Total cost of nuclear

[flacaltenn]

Alright, well first of all i think you both are right to some degree. If i can understand you all is that Nuclear power is probably not the best option, but where we are getting stuck is how do you replace the gap in or energy consumption? I feel that it's everything, now let me explain. first i think the main deal is, we need to stop using so much, as a country and as a planet. And obviously when i mean we as a planet, i mean people in developed countries.

what do i mean by this? well it is said that nuclear is about 25% of our power (which to tell you the truth could be inflated) but lets just go with it. if we alone did not have huge houses, huge TVs ( i mean you would be amazed how much energy it is to heat one of those huge houses). To be honest, the list goes on... So what i'm talking about, is conservation. and if there is any extra energy we need to take care of, then you turn tooooo natural energy..

solar panels on every stinkin house in the country; every building ect. also though ,solar farms in teh southern deserts, wind farms near the coasts and idaho (boy is that place windy) and geo thermal in places (probably in the west coast.

I'm a HUGE proponent of nuclear. But I'm never proposing we shove it down the market's and the people's throats. Build out the NEW designs in remote locations and ATTEMPT to test them to destruction -- if that's what it takes to understand the safety implications. Then once tested -- Cut the heck of out of the approval process.

Solar in the desert would still require an 80% of peak generator (some other type) to get you though the nighttime. And geothermal is a dirty mining operation that shouldn't be on the list of clean, green alternatives.

 

[Speaker]

I dont trust humans with nuclear. We are to irresponsible, greedy, and ignorant of something with with the power to destroy worlds. That is my point. I dont care about the jobs lost from the Nuclear industry, hell i dont care about the jobs lost from any industry, if its destroying my fucking planet. No one should be able to walk in here and destroy my home, my planet, and ruin the lives of future people. Fuck you industy.

 

[Old Rocks]

Alright, well first of all i think you both are right to some degree. If i can understand you all is that Nuclear power is probably not the best option, but where we are getting stuck is how do you replace the gap in or energy consumption? I feel that it's everything, now let me explain. first i think the main deal is, we need to stop using so much, as a country and as a planet. And obviously when i mean we as a planet, i mean people in developed countries.

what do i mean by this? well it is said that nuclear is about 25% of our power (which to tell you the truth could be inflated) but lets just go with it. if we alone did not have huge houses, huge TVs ( i mean you would be amazed how much energy it is to heat one of those huge houses). To be honest, the list goes on... So what i'm talking about, is conservation. and if there is any extra energy we need to take care of, then you turn tooooo natural energy..

solar panels on every stinkin house in the country; every building ect. also though ,solar farms in teh southern deserts, wind farms near the coasts and idaho (boy is that place windy) and geo thermal in places (probably in the west coast.

I'm a HUGE proponent of nuclear. But I'm never proposing we shove it down the market's and the people's throats. Build out the NEW designs in remote locations and ATTEMPT to test them to destruction -- if that's what it takes to understand the safety implications. Then once tested -- Cut the heck of out of the approval process.

Solar in the desert would still require an 80% of peak generator (some other type) to get you though the nighttime. And geothermal is a dirty mining operation that shouldn't be on the list of clean, green alternatives.

Yes, nukes, third, fourth, and even fifth, Thorium, generation nukes are going to have to be part of our energy solution. But they must have a reasonable failsafe design. The reason that there is such distrust of nuclear in this nation is the way nuclear was sold to us in the first place. "The energy will be so cheap, that you will not even need to meter it". Turned out to be very expensive. "The process is completely safe, it cannot fail catastophically". Three Mile Island. Chernobyl. Fukashima. The trust of the people of most nations will be very hard to win back.

Solar in the desert? How about solar on the top of warehouses, commercial buildings, and home rooftops? Much more efficient there in the immediate vicinity of use. Since our greatest use of electricity is in the daytime, solar would be adding it's wattage to the grid at the time of greatest need.

Geothermal is not a 'dirty mining operation' and has very great promise for this nation, over the whole nation. This is a lengthy study from MIT;

http://web.mit.edu/mitei/research/studies/documents/geothermal-energy/geothermal-energy-full.pdf

 

[Douger]

It's wonderful ! The sushi wont have any bacteria ! Eat all you want !

