? With vast amounts of unpopulated land across the United States, why is it necessary to locate any nuclear power plants in any neighborhood?

That's a pretty desperate argument on your side, but you do get 10 Points For Consistency.

There are few spots in this country where a nuclear accident wouldn't effect the population. Also, since you seem to have missed the point: You're advocating for nuclear power, but you don't want it anywhere near you. Look up the word "hypocrisy".

I did look it up and found your name. Fact is that's a stupid ass argument, she has already stated she lives in an urban area. you do know what an urban area is, don't you? So even if she wanted the damn thing in her back yard, it wouldn't be feasable. You fucking loons must like red herrings cause that's all you fuckers use.

 

[pans trogladyta]

One area in which I wish we resembled the French is in the area of using nuclear power as a major energy source.

Considering the negative effects of our petroleum dependency - oil spill and national security risks - do any of the Lefties want to explain why closing nuclear power plants and preventing new ones from being built was such a good idea?

Oh look, the rightwing braintrust has produced another way to try to blame this on liberals. Did Lilmbaugh think of this one too?

If they (righties) were so in favor of nuclear plants, why didn't they have them built in their neighborhoods?

 

[pans trogladyta]

Why? With vast amounts of unpopulated land across the United States, why is it necessary to locate any nuclear power plants in any neighborhood?

That's a pretty desperate argument on your side, but you do get 10 Points For Consistency.

There are few spots in this country where a nuclear accident wouldn't effect the population. Also, since you seem to have missed the point: You're advocating for nuclear power, but you don't want it anywhere near you. Look up the word "hypocrisy".

I did look it up and found your name. Fact is that's a stupid ass argument, she has already stated she lives in an urban area. you do know what an urban area is, don't you? So even if she wanted the damn thing in her back yard, it wouldn't be feasable. You fucking loons must like red herrings cause that's all you fuckers use.

Nothing here to see at all folks, nope nothing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I think we should all embrace the wisdom - and apply it to nuclear plants - of neocon tit and conservative icon, William Kristol, who said the following:

Fox News contributor Bill Kristol was on Special Report with Bret Baier tonight defending off shore drilling, when he made perhaps the stupidest statement of all time. He said offshore drilling is quite safe, “and very environmentally clean, except where there is a disaster like this.”

And STILL people wonder why conservatism is dead...

 

[boedicca]

Nothing here to see at all folks, nope nothing.

Now this is a very surprising and refreshing bit of Self Awareness on the part of pans trogladyta.

A perfect description of the content of his posts.

Well done, sirruh!

 

[pans trogladyta]

Sorry bub - but you are assuming that plants must be located in densely populated areas.

They don't.

Your strawman's stuffing is falling out.

I take it you diddn't read the part about chernobyls radiation reaching halfway around the world? or the question that followed that observation.

 

[pans trogladyta]

Nothing here to see at all folks, nope nothing.

Now this is a very surprising and refreshing bit of Self Awareness on the part of pans trogladyta.

A perfect description of the content of his posts.

Well done, sirruh!

Can't answer my points so you stoop to this. No less then I expected of you.

 

[boedicca]

When you make a valid point, I'll answer it.

All you are doing is spreading hysteria and misinformation.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I think we should all embrace the wisdom - and apply it to nuclear plants - of neocon tit and conservative icon, William Kristol, who said the following:

Fox News contributor Bill Kristol was on Special Report with Bret Baier tonight defending off shore drilling, when he made perhaps the stupidest statement of all time. He said offshore drilling is quite safe, “and very environmentally clean, except where there is a disaster like this.”

And STILL people wonder why conservatism is dead...

He mispoke, you know that term that Obama has made into a household name. Fact is offshore oil drilling is safe and clean, given the number of oil platforms in the world versus the number of spills, it's relatively low. An oil rig blew up in 1979 in the Bay of Campeche it took us almost ten months to get it under control. There was no significant long term evironmental hazards after an est. 140,000,000 gallons of oil spilled from the eruption.

 

[Dr Gregg]

Totally stupid, especially with today's technology making a meltdown pretty much impossible. We totally should be using more. it's what happens when the irrational fears of the public squash a useful technology for a completely rare occurrence

And please dante, citing something that happened 30 years ago, not indicative of today. Has France had a major meltdown? They even sell off excess energy to neighboring countries they have so much. Granted the waste can be an issue but think it outweighs the benefits and there should be more.

