Alternative Energy Sources

[The Ghost of Bondo]

With all this talk about Iraq the issues with N. Korea and Iran seem to be ignored.  They of course make up the rest of the "axis of evil" perhaps the stupidest thing for a president to say in the history of the US.  But that isn't the point here.

Lets start with Iran because I think it is a simpler case.  They have found plutonium reserve within their country that they'd like to use for power plants.  I am not positive on any restrictions placed on Iran but I see no reason they can't harness this source of relatively cheap power whose source is within their borders.  Many many other nations currently use fussion power (France seems to be the posterchild of it).  The claim of course is that they will make nuclear weapons rather than electricity and then give those to terrorists (as they are a terrorist supporting "axis of evil" state remember).  This is typical presumption on the behalf of the US IMO.  The US can't assume that Iran is lying about it and thus prevent Iran from developing this energy program.  It would need undisputed proof that they are.  Because unlike Iraq, I don't think that they are on a parole type thing.

Now to North Korea.  As far as I know, and correct me if I'm wrong, North Korea has not attacked anyone since they became North Korea and have no outward restrictions.  The reason they couldn't make Nuclear weapons is because they were part of a non-proliferation treaty.  As I see it, just like the US could pull out of a treaty like NATO if they wanted to, so N. Korea is free to pull out of this one.  Since they pulled out they are no longer under the restriction not to develop the weapons.  So I don't see why they don't have all the right of any other country that doesn't have UN sactions to develop them (such as India and Pakistan have done...they had the right to even if it is dangerous for them to have them).  Even if they are restricted, just like Iran the claim is that they are making the nuclear missles even though the only claim is that they are using nuclear energy.  Once again, the US needs to prove beyond a doubt that N. Korea is indeed making nuclear weapons.

Now from a war standpoint, I see no reason to think Iran should be attacked, although I don't think it would be difficult to do.  N. Korea on the other hand has a substantial army with many dangerous weapons and perhaps the capability to nuke the western seaboard of the US.  This makes it even trickier than Iraq and even more reason not to attack but to seek peaceful solutions.  There is no reason to be afraid of N. Korea if we don't attack, I think it is if we attack that the danger comes.

[Mr. Lothario]

     Fission, not "fussion". Just a typo, I'm sure. No worries. Anyhow, normal nuclear reactors (that is, the ones which have electricity as their primary product) do not produce anything like weapon-grade plutonium. A nuclear reactor can be modified to produce refined, weapon-grade plutonium, but in so doing, it greatly decreases its efficency at power generation, as well as requiring obvious modifications. There's no problem with Iran having nuclear power plants, as long as they can be observed against Iran modifying them.

     I think that every country should have and use nuclear power. It's the best source of energy on Earth (well, until we figure out fusion, anyway), and it's just plain shortsighted and stupid to use practically anything else.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Yeah, I meant fission...my bad...still a more acceptable error than nucular  

As for fission power being the best...I'd tend to disagree to some degree.  I think solar/wind/tide/hydro/wave are better sources.  Nuclear waste is really a hard problem to deal with compared to the various side effects of solar, wind, and hydro power.  And with a bit more movement into wind and solar power the cost per kwh would drop down to being fairly equivilent with that of nuclear, coal, etc.  Still, for developing countries, fission power can be a great help since they don't have the money to spend on the cleaner alternatives.

[kami]

Iran isn't that bad, I don't think they need to be dealt with at all.

Korea actually sent away a halfassed missile towards Japan a while ago, but it came half way and then sank to the bottom of the Japanese sea...

The nuclear waste you get from fission isn't all that bad if you contain it well. Solar and wind power is way too weak to get up into any big amounts and their economy is pretty bad since it costs a hell of a lot to build all those wind and solar plants to get that little electricity.

[Ace]

Nuclear waste is really a hard problem to deal with compared to the various side effects of solar, wind, and hydro power.

