Wind or Nuclear?

[Annie]

Wind or Nuclear? - Ray Harvey - Mises Institute

Energy is like a river; it exists in two ways: flows and stores.

When you store energy, you create a dam to capture it.

What environmentalists call "renewable energy" is really just the stored energy of the sun.

In actuality, there's no such thing as "renewable energy": all energy, even the sun, is limited.

This is a good point even if it is semantics. even wind power is not "renewable" Once the wind has gone past a turbine, the energy is transferred to the turbine. that particular chunk of wind is gone not reused.

Fossil fuels are energy stores as well — specifically, they are stored solar energy, a process that takes millions of years — and they are highly concentrated, ten times more so than, for instance, wood.

In terms of wind and raw solar energy, the flow is exceptionally diluted: solar is ten to fifty times less concentrated than fossil fuel. When you can't concentrate it, then the only way to harvest it is to use more and more land. That's the limiting factor for both sun and wind energy.

T. Boone Pickens's now-infamous plan would require 1,200 square miles for a single power plant.

Compare that to nuclear, which would require only one square mile.

here is the rub for environmentalists. Do you want more and more acreage used for wind and solar until as far as the eye can see not one square inch of open land is left or do you want the same energy producing, greenhouse gas free energy produced at smaller unobtrusive plants that can be built almost entirely underground?



It seem counter intuitive to me to ignore the one energy resource that we own. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal and yet we demonize its use rather than investing in ways to make coal cleaner, we have decided to make energy from coal unaffordable.





that last bit is part of the problem with wind and solar. we have to wait for the diluted energy to come to us. Here in New England, June has been one of the cloudiest on record in the last 50 years. Solar dependence would have left a lot of us in the dark. we do not live in a good wind corridor here so ant power produced by wind would have to be transported here at great expense. Or we could build small reactors to supply all the regional power we could ever want.


subsidizing only adds to our costs. Not only do we pay higher prices for less efficient energy sources but our tax burden increases to subsidize these power sources.






Again if reducing transmission distances of power is less expensive, why do we insist on putting all our energy needs on power that has to be transmitted over vast distances because it can only be produced in the most remote locations? Is it worth the trillions of dollars it will cost?

And once again we see the hypocrisy of Pickens and his ilk. it's fine for him to have tax payer foot the bill for his projects as long as he get the profit and doesn't have to look at a windmill out of his living room window.



I still don't understand this especially when you factor in the true amount of nuclear waste produced by a reactor and not the inflated quantity the alarmists say is produced.



More bang for the buck but we still would rather spend our money on the most inefficient energy rather than the most efficient.



I've posted articles that have said this very same thing about so called nuclear waste. once again our government doesn't allow the recycling or reuse of nuclear materials so rather than benefiting from nuclear, we would rather pursue less efficient but more expensive power sources.

Why haven't you heard this? A writer for the New Yorker magazine named John McPhee in 1974 published a highly influential book called The Curve of Binding Energy, which convinced President Jimmy Carter (et al.) that people could steal used plutonium from nuclear plants and makes bombs with it. But this is untrue. Nevertheless, solely on the basis of this detrimental misinformation, our country now has fifty thousand tons of nuclear "waste," because our government won't allow nuclear plants to reuse it.

The stated policy of the Department of Energy (DOE) is "not to reprocess" a perfectly reusable byproduct — and all for absolutely no good reason. That is why Yucca Mountain is unnecessarily, and at great cost, being built in southwestern Nevada to store a nuclear "waste" that could instead be simply and efficiently reused.

Nuclear "waste" is also used for medical isotopes. Over forty percent of medicine now is nuclear medicine. Currently, we must import all our nuclear isotopes because we're not allowed to use any of our own. This is not only profligate; it's a kind of lunacy.

We're the only country in the world that doesn't reuse its nuclear byproducts. Nuclear energy is the cleanest, most efficient energy we have — by light years. Anyone who tells you differently, is flat-out wrong.

And I'll add that we'll all be flat out broke because we are pursuing the flat out wrong course on energy.

Nuclear and learning to 'recycle' it.