 

[flacaltenn]

Alright, well first of all i think you both are right to some degree. If i can understand you all is that Nuclear power is probably not the best option, but where we are getting stuck is how do you replace the gap in or energy consumption? I feel that it's everything, now let me explain. first i think the main deal is, we need to stop using so much, as a country and as a planet. And obviously when i mean we as a planet, i mean people in developed countries.

what do i mean by this? well it is said that nuclear is about 25% of our power (which to tell you the truth could be inflated) but lets just go with it. if we alone did not have huge houses, huge TVs ( i mean you would be amazed how much energy it is to heat one of those huge houses). To be honest, the list goes on... So what i'm talking about, is conservation. and if there is any extra energy we need to take care of, then you turn tooooo natural energy..

solar panels on every stinkin house in the country; every building ect. also though ,solar farms in teh southern deserts, wind farms near the coasts and idaho (boy is that place windy) and geo thermal in places (probably in the west coast.

I'm a HUGE proponent of nuclear. But I'm never proposing we shove it down the market's and the people's throats. Build out the NEW designs in remote locations and ATTEMPT to test them to destruction -- if that's what it takes to understand the safety implications. Then once tested -- Cut the heck of out of the approval process.

Solar in the desert would still require an 80% of peak generator (some other type) to get you though the nighttime. And geothermal is a dirty mining operation that shouldn't be on the list of clean, green alternatives.

Yes, nukes, third, fourth, and even fifth, Thorium, generation nukes are going to have to be part of our energy solution. But they must have a reasonable failsafe design. The reason that there is such distrust of nuclear in this nation is the way nuclear was sold to us in the first place. "The energy will be so cheap, that you will not even need to meter it". Turned out to be very expensive. "The process is completely safe, it cannot fail catastophically". Three Mile Island. Chernobyl. Fukashima. The trust of the people of most nations will be very hard to win back.

Solar in the desert? How about solar on the top of warehouses, commercial buildings, and home rooftops? Much more efficient there in the immediate vicinity of use. Since our greatest use of electricity is in the daytime, solar would be adding it's wattage to the grid at the time of greatest need.

Geothermal is not a 'dirty mining operation' and has very great promise for this nation, over the whole nation. This is a lengthy study from MIT;

http://web.mit.edu/mitei/research/studies/documents/geothermal-energy/geothermal-energy-full.pdf

You want to play Whack-A-Mole again? We did this dance about a year ago..
Don't care how big a govt grant MIT got to write nice about geothermal, we have over 20 years of solid experience with geothermal and it stinks.. Lemme repeat..

Geothermal Electricity Generation is a Dirty Mining Operation

Far Worse than nat gas extraction. And it's NOT renewable or clean.. The wells cool off, they need to be redrilled and the effluent is SOOOO corrosive that the whole dam mining operation needs to be periodically rebuilt.. Lemme also remind you of the discussion we had a year ago..


Puna Geothermal Blowout | Blowout Shuts Geothermal Unit in Hawaii - Los Angeles Times

HONOLULU — Hawaii state officials ordered a geothermal company to halt all drilling Friday after a well blowout spewed toxic gas and routed 75 people from their homes on the island of Hawaii.

Opponents of geothermal drilling near the nation's last remaining tropical rain forest claimed the accident shows Hawaii's volcanic resource may be unmanageable.

I NEED A RESPONSE from you here Ole Rocks. _________________________________________________________ sorry flacaltenn -- I forget that Geothermal is a Dirty Mining Operation..

Did you read about those folks in Hawaii in the MIT report? They LIED about pollution effects. Need another memory jog?

Minister urges calm after geothermal well blowout, Chile, Electric Power, news

hile's energy minister Marcelo Tokman urged industry officials to take a recent geothermal well blowout in their stride and said the renewable energy source still had great potential in the country.

ScienceDirect.com - Geothermics - Dramatic incidents during drilling at Wairakei Geothermal Field, New Zealand

The future of geothermal power as a potential source of power in the Hawaiian islands has been thrown into doubt by an uncontrolled release of steam at a drilling site on the Big Island near the island's active volcano.

Opponents of geothermal power say that the blowout shows that drilling is dangerous to both residents and the environment. But the drilling company insists that the mishap indicates the potential of the geothermal resource is much greater than first thought, and that it is much easier to reach than expected.

