Please sign this petition

polaris

Kel Varnsen wrote:

I read an interesting article about renewables once in an engineering journal. It said how useful they were but the problem was that since they are not consistently reliable, so you basically need to build traditional power plants anyways. For example wind power is great, but the highest electricity demand days are usually the hottest days of the year (due to A/C use) and those days are typically also the days with the least amount of wind. So basically if you are using wind the rest of the year on those days you would still need to build other power plants and keep them on stand by so that you could meet the demand.

ever been to zion national park in utah? ... it has a visitor centre with no A/C ... the place hits over a 100°F easy several weeks of the year ...

i live in a house that over the course of the summer here in toronto did not turn on the A/C more then twice ... and i sleep on the top floor ...

walk around in the summer and people have to bring sweaters for the malls and stores ... all the while - retail outlets have their door opened letting all the A/C out ... observe the waste ...

mammasan

polaris wrote:

it's simple ... take your consumption down a measley 10% ... why do you need to build a new reactor?

Because even that would still not be enough to solely rely on wind and solar especially in large urban centers. The amount of power needed to run NYC subways and trains would be too much for solar and wind to provide. So should we cut down on the use of public transportation by 10% as well. Maybe put more gas guzzling cars on the streets of manhattan so that wind and solar will be enough.

Kel Varnsen

polaris wrote:

it's simple ... take your consumption down a measley 10% ... why do you need to build a new reactor?

But what about that other 90% that they are using, however you generate that power, someday those generators will need to be replaced. Nuclear really is the best replacement option. There are a lot of plants that are going to need replacement in the near future, so I don't really see how conservation alone is going to be sufficient to handle things.

polaris

mammasan wrote:

Because even that would still not be enough to solely rely on wind and solar especially in large urban centers. The amount of power needed to run NYC subways and trains would be too much for solar and wind to provide. So should we cut down on the use of public transportation by 10% as well. Maybe put more gas guzzling cars on the streets of manhattan so that wind and solar will be enough.

you aren't reading me correctly ... why would you need to build a NEW reactor? ... i could be wrong but i think new york gets most of its electricity either thru current nuclear plants and hydro-electric ... you can maintain the current output for years without needing to build a new plant ...

let's face it - although nuclear DOES contribute to greenhouse gases - they are already built - it makes no sense to tear one down ...

it's the idea of building more nuclear reactors that's the problem ...

polaris

Kel Varnsen wrote:

But what about that other 90% that they are using, however you generate that power, someday those generators will need to be replaced. Nuclear really is the best replacement option.

only if consumption patterns continue to rise uncontrollably ... there are alternatives now that can replace as reactors go offline just as long as their is a conservation strategy ...

jlew24asu

polaris wrote:

only if consumption patterns continue to rise uncontrollably ... there are alternatives now that can replace as reactors go offline just as long as their is a conservation strategy ...

step into reality for a second. even if people tried to conserve there will always be a growing need for energy and alot of it.

mammasan

polaris wrote:

you aren't reading me correctly ... why would you need to build a NEW reactor? ... i could be wrong but i think new york gets most of its electricity either thru current nuclear plants and hydro-electric ... you can maintain the current output for years without needing to build a new plant ...

let's face it - although nuclear DOES contribute to greenhouse gases - they are already built - it makes no sense to tear one down ...

it's the idea of building more nuclear reactors that's the problem ...

NYC does but what about Chicago, Boston, LA, Philly, etc... These cities can not run on solar or wind power alone. Also yes nuclear power plants do contribute to greenhouse gases but they emit less than one hundredth of the gases emitted by coal and gas fired power stations. Also as far as cost goes, even including construction, maintences, waste disposal, operating, and decommisioning, the cost of electricity produced by a nuclear power plant would be between 3-5 cents per Kilowatt-hour. That falls right into the same cost range as solar and wind which each come in in the 2-4 cents per Kilowatt-hour range.

Cosmo

It seems that everyone here is Pro-Nuclear power because it is clean and safe.
Does that mean Iran can have clean and safe electrical power, too?

mammasan

Cosmo wrote:

It seems that everyone here is Pro-Nuclear power because it is clean and safe.
Does that mean Iran can have clean and safe electrical power, too?

Of course.

Kel Varnsen

polaris wrote:

only if consumption patterns continue to rise uncontrollably ... there are alternatives now that can replace as reactors go offline just as long as their is a conservation strategy ...

Such as? What alternatives would you suggest for a consistent power source at the demand required? Because other than hydroelectric and nuclear I can't really see any that don't cause massive air pollution. Like I have said renewable is great for supplemental needs, but wind power can't really guarantee to an old age home that they will have power to keep them from dying of heat stroke on the hottest and most humid day of the year.

mammasan

polaris wrote:

you aren't reading me correctly ... why would you need to build a NEW reactor? ... i could be wrong but i think new york gets most of its electricity either thru current nuclear plants and hydro-electric ... you can maintain the current output for years without needing to build a new plant ...

let's face it - although nuclear DOES contribute to greenhouse gases - they are already built - it makes no sense to tear one down ...

it's the idea of building more nuclear reactors that's the problem ...