 

[JBeukema]

an ad hom and a strawman in on shot

Well, we know better than to ever take you seriously

 

[mdn2000]

an ad hom and a strawman in on shot

Well, we know better than to ever take you seriously

Did my fact stump you or did you decide you best figure out what the hell the truth is.

 

[JBeukema]

you don't even see why what you said was retarded, do you?

 

[mdn2000]

you don't even see why what you said was retarded, do you?

so it did stump you, just checking

 

[Polk]

Wind or nuclear? Why the option? Why not both?

 

[mdn2000]

Wind or nuclear? Why the option? Why not both?

because nukes produce, wind power uses

I know thats real complicated but Nukes are so powerful they are profitable and Wind is so weak you have to have a power source much, much, larger than the wind farms are able to produce.

See if you had only wind power, its so weak and puny you would not be able to provide power to industry, lets say the only industry to power was the industry that makes windmills, the power coming from a windmill could not power that industry.

If it was solely Nuclear power you could power an industry any where in the entire world.

Try an experiment, blow on your hand, as hard as you can, thats the same power as the strongest wind against the giant windmills that weigh more than 200 tons.

Now take your hand, turn on the stove, and put your hand on the stove, see the difference in energy, if your stove is gas your had cant take that type of energy, its just too strong, but you can blow on your hand all you want and nothing happens.

I hope that is stated simple enough.

 

[JBeukema]

Nuclear energy is a finite resource

relying on it is just repeating what we just did with oil


nuclear is a transitional fuel source only

 

[Polk]

Wind or nuclear? Why the option? Why not both?

because nukes produce, wind power uses

I know thats real complicated but Nukes are so powerful they are profitable and Wind is so weak you have to have a power source much, much, larger than the wind farms are able to produce.

See if you had only wind power, its so weak and puny you would not be able to provide power to industry, lets say the only industry to power was the industry that makes windmills, the power coming from a windmill could not power that industry.

If it was solely Nuclear power you could power an industry any where in the entire world.

Try an experiment, blow on your hand, as hard as you can, thats the same power as the strongest wind against the giant windmills that weigh more than 200 tons.

Now take your hand, turn on the stove, and put your hand on the stove, see the difference in energy, if your stove is gas your had cant take that type of energy, its just too strong, but you can blow on your hand all you want and nothing happens.

I hope that is stated simple enough.

If that was true, no one would be building wind power plants.

 

[mdn2000]

Wind or nuclear? Why the option? Why not both?

because nukes produce, wind power uses

I know thats real complicated but Nukes are so powerful they are profitable and Wind is so weak you have to have a power source much, much, larger than the wind farms are able to produce.

See if you had only wind power, its so weak and puny you would not be able to provide power to industry, lets say the only industry to power was the industry that makes windmills, the power coming from a windmill could not power that industry.

If it was solely Nuclear power you could power an industry any where in the entire world.

Try an experiment, blow on your hand, as hard as you can, thats the same power as the strongest wind against the giant windmills that weigh more than 200 tons.

Now take your hand, turn on the stove, and put your hand on the stove, see the difference in energy, if your stove is gas your had cant take that type of energy, its just too strong, but you can blow on your hand all you want and nothing happens.

I hope that is stated simple enough.

If that was true, no one would be building wind power plants.

Thats not a very good arguement, its not an arguement at all. You ever consider that someone may be making a fortune making windmills than forcing taxpayer to buy them.

You dont know what your talking about.

 

[Intense]

because nukes produce, wind power uses

I know thats real complicated but Nukes are so powerful they are profitable and Wind is so weak you have to have a power source much, much, larger than the wind farms are able to produce.

See if you had only wind power, its so weak and puny you would not be able to provide power to industry, lets say the only industry to power was the industry that makes windmills, the power coming from a windmill could not power that industry.

If it was solely Nuclear power you could power an industry any where in the entire world.

Try an experiment, blow on your hand, as hard as you can, thats the same power as the strongest wind against the giant windmills that weigh more than 200 tons.

Now take your hand, turn on the stove, and put your hand on the stove, see the difference in energy, if your stove is gas your had cant take that type of energy, its just too strong, but you can blow on your hand all you want and nothing happens.

I hope that is stated simple enough.