Maurice Richard, from the Puna Geothermal Venture, claims that there is a danger of an overreaction to what happened at the well. Next Thursday, reports will be made public on what went wrong, the health risks posed by the escape of hydrogen sulphide, and the slow emergency response. These are expected to result in tighter controls over the drilling of wells. ...

Need the National Parks Service to tell you that Geothermal is a dirty mining operation???

Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center

Approval of the Fourmile Hill project brought on wave of appeals - by the Pit River Tribe, Native Coalition for Medicine Lake Highlands Defense and Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center (which have collectively formed a Native/Bioregional Alliance) represented by the EarthJustice Legal Defense Fund, and by a coalition of environmental groups. The appeals decry violations of the National Environmental Policy Act, National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act.

Even Calpine Corporation appealed the Fourmile Hill decision due to some of the stringent measures that the NHPA Section 106 Process placed on the project attempting to mitigate adverse impacts on Native American cultural uses, and the five-year moratorium temporarily preventing further geothermal development contained in the Record of Decision.

EPA, NPS VOICE CONCERNS

The National Parks Service has stated that the annual emissions of 17 tons of hydrogen sulfide-2 1/2 times more than was disclosed in the EIS-constitutes a "serious discrepancy" that needs to be "reconciled." Furthermore, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resource Board stated that the power plant portion of the project was issued without offering the public opportunity to review and comment on the permit.

It'll take another one won't it OleRocks?? You're still not gonna remember that GeoThermal is a dirty mining operation unless you hear it from the Sierra Club I bet..

Sierra Club Conservation Policies - Geothermal Energy

Its availability for direct use and for conversion to other forms of energy is, however, presently restricted to the utilization of naturally occurring underground reservoirs of hot water or steam. These are limited in number and capacity, generally depletable, and in many cases geographically situated far from sites of energy demand.

Also, the exploitation of these reservoirs is frequently accompanied by detrimental impacts on the environment. Among these are the emission of toxic gases and chemical substances which result in the degradation of air quality, the threat of water pollution, damage to living organisms, and hazards to public health. Additional problems arise from the heavily industrial character of geothermal operations for electrical generation; the frequent occurrence of exceptional natural, scenic, and archaeological values in geothermal resource areas; and the adverse effects that geothermal fluid removal may have on nearby hot springs and other natural thermal features

I got a million of them Dude. How many do you need? You're deluded and sometimes you purposely IGNORE shit so that you can continue to spout the SOS..

Anyone else not convinced --- look up the New Zealand track record with Geothermal.

Geothermal is a Dirty Mining Operation.

 

[Unkotare]

if everyone in America knows about the real cost of nuclear power, then we have a chance to get rid of it.

We don't want to get rid of it and we are not going to get rid of it.

 

[Unkotare]

Alright, well first of all i think you both are right to some degree. If i can understand you all is that Nuclear power is probably not the best option, but where we are getting stuck is how do you replace the gap in or energy consumption? I feel that it's everything, now let me explain. first i think the main deal is, we need to stop using so much, as a country and as a planet. And obviously when i mean we as a planet, i mean people in developed countries.

what do i mean by this? well it is said that nuclear is about 25% of our power (which to tell you the truth could be inflated) but lets just go with it. if we alone did not have huge houses, huge TVs ( i mean you would be amazed how much energy it is to heat one of those huge houses). To be honest, the list goes on... So what i'm talking about, is conservation. and if there is any extra energy we need to take care of, then you turn tooooo natural energy..

solar panels on every stinkin house in the country; every building ect. also though ,solar farms in teh southern deserts, wind farms near the coasts and idaho (boy is that place windy) and geo thermal in places (probably in the west coast.

And what will you read about next year in the 4th grade?

 

[flacaltenn]

I'm feeling a littte guilty about that geothermal beat-down I posted above to help OldRocks memory problem.

All that said about geothermal being a dirty mining operation --- I don't OPPOSE it. I actually think it's a neat concept. My goal in beating on it is to get the eco-frauds to stop calling it clean and renewable (which it isn't) with absolutely no down sides or safety issues (like that phoney ass MIT grant report).

And to get the eco-frauds to admit that it is a minor SUPPLEMENT -- not an ALTERNATIVE to our energy generation composition. Just want FAIR comparisions and truth in advertising -- that's all.

If you can have mining operations for geothermal -- you can CERTAINLY have nat gas extraction without large impact to the overall environment.