Actually it's quite easy to dispose of. T-72's make excellent waste repositories. So if you think about it, Bush is really just trying to save our environment. :P

[|MP|Buccaneer]

First point about nuclear power.  There are many different types of radioactive materials that can be used in reactors.  You generally don't use the plutonium that makes good weapons in a power generating reactor.  They are different isotopes (sp?).  I know the reactors around here use Uranium, not Plutonium to generate electricity, and not U238 either.  So even if terrorist got ahold of the radioactive material, they could only make what is called a "dirty bomb" to spread radioactive poison, not an atomic bomb.

Second point about nuclear power.  It may not be as clean and good as wind, hydro or geothermal, but those options aren't open to most of the world for it's needs.  When it comes to the effects and waste of nuclear reactors, they do much less damage to the environment then fossil fuel power plants or even natural gas power plants.  The most overlooked aspect of nuclear waste is that the material was radioactive when we dug it up.  That radioactive material is part of nature.  We just need to be more careful about how and where we dispose of it, because we tend to be stupid and concentrate it all in a few spots.  

Third point about nuclear power, it's cheaper to produce then fossil fuels.  What's expensive is the building of new facilities.  The one nuclear reactor we have in SE Michigan is capable of providing more then half the electricity of it's over 4 million consumers.  The other half comes from 18 other power plants, spewing their pollution into the envrionment.

And finally, fuel cells that run off Hydrogen are the way to go, not the other options.  Once perfected, all other electric generation will be stupid (including Hydro and how it screws up the environment in it's ways too).  Since Hydrogen is the most commen element in the universe, and in this reaction only water vapor is given off, it is the ultimate fuel source.  The biggest roadblock is infrastructure (and oil companies).

As for Iran, I haven't found any facts on the plutonium yet to dig into.

For North Korea, that's a different matter.  North Korea isn't the bed of clear reason and peace.  Not to go into them breaking treaties, because that's the obvious argument that keeps coming up (and a good argument is is, and it does not compare to NATO), I will point out that Korea still has a nice little DMZ.  That Korea is one place where the wives of the US military there aren't allowed to go, because it's considered too dangerous (and that is a very short list of places).  

Oh, and Bondo, doesn't the fact that North Korea was moving south trying to take over the whole country count?  I mean, they had to split before the conflict started, didn't they?  They existed enough for a little two year skirmish (that the UN was involved in I do believe) where they were the agressors, weren't they?

[Cossack]

Putin is actually constructin Nuclear Power plants in Iran and stationing a small amount of Russian troops to safeguard them I hear. Since the Nuclear program is under a Security Council member's watch, I do not think they Iranians will use or sell them to terrorists.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Bucc, I know the Korean War was a UN Police action...but at that time it was just Korea.  They became N and S Korea based on the treaty of that war.  Or are you talking about something else?

As for Nuclear Power...I agree with you Bucc...it is better than fossil fuels and cheaper.  I also agree that Hydrogen fuel cells are the way to go for cars.  But the truth remains we will need electricity for homes.  Wind energy is quite viable as a source of energy.  

Here in Colorado we have tons of wind and solar energy potential as we get a bunch of both.  In Colorado there is 601 million MWh/yr of potential energy generation and 83 million MWh/yr of solar.  Colorado uses about 41 million MWh/yr.  Now mind you they would basically have to fill every space of land with a wind farm to get it but it still is a great potential.  And the best wind areas are the eastern parts of the state that don't have many people.  With some funding it wouldn't be too hard to get half the state's energy from wind and with economies of scale it would be just as cost-effective in the long run as coal or even nuclear. (Numbers are taken from the Renewable Energy Atlas of the West published by the Land and Water Fund of the Rockies)

The big thing about alternative sources of energy like wind and solar is economies of scale.  If more people got into solar the price for the panels would also drop dramatically.  The goverment could help this by funding it...just like they should and are for hydrogen cells to make them realistic.

I agree that hydro has its drawbacks such as the salmon in Columbia River in Oregon and Washington being depleted, but ways are being found to solve that.  Ways haven't been found really to deal with nuclear waste as effectively.  France drops it into the ocean in concrete boxes basically...but water is the universal solvent and will eventually eat through the concrete and the barrels and the waste will be spilt long before it loses its toxicity.