If that was true, no one would be building wind power plants.

Thats not a very good arguement, its not an arguement at all. You ever consider that someone may be making a fortune making windmills than forcing taxpayer to buy them.

You dont know what your talking about.

Doesn't Whirlpool have deal with the Fed's on Windmills? I can't find anything on it.

 

[Care4all]

i know the nuclear power plants in florida have some deal with the government to charge my parents for the electric company's new power plant they are building for their future prospective customers, which is ABSOLUTE BULL CRUD!

MY dad said the electric company should give him shares in their company stock so he could benefit from the profit the nuke plant will make down the road off of their new customers using the nuke plant my dad was forced by law, to pay for....

 

[Polk]

because nukes produce, wind power uses

I know thats real complicated but Nukes are so powerful they are profitable and Wind is so weak you have to have a power source much, much, larger than the wind farms are able to produce.

See if you had only wind power, its so weak and puny you would not be able to provide power to industry, lets say the only industry to power was the industry that makes windmills, the power coming from a windmill could not power that industry.

If it was solely Nuclear power you could power an industry any where in the entire world.

Try an experiment, blow on your hand, as hard as you can, thats the same power as the strongest wind against the giant windmills that weigh more than 200 tons.

Now take your hand, turn on the stove, and put your hand on the stove, see the difference in energy, if your stove is gas your had cant take that type of energy, its just too strong, but you can blow on your hand all you want and nothing happens.

I hope that is stated simple enough.

If that was true, no one would be building wind power plants.

Thats not a very good arguement, its not an arguement at all. You ever consider that someone may be making a fortune making windmills than forcing taxpayer to buy them.

You dont know what your talking about.

Your argument is that wind power was invented in the hopes that the government would subsidize it? Holy shit that's dumb.

 

[Niccoli]

I stand that the only real power source available is nuclear. Wind and Solar could only supplement but never replace our energy needs. Not even hydro power could thought that should definitely remain a supplement.
I see 3 problem with nuclear. The obvious danger of it, which could really be remedied simply by taking care of corruption. The Navy has shown that they are quite reliable.
2, if it were to be completely implemented, as in 100% energy source there would be a few new things to deal with. For example if cars became nuclear powered, the obvious problem would be car crashes. Though that isn't as applicable at this time.
3, thermopollution. This is where the enviromentalist come in. Nuclear plants warm an extraordinary amount of water, and this would lead to global warming.

 

[Intense]

I stand that the only real power source available is nuclear. Wind and Solar could only supplement but never replace our energy needs. Not even hydro power could thought that should definitely remain a supplement.
I see 3 problem with nuclear. The obvious danger of it, which could really be remedied simply by taking care of corruption. The Navy has shown that they are quite reliable.
2, if it were to be completely implemented, as in 100% energy source there would be a few new things to deal with. For example if cars became nuclear powered, the obvious problem would be car crashes. Though that isn't as applicable at this time.
3, thermopollution. This is where the enviromentalist come in. Nuclear plants warm an extraordinary amount of water, and this would lead to global warming.

1). Recycle the Fuel. That will add to safety.

2). Stick to Plants. Leave the cars alone with Nuke power.

3). Give me a break.

4). Talk to Navy1960 about it. He's had some good posts on this subject.

 

[Intense]

If that was true, no one would be building wind power plants.

Thats not a very good arguement, its not an arguement at all. You ever consider that someone may be making a fortune making windmills than forcing taxpayer to buy them.

You dont know what your talking about.

Your argument is that wind power was invented in the hopes that the government would subsidize it? Holy shit that's dumb.

Short sighted. Like The DNC. Like Obama.

 

[Niccoli]

1). Recycle the Fuel. That will add to safety.

2). Stick to Plants. Leave the cars alone with Nuke power.

3). Give me a break.

4). Talk to Navy1960 about it. He's had some good posts on this subject.

I agree with this but the point is the enviromenatlist won't like it, and the locals won't like it. With out proving to them that we can 1. make it better, or 2. prove to them that theyre idiots, then we probably won't get much further with nuclear

 

[JBeukema]

I repeat:

Has anyone estimated how long our nuclear fuel supplies in the US could last if we used it as our primary source of energy?

