Cape wind- Off shore wind power

jlew24asu

JB811 wrote:

Give myself credibility? Are you 12?

BTW the new ESBWR reactors are supposed to be three years from shovel of dirt to production to the grid. Damn there goes my credibility again.

o relax nancy. you win, you work or worked in the biz? I'd love to know more. I do support them and believe we are going to need one sooner or later. but I'm also a big fan of wind turbines too.

Anon

I am relaxed and it isn't about winning. There is a impact on migratory bird patterns with wind power, and while wind is a great idea and concept it is limited because of capacity. I think they are a good start to supplement energy, but not to be the main source. Maybe in due time.

Yes I work in the nuclear industry and the two holdups are what to do with spent fuel and how to obtain the funds to build. The days of building over twenty years are gone, if they can't be done in much faster time they will not be built. But GE's new design uses gravity and convection over the dozens of pumps and seemingly miles of piping. Check out the ESBWR and it is explained in more detail.

There are many countries that rely on nuclear power, France IIRC gets 88% from nuclear. They really lead the World in their handling of nuclear power, they use reprocessing and they are building a repository.

The other is the building cost which in the US is prohibitive because of the amount of permits and regulations that go into the planning. Not that it is a bad thing to have regulations, it is not, but they are costly. Funding is obviously priority number one. Exelon for example is trying to buy NRG because NRG has one of the few planned plants that were given federal loan guarantees. Those loan guarantees will make many planned projects either sink or swim.

jlew24asu

JB811 wrote:

I am relaxed and it isn't about winning. There is a impact on migratory bird patterns with wind power, and while wind is a great idea and concept it is limited because of capacity. I think they are a good start to supplement energy, but not to be the main source. Maybe in due time.

Yes I work in the nuclear industry and the two holdups are what to do with spent fuel and how to obtain the funds to build. The days of building over twenty years are gone, if they can't be done in much faster time they will not be built. But GE's new design uses gravity and convection over the dozens of pumps and seemingly miles of piping. Check out the ESBWR and it is explained in more detail.

There are many countries that rely on nuclear power, France IIRC gets 88% from nuclear. They really lead the World in their handling of nuclear power, they use reprocessing and they are building a repository.

The other is the building cost which in the US is prohibitive because of the amount of permits and regulations that go into the planning. Not that it is a bad thing to have regulations, it is not, but they are costly. Funding is obviously priority number one. Exelon for example is trying to buy NRG because NRG has one of the few planned plants that were given federal loan guarantees. Those loan guarantees will make many planned projects either sink or swim.

ok fair enough, thanks for the info. I certainly would and do support more nuke plants. do you think one will be built under Obama's admin?

Anon

I would hope many would be started personally but I doubt many will just because many companies are going to depend on those federal loan guarantees. He stopped funding for the repository in the Yucca Mountains after consumers had invested millions and he has never seemed to be warm to the idea of building more. I do find it interesting that if you go back and look at who his largest campaign donations came from as a corporation Exelon is right at the top. His 'green' (I am beginning to hate that word from overuse) initiative calls for more renewable energy and he has this big solar push. But where in a city like Chicago are you going to install enough solar panels and wind turbines to increase capacity? Solar panels are very expensive. The bright side to this is that nuclear has been classified as 'renewable'.

Ultimately I don't believe it will have anything to do with Obama, he can't stop capitalism, right? :shock:

polaris_x

has there ever been a reactor that doesn't cost in the billions of dollars and is built on time and on budget??

definitely not in ontario's history - factor in the debt gov'ts have to go to build a nuclear reactor and you get your payback in like 25 years assuming the reactor doesn't need repairs constantly like most ...

the impact on migratory birds is one of the biggest falsehoods to come out of the nuclear lobby - more birds die from skyscrapers a year than wind turbines by a large margin - besides, you can always shut down the wind turbines in peak seasons ...

you cannot have an energy policy now that doesn't include conservation and efficiency measures - spend a billion dollars on those programs and your payback will be less than 5 years ... without going into the issues of safety, waste and the actual mining of uranium - nuclear's problem is that the economic model has always been fudged to make it look better than it really is ...

JonnyPistachio

JB811 wrote:

I am relaxed and it isn't about winning. There is a impact on migratory bird patterns with wind power, and while wind is a great idea and concept it is limited because of capacity. I think they are a good start to supplement energy, but not to be the main source. Maybe in due time.

Yes I work in the nuclear industry and the two holdups are what to do with spent fuel and how to obtain the funds to build. The days of building over twenty years are gone, if they can't be done in much faster time they will not be built. But GE's new design uses gravity and convection over the dozens of pumps and seemingly miles of piping. Check out the ESBWR and it is explained in more detail.

There are many countries that rely on nuclear power, France IIRC gets 88% from nuclear. They really lead the World in their handling of nuclear power, they use reprocessing and they are building a repository.

The other is the building cost which in the US is prohibitive because of the amount of permits and regulations that go into the planning. Not that it is a bad thing to have regulations, it is not, but they are costly. Funding is obviously priority number one. Exelon for example is trying to buy NRG because NRG has one of the few planned plants that were given federal loan guarantees. Those loan guarantees will make many planned projects either sink or swim.

Waaaaay more birds are killed by automobiles and buildings than by turbines. The number killed by turbines is miniscule. And i couldnt find anything on turbines affecting migratory patterns. Thats like saying the Empire state building is keeping pelicans away from NYC.