About Iran, I don't know if it was Plutonium or Uranium or what exactly that was found.  Something used for fission power plants though.

Just a few more stats for a broader picture.  In the 11 state "west" Montana down to New Mexico over to the coast, the energy usage is approximately 600 million MWh/yr.  The production capabilities are as follows all in the same unit.  Wind=2869, Solar=920, Biomass=57, Geothermal=118.  Quite a lot to work with.  Plus I'd also like to mention that Biomass has great potential as a fuel for vehicles in the form of ethanol and biodisel.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Bucc, I know the Korean War was a UN Police action...but at that time it was just Korea.  They became N and S Korea based on the treaty of that war.  Or are you talking about something else?

No, I'm saying it became north and south Korea when the war began.  Just like it became the United States of America and the Confederate States of America when the Civil War began here.  

It became North Korea at that point, even if they weren't recognized as a nation by everyone at that time.  

So saying that they have not attacked anyone since "becoming North Korea" is misleading.  Saying that they haven't attacked anyone since the Korean Conflict ended in 1951 (or was it 1952?) would be more accurate.  Assuming that you are not counting little boarder skirmishes over the years after that didn't amount to much.

And all that doesn't change the fact that it's still considered a very dangerous place.  Even not knowing specifics, I would think that would give you some pause.  

We also know that North Korea was the agressor, and has made waves that it still wants South Korea from time to time.  There is a reason we keep a rather strong military force there.  And it sure as hell isn't oil.

As for Nuclear Power...I agree with you Bucc...it is better than fossil fuels and cheaper.  I also agree that Hydrogen fuel cells are the way to go for cars.  But the truth remains we will need electricity for homes.  Wind energy is quite viable as a source of energy.  

There are companies that make these fuel cells for houses.  I'm not talking about for cars only.  One that I had stock in (when it was doing very well and I made a mint off of) was Plug Power.  http://www.plugpower.com  They aren't ready for prime time yet, but will be soon.  The larger power companies are already investing heavily in these companies, knowing that it will be the future.

Wind energy isn't viable here.  Neither is solar.  We don't have constant enough winds to even use them with battery backup.  We don't have enough light in the average winter to make solar an option either.  Both can be used to suppliment traditional power, but at a much higher cost.

Wind power also has some few (but not many) ecological problems (like having to cut down trees to give the wind a path here).  One new wind power initiative that I read about was happening down under, where they fly these windmill kites up very high (in the 20,000 foot range) where there is always a wind in the jet stream.  The kites have the generators on them, and it flows down the teathers.  They are playing with this now, but that's all I know about it.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

I agree that hydro has its drawbacks such as the salmon in Columbia River in Oregon and Washington being depleted, but ways are being found to solve that.  Ways haven't been found really to deal with nuclear waste as effectively.  France drops it into the ocean in concrete boxes basically...but water is the universal solvent and will eventually eat through the concrete and the barrels and the waste will be spilt long before it loses its toxicity.

First, you (and many) are ignoring the fact that to start a dam, you have to flood a plain.  What does that do to the ecosystem?  I mean, Lake Taho was a valley at one point.  What about everything that lived there before?  No, dams just cause a different type of ecological damage, that's all.  There are hydropower generators that work off tide, or waterfall, but not well.  While cleaner and better then fossil, it still has negative effects on parts of the ecosystem, and there's not a way around it.  Not to mention you can only use them in some places.

Second, and here I call Bullshit, we do know how to handle nuclear waste effectively.  Just because we don't, doesn't mean we don't know how.  Having consulted at FERMI 2, I've gotten to hear an learn a little about this stuff.  I learn much with every client I work with.  Anyway, they now have these little things that look like hockey pucks.  They are an inert material that have the uranium mixed in.  You control the reaction by adding to the stack of pucks (much the same as raising and lowering the rods).  Once these pucks are depleted, they are small enough to distribute without making piles of concentrated radioactive material.  And you can use them until they are all but depleted.  