Nuclear is a finite resource, just like oil. Therefore, unless it will last until Sol goes red giant, it is a transitional/supplemental energy source only

 

[Intense]

1). Recycle the Fuel. That will add to safety.

2). Stick to Plants. Leave the cars alone with Nuke power.

3). Give me a break.

4). Talk to Navy1960 about it. He's had some good posts on this subject.

I agree with this but the point is the enviromenatlist won't like it, and the locals won't like it. With out proving to them that we can 1. make it better, or 2. prove to them that theyre idiots, then we probably won't get much further with nuclear

My favorite is Hydro, it all combined only goes so far. I was Anti-Nuke, in a big way. Getting past the misinformation is part of the problem. I would prefer to see the plants in more remote locations where evacuation is more realistic, should things go wrong. We need to keep a minimum of Reliable Sources besides Nuclear. We cannot ignore Nuclear any more.

 

[Navy1960]

Nuclear, is a bridge technology that will sooner rather than later, remove this nation from slavery to foreign sources of energy. What do I mean by bridge technology?, well what it will provide is a safe , clean, and yes, consistant level of employment until such time as new technologies can be developed that enhance it or replace it. Technologies such as wind and solar are still in their infancy and while they will and can act as supplimental sources of energy for this nations energy in the near term. They cannot at the moment totally replace this nations energy needs. An all encompassing energy plan that includes Nuclear reprocessing facilities, in addition to residential solar in sun belt states, as well as wind technology will not only be a massive job creation vehicle, but finally remove this nation from its slavery to OPEC and it's funding terrorist organizations from the gas pump.

While many people think that coal is a nasty word, we should pause, for a moment and understand that this nation has one of the largest coal reserves in the world. If we developed Nuclear, (see bridge technology) this will allow time and money for the development of a real "clean coal " solution , and one that would use the resources we have here in this nation, and actually employ Americans in the processs.

While environmentalists mean well in some cases , it's is my humble opinion that we can and do have the technology to develop our own resources in a safe and clean manner. We need to apply a little common sense to this issue rather than "doom and gloom" and agenda based solutions that do not have the interests of the the American people in mind and end up solving nothing. Let me give you and example, environmental groups do their best to stop coal production in this nation, and then tout how much they have accomplished, however, all they do is send that production to China and India where there are no limits. If we applied a little more common sense to this issue, and environmentalists worked with the energy community, then we could and should develop a clean safe solution and that solutions best hope is nuclear at the moment. If it's good enough for France, Japan, Germany, then it should be good enough for this nation.

In March 1999, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) reversed its own policy and signed a contract with a consortium comprised of Duke Energy, COGEMA, and Stone & Webster (DCS) to design and operate a Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication facility. Site preparation at the Savannah River Site (South Carolina) began in October 2005.[citation needed]

The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, announced by the secretary of the Department of Energy, Samuel Bodman, on February 6, 2006, is a plan to form an international partnership to reprocess spent nuclear fuel in a way that renders the plutonium in it usable for nuclear fuel but not for nuclear weapons. The Department of Energy reversed these plans in July of 2009, under the Obama administration

Senators at the hearing asked about the feasibility of nuclear waste reprocessing, and whether Congress should make more loan guarantees available to the industry as it seeks financing for new plants.

As he has in several recent hearings, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., expressed support for the Yucca project, and challenged Klein over the prospect that nuclear waste would remain at sites in 39 states if the Nevada site is not built.

"Spent nuclear fuel sitting in pools and in dry casks at nuclear plants all over America, is that what you are planning on?" McCain asked Klein.

"Yes," Klein responded.

In his testimony, Fertel said that if the Obama administration slows or stops progress at Yucca Mountain, the secretary of energy should reduce the fees that nuclear utilities pay into a special repository construction fund.

The fund, fed by assessments on consumers, contains more than $20 billion; but Congress has limited spending from it. The fee raises about $750 million a year, but Fertel suggested it be scaled back to no more than what Congress decides to spend from year to year.

NUCLEAR COMMISSION: Radioactive waste storage is revised - News - ReviewJournal.com