I looked it up and NYC does not get all of it's power from a nuclear power plant. NYC does draw some of it's power from Indian Point but it also relies on hydro power from Niagra Falls, and there are 2 Con Ed coal and/or gas fire power stations around NYC. So it takes 4 different sources to power NYC how in the world would solar and wind be able to produce even half of the power that is needed to run NYC.

polaris

mammasan wrote:

I looked it up and NYC does not get all of it's power from a nuclear power plant. NYC does draw some of it's power from Indian Point but it also relies on hydro power from Niagra Falls, and there are 2 Con Ed coal and/or gas fire power stations around NYC. So it takes 4 different sources to power NYC how in the world would solar and wind be able to produce even half of the power that is needed to run NYC.

i don't believe i said it got all its power from nuclear ... again - we are talking new energy sources ... NYC is not going to be powered completely by renewables ... i do believe it's a possibility in the future but because most people refuse to see beyond specific walls - i will focus strictly on the fact you can continue to use the nuclear reactors u have now - because they are essentially already built ... but as they phase out over decades - renewables and alternative energy sources along with conservation can replace them ...

and based on your figures - let's take the high end ... nuclear is 25% more costly to produce then wind ... and a new turbine can go up in days vs. years ... it will take almost a decade to build a nuclear station and billions of dollars - don't you think you could use that cash to actually conserve energy and find alternatives?

polaris

jlew24asu wrote:

step into reality for a second. even if people tried to conserve there will always be a growing need for energy and alot of it.

have you backed up your accusation that i've made up stuff yet?

i've conserved my consumption significantly year over year ... if i can do it - why can't everyone else?

polaris

Kel Varnsen wrote:

Such as? What alternatives would you suggest for a consistent power source at the demand required? Because other than hydroelectric and nuclear I can't really see any that don't cause massive air pollution. Like I have said renewable is great for supplemental needs, but wind power can't really guarantee to an old age home that they will have power to keep them from dying of heat stroke on the hottest and most humid day of the year.

first of all ... you build efficient buildings ... on those extremely hot days - u only need a little A/C to keep the old peeps cool ... which can be run on the batteries when wind and solar are available ...

Kel Varnsen

polaris wrote:

first of all ... you build efficient buildings ... on those extremely hot days - u only need a little A/C to keep the old peeps cool ... which can be run on the batteries when wind and solar are available ...

So instead of using nuclear plants because they are too expensive, you would rather use wind and solar as well as batteries which can't be environmetnally friendly and build all new buildings which won't be cheap.

tybird

know1 wrote:

Amen.

But I wish private companies would be the ones opening them instead of the government.

In some parts of this here country, the government is the electric utility company....a little something called the Tennessee Valley Authority, and they are in the approval process to fire up/re-engineer a nuke plant in North Alabama.

There is no magic bullet to replace fossil fuels and their many uses like Mammasan stated. I actually prefer nukes over wind power because the jury is still out on the effects of the wind farms on migrating birds.

jlew24asu

polaris wrote:

have you backed up your accusation that i've made up stuff yet?

i've conserved my consumption significantly year over year ... if i can do it - why can't everyone else?

thats super, you get a gold star. even if everyone got gold stars we would still need new forms of energy to keep up with demand.. oil and gas are running out and mamma has gone over why solar and wind arent enough.

mammasan

polaris wrote:

i don't believe i said it got all its power from nuclear ... again - we are talking new energy sources ... NYC is not going to be powered completely by renewables ... i do believe it's a possibility in the future but because most people refuse to see beyond specific walls - i will focus strictly on the fact you can continue to use the nuclear reactors u have now - because they are essentially already built ... but as they phase out over decades - renewables and alternative energy sources along with conservation can replace them ...

and based on your figures - let's take the high end ... nuclear is 25% more costly to produce then wind ... and a new turbine can go up in days vs. years ... it will take almost a decade to build a nuclear station and billions of dollars - don't you think you could use that cash to actually conserve energy and find alternatives?

Yes but what alternatives. What if there are no other alternatives and all we really have is nuclear, hydro, wind, and solar. Then what we wasted billions of dollars and decades finding nothing. Even with conservation wind and solar will never be suffiecient enough to maintaine our cities. Wind and solar are great for small pockets of population not for major urban centers. It takes 4 power planst to keep NYC going. Let's say we cut back 10% on our usage. We would still need at least 3 power plants. The amount of solar panels and wind towers needed to produce that amount of energy is unattainable. The amount of matrerials needed and the amount of land you would need just to spread the panels and twoers across would be unrealistic. Nuclear power is the only other option we have.

There is the possibility of a fourth option which is Helium-3. It is rare here on Earth but is believed to be in abundance on the Moon. It is a light non-radioactive isotope of Helium and can be used as an energy source. The problem is that would have to mine for it on the Moon. The cost of converting the Helium-3 to energy is efficient but we would have to factor in the cost of mining it which could make it too costly.

Kel Varnsen

mammasan wrote:

There is the possibility of a fourth option which is Helium-3. It is rare here on Earth but is believed to be in abundance on the Moon. It is a light non-radioactive isotope of Helium and can be used as an energy source. The problem is that would have to mine for it on the Moon. The cost of converting the Helium-3 to energy is efficient but we would have to factor in the cost of mining it which could make it too costly.

I have read some articles about using high altitude wind generation. You basically use lighter than air vehicles (basically blimps) or these cool helicopter platforms to raise generators high into the upper atmosphere where the wind is much stronger and almost constant. It is still in the early design phases but seems promising. But as far as ground based wind power goes at best that will always be a back up so that you don't have to run your main power plant so much.

Check out this link:
http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2005/04/67121

tybird

polaris wrote:

have you backed up your accusation that i've made up stuff yet?

i've conserved my consumption significantly year over year ... if i can do it - why can't everyone else?

Everybody be birthn' all them babies, Sugar. The Chinas and Indias of the world are where the demand is grow on an exponential level. I don't think the U.S. is at negative growth yet, so a new consumer is born every day.