Please sign this petition

12467

Comments

  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    mammasan wrote:
    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.

    there's already biomass, tidal, geothermal, hydrogen and other forms of energy production ... your what ifs are completely valid but they get considerably less critical when you lower the need ...

    the key here is that you've resigned yourself to a world that just doesn't have to be ... every year people die from respiratory illnesses due to air pollution - do we now just live in bubbles where we filter the air or do we try to actually clean it?
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    tybird wrote:
    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.

    the USA consumes more energy then china and russia combined ... if you don't fix your own backyard - how do you expect others to?
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    polaris wrote:
    there's already biomass, tidal, geothermal, hydrogen and other forms of energy production ... your what ifs are completely valid but they get considerably less critical when you lower the need ...

    the key here is that you've resigned yourself to a world that just doesn't have to be ... every year people die from respiratory illnesses due to air pollution - do we now just live in bubbles where we filter the air or do we try to actually clean it?

    The problem is that even with conservation, let's say the whole population of the US reduces consumption by 10% as you stated, large urban centers still would need more than just wind, solar, hydro, biomass, tidal, geothermal energy to keep the power on. Those alternative forms are great and I believe we should adopt them to at least lower our dependence on coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear energy but we will still need at least one of the following sources to provide the sufficient amount of energy needed to pick up the slack. Nuclear is our best option out of those 4. Next generation reactors are able to extract even more energy from uranium and run clearner than existing plants. With the new generation of reactors our existing uranium supply will last us centuries. Giving us the much needed time to develope a more cost effective way of harvesting helium-3 which is produced by the sun and is carried by solar winds.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • TheDreamIsee
    TheDreamIsee Posts: 127
    mammasan wrote:
    Nuclear power is probably our best option for replacing fossil fuels for the energy we need to power our cities, homes, and businesses.

    It is the cleanest form of energy, right?
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    TheDreamIsee wrote:
    It is the cleanest form of energy, right?

    It is by far the cleanest out of coal, oil, and natural gas. It produces one hundreth of the greenhouse gases that coal and gas fire power stations produce and next generation reactors will produce even less. Solar, wind, tidal, biomass, hydrogen, and geothermal are all by far the cleanest forms of energy but they can not produce the amount of energy as nuclear can. Not even close.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    mammasan wrote:
    The problem is that even with conservation, let's say the whole population of the US reduces consumption by 10% as you stated, large urban centers still would need more than just wind, solar, hydro, biomass, tidal, geothermal energy to keep the power on. Those alternative forms are great and I believe we should adopt them to at least lower our dependence on coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear energy but we will still need at least one of the following sources to provide the sufficient amount of energy needed to pick up the slack. Nuclear is our best option out of those 4. Next generation reactors are able to extract even more energy from uranium and run clearner than existing plants. With the new generation of reactors our existing uranium supply will last us centuries. Giving us the much needed time to develope a more cost effective way of harvesting helium-3 which is produced by the sun and is carried by solar winds.

    if consumption drops 10% ... why do you need new energy sources?
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    polaris wrote:
    if consumption drops 10% ... why do you need new energy sources?

    because the world population is growing. and is it realistic to think every human on earth is going to cut consumption by 10%. seriously, step into reality for a second.
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    polaris wrote:
    if consumption drops 10% ... why do you need new energy sources?

    Even with a 10% drop in consumption all the sources you suggested will not be able to provide the necessary energy, once coal and gas fire power stations are phased out. You will still need another source to pick up the slack and that source is nuclear. I don't understand how I can make it any clearer for you. Decreased consumption will not be enough. We could all decrease our consumption by 25%, which is completely unrealistic, and we would still need another source besides solar, wind, biomass, etc... because while they may be the cleanest form of energy they also produce the least amount of energy and their output combined would not be enough to meet our needs.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    mammasan wrote:
    Even with a 10% drop in consumption all the sources you suggested will not be able to provide the necessary energy, once coal and gas fire power stations are phased out. You will still need another source to pick up the slack and that source is nuclear. I don't understand how I can make it any clearer for you. Decreased consumption will not be enough. We could all decrease our consumption by 25%, which is completely unrealistic, and we would still need another source besides solar, wind, biomass, etc... because while they may be the cleanest form of energy they also produce the least amount of energy and their output combined would not be enough to meet our needs.

    actually, you are making yourself extremely clear - that isn't the issue ... the issue is that we disagree on what we consider to be the potential of renewables and the necessity for new nuclear ...

    do you know for a fact renewables could not compensate for the lack of production from coal and natural gas?

    http://www.ase.org/content/article/detail/3426
  • tybird
    tybird Posts: 17,388
    polaris wrote:
    the USA consumes more energy then china and russia combined ... if you don't fix your own backyard - how do you expect others to?
    Historically, yes, within the next decade.....probably not. It's China and India whose populations are growing and their consumption of energy is growing exponentially.
    All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    polaris wrote:
    actually, you are making yourself extremely clear - that isn't the issue ... the issue is that we disagree on what we consider to be the potential of renewables and the necessity for new nuclear ...

    do you know for a fact renewables could not compensate for the lack of production from coal and natural gas?

    http://www.ase.org/content/article/detail/3426

    OK here is a breakdown of each energy source and how many kilowatts-hour it can generate.

    Coal Fire Power Station - 1200 Kilowatts
    Nuclear Power Plant - 750 Kilowatts
    Oil & Gas Fire Power Stations - 725 Kilowatts
    Hydro-Electric Plants - 280 Kilowatts
    Biomass - 60 Kilowatts
    Geothermal - 14 Kilowatts
    Wind - 10 Kilowatts per turbine with 40 mph sustained winds
    Solar - 1 Kilowatt per square meter

    These are just averages but in order to produce the same amount of energy as one nuclear power plant you would need 750 sq meters worth of solar panels or 75 wind turbines with a sustained wind of at least 40 mph. Now the solar panels are only at maxime efficiency on sunny days and only for about 6-7 hours and I don't know of many places on earth that have a sustained wind of 40 mph all day everyday.