 

[Dr Gregg]

Until we know how to dispose of the waste properly it is not much better than the results we have seen from oil.

it can be contained by very thick walls of lead and cement, deep in a mountain, plus technology is better to recycle the radioactive materials

 

[NYcarbineer]

I think we should all embrace the wisdom - and apply it to nuclear plants - of neocon tit and conservative icon, William Kristol, who said the following:

Fox News contributor Bill Kristol was on Special Report with Bret Baier tonight defending off shore drilling, when he made perhaps the stupidest statement of all time. He said offshore drilling is quite safe, “and very environmentally clean, except where there is a disaster like this.”

And STILL people wonder why conservatism is dead...

He mispoke, you know that term that Obama has made into a household name. Fact is offshore oil drilling is safe and clean, given the number of oil platforms in the world versus the number of spills, it's relatively low. An oil rig blew up in 1979 in the Bay of Campeche it took us almost ten months to get it under control. There was no significant long term evironmental hazards after an est. 140,000,000 gallons of oil spilled from the eruption.

Misspoke about what? Terrorist attacks on US soil are relatively rare too, so why the fuss?

 

[boedicca]

NYC presents a false choice: doing nothing about nuclear power or doing nothing to make sure it is secure.

Prudent measures can be taken to both deal with terrorism and implement safe nuclear power plants.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Totally stupid, especially with today's technology making a meltdown pretty much impossible. We totally should be using more. it's what happens when the irrational fears of the public squash a useful technology for a completely rare occurrence

And please dante, citing something that happened 30 years ago, not indicative of today. Has France had a major meltdown? They even sell off excess energy to neighboring countries they have so much. Granted the waste can be an issue but think it outweighs the benefits and there should be more.

There are 104 nuclear reactors operating in the US, there have been zero fatalities or adverse health effects from radiologic exposure from any commercial nuclear power plant.

 

[boedicca]

Totally stupid, especially with today's technology making a meltdown pretty much impossible. We totally should be using more. it's what happens when the irrational fears of the public squash a useful technology for a completely rare occurrence

And please dante, citing something that happened 30 years ago, not indicative of today. Has France had a major meltdown? They even sell off excess energy to neighboring countries they have so much. Granted the waste can be an issue but think it outweighs the benefits and there should be more.

There are 104 nuclear reactors operating in the US, there have been zero fatalities or adverse health effects from radiologic exposure from any commercial nuclear power plant.

And they use far less land than what would be required to support the country with wind power.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I think we should all embrace the wisdom - and apply it to nuclear plants - of neocon tit and conservative icon, William Kristol, who said the following:

Fox News contributor Bill Kristol was on Special Report with Bret Baier tonight defending off shore drilling, when he made perhaps the stupidest statement of all time. He said offshore drilling is quite safe, “and very environmentally clean, except where there is a disaster like this.”

And STILL people wonder why conservatism is dead...

He mispoke, you know that term that Obama has made into a household name. Fact is offshore oil drilling is safe and clean, given the number of oil platforms in the world versus the number of spills, it's relatively low. An oil rig blew up in 1979 in the Bay of Campeche it took us almost ten months to get it under control. There was no significant long term evironmental hazards after an est. 140,000,000 gallons of oil spilled from the eruption.

Misspoke about what? Terrorist attacks on US soil are relatively rare too, so why the fuss?

Oh brother! Damn you are one stupid fuck!! How did you manage to go from oil rigs to terrorism?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

He mispoke, you know that term that Obama has made into a household name. Fact is offshore oil drilling is safe and clean, given the number of oil platforms in the world versus the number of spills, it's relatively low. An oil rig blew up in 1979 in the Bay of Campeche it took us almost ten months to get it under control. There was no significant long term evironmental hazards after an est. 140,000,000 gallons of oil spilled from the eruption.

Misspoke about what? Terrorist attacks on US soil are relatively rare too, so why the fuss?

Oh brother! Damn you are one stupid fuck!! How did you manage to go from oil rigs to terrorism?

I don't presume to know what the poster intended, but it might have to do with the fact that Bill Kristol is one of the predominant Neo-Conservative leaders, and runs PNAC.