There are two types of nuclear waste (in very general terms).  There are the reactants that are used, and the contaminants.  If you are unlucky, like FERMI 1 or Three Mile Island, you contaminate the whole plant.  In the case of FERMI 1, it was filled and covered with over 100 feet of concrete.  It's all still there and still radioactive, but incased in a tomb.  Anyway, there are the two types of waste that needs to be disposed of.  The largest contaminate is water, which isn't a big deal.  But then you have the pipes, the pumps and the lubercants, that also get it.  Those are a bigger deal.  A huge ass water pipe is a bitch to get rid of, and stays radioactive (dangerously so) for 20 years on average.  Those will always be a problem, but by building newer, better reactors, you can keep working those issues down.

Then you have your reactants.  The older reactors used rods, and as you exposed more and more of them to the water, you'd increase the energy transferred to the water (think of it like a microwave oven.  To make it work faster, you'd have to push the rods in further, closer to the water).  The problem is, the rods decay and aren't as productive, or usable, over time.  So they need to be disposed of.  But they are still hot (very radioactive) and with a half-life in the hundreds and thousands of years (depending on which element was used).  Eventually, they will all turn to lead.

So these new reactors, and new "pucks" really cut down on how much fuel is consumed, and how dangerous it is once it is no logner usable.  They are also easier to dispose of.

The downside (there is always a down side) is that we have millions and billions of dollars wrapped up in each and every nuclear reactor that we have today.  You can't change them to work with this new system, you have to replace them.  Nobody will eat that cost.

Now, besides all this, we know other, better ways to get rid of the waste, but France is just saving a buck like everyone else.

A few other corrections.  The government does fund solar power.  You get tax breaks for using it.  Also, in Michigan, if you use solar power, you get charged a special low rate for the other electricity that you use.  But you get so little solar, it doesn't pay for your investment in the hardware.

And, powercells are being looked at for funding now.  They are rather new (6 years or so really), so it's not like they have been ignored yet.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Wind power also has some few (but not many) ecological problems (like having to cut down trees to give the wind a path here).  One new wind power initiative that I read about was happening down under, where they fly these windmill kites up very high (in the 20,000 foot range) where there is always a wind in the jet stream.  The kites have the generators on them, and it flows down the teathers.  They are playing with this now, but that's all I know about it.

About N. Korea, yes, they are certainly to be watched...but it isn't a proven threat so I don't know that we can really act like we do with Iraq where there are all these UN measures.

Anyway, no, Michigan wouldn't use wind.  Obviously it doesn't work for everywhere...but I'm saying for places that do have wind, it should definately be considered...and in the case of Colorado, we have no trees to cut down anyway .

Another thing with wind in addition to the typical land wind farms and the kites you mention...you can build huge ones offshore.  Holland has a few farms like this.  They were considering building one off the shore of Cape Cod but those rich liberals on Martha's Vineyard (Ted Kennedy etc) had NIMBY reaction to the awful specks on the horizen that they would have.  I assume they could theoretically put a farm in the Great Lakes...but once again you only want to do it where it is constant and in enough volume to be economically preferable to other methods.

I'll conceed the nuclear waste thing...I wasn't aware of the new systems.  I'm still somewhat skeptical...you seem to be saying it has virtually no biproduct dangerous past 20 years.  Anyway like you said, that isn't the common system at the moment due to cost and that the rod systems are still in use and produce much more severe waste problems.  And who likes the French anyway?

As for the goverment funding to help lower price of use...I do understand that they do various things, but I think they could do much more.  A tax break isn't really going to make it affordable in the short term.  It really needs to support it greatly so that the economies of scale takes effect and it does get to the point that it more affordable.  As it is, with a few energy use reductions and a few solar panels, you can reduce your reliance on the grid's fossil fuel supplied electricity (obviously the source depends on where you are...in Washington it mostly comes from hydro).

A note about hydro...I am aware of the problems...and this is taken to the extreme in China with the Three Gorges Dam that is being built.  The area that they are flooding is immense and is swelling the Yangtzee river so that they can send large boat travel much further inland.  Many villages are going underwater including many historic things.  Millions of people were displaced.  And then there is the incredible question with the dam.  Can it take the strain of so much water forever.  Plus it is a target for terrorism...if the dam were to break it would be catostrophic.