 

[flake]

Well agree with you on this term that the ford and diesel never intend car to use the gasoline.

I visited that link and really get mine desired information which I was searching for...

 

[Douger]

BUT BUT
GaWd Blast murka !
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXFUUGeV1DI]Ann Coulter Says Radiation Is Good For You - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Old Rocks]

I'm feeling a littte guilty about that geothermal beat-down I posted above to help OldRocks memory problem.

All that said about geothermal being a dirty mining operation --- I don't OPPOSE it. I actually think it's a neat concept. My goal in beating on it is to get the eco-frauds to stop calling it clean and renewable (which it isn't) with absolutely no down sides or safety issues (like that phoney ass MIT grant report).

And to get the eco-frauds to admit that it is a minor SUPPLEMENT -- not an ALTERNATIVE to our energy generation composition. Just want FAIR comparisions and truth in advertising -- that's all.

If you can have mining operations for geothermal -- you can CERTAINLY have nat gas extraction without large impact to the overall environment.

Somehow I put more weight to what the engineers at MIT state, than what a ananamous internet poster states.

 

[bobgnote]

And the same reasoning applies to fracking, which applies to nuclear power. If an idiot like Fathead gets ahold of it, we don't want any.

Idiots like Fathead are all over America. Ask me about how Fathead thinks GHGs can be voodoo'd, to look like ozone.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Bullshit fear mongering.

Nuclear especially new prototype small nukes are safe as they are self limiting and do not require large volumes of water for cooling there fore they can be buried underground.

You should ask yourself what the cost is of not exploiting safe emission free nuclear energy to the maximum amount possible.

 

[flacaltenn]

I'm feeling a littte guilty about that geothermal beat-down I posted above to help OldRocks memory problem.

All that said about geothermal being a dirty mining operation --- I don't OPPOSE it. I actually think it's a neat concept. My goal in beating on it is to get the eco-frauds to stop calling it clean and renewable (which it isn't) with absolutely no down sides or safety issues (like that phoney ass MIT grant report).

And to get the eco-frauds to admit that it is a minor SUPPLEMENT -- not an ALTERNATIVE to our energy generation composition. Just want FAIR comparisions and truth in advertising -- that's all.

If you can have mining operations for geothermal -- you can CERTAINLY have nat gas extraction without large impact to the overall environment.

Somehow I put more weight to what the engineers at MIT state, than what a ananamous internet poster states.

More weight than to the SIERRA CLUB and 75 families in Hawaii displaced by a Geothermal blow-out at the edge of a pristine rain forest?

 

[Speaker]

has anyone watched the entire video of the thread? BECAUSE IT EXPLAINS IT ALL THERE

 

[flacaltenn]

has anyone watched the entire video of the thread? BECAUSE IT EXPLAINS IT ALL THERE

Yeah I did.. You misrepresented who the "brilliant man" was. Turns out he's a math teacher who has problems with fabricated large numbers. There is no $Mill liability for each person exposed to Fukishima.. I told you 20 posts ago that I VOLUNTEERED for a dose of radiation 100 times LARGER than MOST people your guy is referring to got from Fukishima. That nuclear medicine procedure saved my life..

Do I deserve a Million bucks for that exposure "risk"?????

I asked you that before and you were unresponsive or didn't understand the bearing that question had on what's presented in the video...

 

[Speaker]

do millions of people need to be exposed, just because some people are partial retards, and they think that everything that people with a title do and say are true? because of people like you, we all must suffer? maybe everyone who supports nuclear energy should live next to Fukishima, if its not so bad. walk your talk you son of a bitch.

 

[flacaltenn]

Wouldn't want to live ANYWHERE on that coast that was wiped from the face of the earth by a terrible disaster. Idiots who project their biases and political positions on catastrophes like that are demeaning the death destruction and pain that resulted from that act of nature..

 

[Speaker]

I really dont think you are smart, and i think you should get off this forum. The reason i say this is because people look at these, and the things that you say make others like the way you do. Stupidity in humans is VERY contagious.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Fukishima failed because of the tsunami.

There was no problem with that reactor. The mistake there was placement.

There are prototype reactors that are safe because there is no need to place them near a large water source. One such small reactor could power 20,000 homes for up to 30 years without refueling and 98% of the reactor fuel can be recycled so any waste is negligible.

To foment fear of all nuclear power because of one natural disaster is disingenuous at best.