    Hydro-electric plants are pretty good but you would need two of them to produce the same amount of kilowatts-hour as a nuclear plant.

    For geothermal you would need 53 plants to produce the same amount of energy as a nuclear plant plus geothermal plants would not work in every part of the globe.

    You would need 14 power plants fueled by biomass to equal one nuclear power plant.

    Manhattan alone uses about 300 Kilowatts-hour.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • Kel Varnsen
    Kel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    mammasan wrote:

    Hydro-electric plants are pretty good but you would need two of them to produce the same amount of kilowatts-hour as a nuclear plant.


    Plus one of Polaris' big arguments against Nuclear is the high costs. I am pretty sure the cost of building a hydro dam is huge. Not to mention there are only so many places where you can dam a river to make an artificial lake.
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    Kel Varnsen wrote:
    Plus one of Polaris' big arguments against Nuclear is the high costs. I am pretty sure the cost of building a hydro dam is huge. Not to mention there are only so many places where you can dam a river to make an artificial lake.

    Exactly. Most of these alternatives energy sources cannot be initiated in all corners of the globe. Solar and wind could be but they do not generate at near maximum capacity for long stretches of time.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • tybird
    tybird Posts: 17,388
    Kel Varnsen wrote:
    Plus one of Polaris' big arguments against Nuclear is the high costs. I am pretty sure the cost of building a hydro dam is huge. Not to mention there are only so many places where you can dam a river to make an artificial lake.
    Hydro-electric dams destroy the river's eco-system. Most of the animals and plants living in a river have spent thousands and thousands of their generations adapting to the river....then we go and completely change it over night. Hydro-electric dams are one of the main reasons that the state of Alabama is near the top of U.S. states in extinctions. We have more species of freshwater fish, mussels and snails than any other state....but we have killed off a lot of them because nearly every major river in the state is infected with hydro-electric dams.
    All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    mammasan wrote:
    OK here is a breakdown of each energy source and how many kilowatts-hour it can generate.

    Coal Fire Power Station - 1200 Kilowatts
    Nuclear Power Plant - 750 Kilowatts
    Oil & Gas Fire Power Stations - 725 Kilowatts
    Hydro-Electric Plants - 280 Kilowatts
    Biomass - 60 Kilowatts
    Geothermal - 14 Kilowatts
    Wind - 10 Kilowatts per turbine with 40 mph sustained winds
    Solar - 1 Kilowatt per square meter

    These are just averages but in order to produce the same amount of energy as one nuclear power plant you would need 750 sq meters worth of solar panels or 75 wind turbines with a sustained wind of at least 40 mph. Now the solar panels are only at maxime efficiency on sunny days and only for about 6-7 hours and I don't know of many places on earth that have a sustained wind of 40 mph all day everyday.

    Hydro-electric plants are pretty good but you would need two of them to produce the same amount of kilowatts-hour as a nuclear plant.

    For geothermal you would need 53 plants to produce the same amount of energy as a nuclear plant plus geothermal plants would not work in every part of the globe.

    You would need 14 power plants fueled by biomass to equal one nuclear power plant.

    Manhattan alone uses about 300 Kilowatts-hour.

    so 75 wind turbines to replace one nuclear power station?? ... that to me is a no brainer ... 75 turbines is nominal in cost compared to a nuclear power station and you'd have a huge surplus which could be used towards efficiencies, r & d and conservation programs ...

    right now wind amounts to what i guess to be less then 1% of energy production in the states ... of that - you are only tapping less than 1% of the potential in the US ...
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    tybird wrote:
    Historically, yes, within the next decade.....probably not. It's China and India whose populations are growing and their consumption of energy is growing exponentially.

    it will be a long time before either country competes on a per capita basis ... in any case - the point still doesn't change ...

    you have to fix your own backyard first
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    polaris wrote:
    so 75 wind turbines to replace one nuclear power station?? ... that to me is a no brainer ... 75 turbines is nominal in cost compared to a nuclear power station and you'd have a huge surplus which could be used towards efficiencies, r & d and conservation programs ...

    right now wind amounts to what i guess to be less then 1% of energy production in the states ... of that - you are only tapping less than 1% of the potential in the US ...

    So point me to the region of the US that has a sustained wind speed of 40 mph on a daily and consistant basis. Also how much land would 75 wind turbines take up? What would the effect of those wind turbines be on migritory birds?
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • tybird
    tybird Posts: 17,388
    polaris wrote:
    so 75 wind turbines to replace one nuclear power station?? ... that to me is a no brainer ... 75 turbines is nominal in cost compared to a nuclear power station and you'd have a huge surplus which could be used towards efficiencies, r & d and conservation programs ...

    right now wind amounts to what i guess to be less then 1% of energy production in the states ... of that - you are only tapping less than 1% of the potential in the US ...
    There's not that many places that would be as economical as you think to build wind farms.
    All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
  • tybird
    tybird Posts: 17,388
    polaris wrote:
    it will be a long time before either country competes on a per capita basis ... in any case - the point still doesn't change ...

    you have to fix your own backyard first
    It won't be a "long time" when their use is increasing exponentially.
    All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
  • norm
    norm Posts: 31,146
    mammasan wrote:
    So point me to the region of the US that has a sustained wind speed of 40 mph on a daily and consistant basis. Also how much land would 75 wind turbines take up? What would the effect of those wind turbines be on migritory birds?


    and if people don't want a nuclear plant in their backyard, i doubt they'd want this

Categories