With that said, some small scale dams can be very useful to control flooding along with providing electricity while some new methods can help reduce problems with fish/sediment issues.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

About N. Korea, yes, they are certainly to be watched...but it isn't a proven threat so I don't know that we can really act like we do with Iraq where there are all these UN measures.

I think you are jumping the liberal gun.  Nobody has called for the heads of the North Korean leaders yet that I've noticed.  You are taking a preemptive liberal stance over something that people haven't overreacted to (yet).

Anyway, no, Michigan wouldn't use wind.  Obviously it doesn't work for everywhere...but I'm saying for places that do have wind, it should definately be considered...and in the case of Colorado, we have no trees to cut down anyway .

This is where you start to disagree with yourself.  You talk about the economy of scale, but then talk about doing this here, that there.  For economy of scale to really work, you need something that can scale everywhere.  Wind power wont work at most of the populations centers.  Neither will hydro.  Nor Solar.  The population centers (and thus, the consumption) are in varied climates (or micro-climates may be the better term).  

For economy of scale, you need something to be usable by almost anyone.  

Another thing with wind in addition to the typical land wind farms and the kites you mention...you can build huge ones offshore.  Holland has a few farms like this.  They were considering building one off the shore of Cape Cod but those rich liberals on Martha's Vineyard (Ted Kennedy etc) had NIMBY reaction to the awful specks on the horizen that they would have.  I assume they could theoretically put a farm in the Great Lakes...but once again you only want to do it where it is constant and in enough volume to be economically preferable to other methods.

Bondo, you started off so much better, but then got weak.  You blame it on the rich liberals not wanting to see it on the horizon, but ignore all the other problems they had with it.  The real problems.  Like, how to get the electricity safely back to where it can be used.  How to store it.  What will be the possible ecological problems to the ocean with this platform (and if you bring up an oil rig, be prepared, because you are making a huge assumption if you do).  There were real engineering problems that weren't solved yet.  Just like there are with the "kites" that they are playing with downunder.  If they were solved, it wouldn't be an experiment anymore.  I'll give you a couple easy examples, and just consider that there are litterally hundreds of others.  For one, how do you keep aircraft from hitting one of those kits or it's wires?  What happens if they fall, or the teather snaps?  

Don't bring those weak shit arguments about the people in Cape Cod.  They may be true, but they are still weak.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

I'll conceed the nuclear waste thing...I wasn't aware of the new systems.  I'm still somewhat skeptical...you seem to be saying it has virtually no biproduct dangerous past 20 years.  

Nope, you didn't catch that right.  Some products like pipes that become contaminated are only bad for about 20 years on average.  That's true no matter what plant you are in.  It just has to do with the exposure they get, since they aren't naturally radioactive.

The new systems will help decrease the number of parts that are contaminated, because they are more safe, better engineered (improved over time of course), and actually smaller with less things near the radioactive material.  

The new "pucks" are better engineered fuel systems that can be used longer and are less "hot" when they need to be disposed of.  They will still be "hot" for hundreds of years (you aren't changing the half-life of anything), but not in the concentration of the current materials.  They are also easier to dispose of without creating huge toxic dumps.

One other major point is that these are products of the earth.  It's not like the fuels that we burn, giving off gases in proportions that our ecology can't handle.  All we have to do is to put them back where we found them.  That's saying it really simple, but it's true.  Look where you find the uranium.  Is right there.  Is it hurting the earth being there?  NOPE.  It's been there for thousands of years and is part of it.  We just need to put it back in the earth, in concentrations that it is naturally found in, and not just where it's cheap, easy and convienent.

As for the goverment funding to help lower price of use...I do understand that they do various things, but I think they could do much more.  

That's the liberal talking.  Here's the conservative for you.  Money doesn't grow on trees either.  So it has to come from somewhere (like higher taxes or cutting something that somebody else obviously cares about).  

So until these powercells came along, there wasn't something that you could find that people all over the country could even get behind.  Think about it.  Why would peole from Michigan want to pay higher taxes to develop wind or solar power that we can't use?  Why would people in Florida want to pay higher taxes for Hydropower in the north?  It has to scale for everyone to sate the selfish nature of people.  Now, there are a couple possibilites.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Bondo, you started off so much better, but then got weak.  You blame it on the rich liberals not wanting to see it on the horizon, but ignore all the other problems they had with it.  The real problems.  Like, how to get the electricity safely back to where it can be used.  How to store it.  What will be the possible ecological problems to the ocean with this platform (and if you bring up an oil rig, be prepared, because you are making a huge assumption if you do).  There were real engineering problems that weren't solved yet.  Just like there are with the "kites" that they are playing with downunder.  If they were solved, it wouldn't be an experiment anymore.  I'll give you a couple easy examples, and just consider that there are litterally hundreds of others.  For one, how do you keep aircraft from hitting one of those kits or it's wires?  What happens if they fall, or the teather snaps?  

Don't bring those weak shit arguments about the people in Cape Cod.  They may be true, but they are still weak.

Ouch, I can't even make fun of Democrats now  

Ok, these windmills have been in use in Holland like I said so it isn't theory about what will happen really.  The article I read from Time about the off-shore windmills did talk about the ecological effects but didn't seem to have any grave warnings about the problems.  Maybe it was biased reporting or a bad report, but it seemed to say the effect on birds was minimal, that fish seemed to gather around it and basically it was a beneficial in that way.  The power would be run in cords along the ocean floor I suppose.  I can't profess to know every single thing about them but from the information I have the ecological effects are not reason to discount them.  After all, Holland is known to be pretty environmentally considerate.

As for where the money would come from for the goverment to invest in alternate energy programs and to get prices down...I of course thing we spend way too much on defense.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Bondo, you completely miss the mark about spending.  You can't expect the tax payers to want to pay for these solutions, when they can't use them.  That's like us paying more taxes in Michigan to help the under funded schools in Mississippi.  And you can't push the electricity from the coastlines all the way inland either.  There is a large cost in power to move it around a city, let alone to move it from the coast inland.  So, like I said earlier, Wind Power just doesnt scale.  If it doesn't scale, your economy of scale never comes into the picture.  

It doesn't matter if you think we spend too much on defense.  It's called being practical.  You don't rob Peter to pay Paul (no matter how much our government already tries it).  No, you will not convince the general public that we still are way overspending on defense, after all the cuts in spending over the past decade at the hands of Clinton.   And even if you did, people wouldn't agree to spend that money on alternative power that only can be used by some people, not all.  It's not a difficult concept to understand.  People are selfish.  They don't want to pay so YOU can have cheaper, cleaner power, they want to pay so THEY can have it.  That's why these new fuel cells stand half a chance, everyone can use them.

[Mr. Lothario]

     Solar is not a viable "alternative" energy source on a large scale (even on a small scale, it's pretty dodgy, but we're talking about nationwide, so I'll stick with the large scale problems). A power plant rated at, e.g., 1000 Mw needs to be able to produce 1000 Mw all the time, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Additionally, it needs to be able to provide up to double that amount of power in short bursts, as needed. Solar can only produce power half the time at BEST. Realistically, a solar plant is able to produce power for approx. 35-45% of the year, depending on location, and no matter where the plant is located, it is incapable of overproduction. Also, a 1000 Mw solar plant would take up something on the order of 50 to 100 square miles, as well as requiring millions of tons of materials--materials that are products of energy-costly, polluting industries. Calling solar power "non-polluting" is not a true statement. Also consider the cost of running a solar plant--do you have any idea how much it would cost to keep 100 acres of collector surface clean and unobstructed by debris?

     Hydro power has its own set of problems, which have already been touched upon in this thread.

     Geothermal power is good, but it has two drawbacks. First, the technology to make geothermal a viable source of power for the entire U.S. doesn't exist yet, and second and more damningly, it's not nuclear. I'll explain why the latter is a drawback in a moment.

     Wind power could be a good thing, but again, really useful wind generating technology is probably decades away, and again, it's not nuclear.

     And of course, coal- and oil-burning plants. They generate staggering amounts of pollution every second, they are consuming resources which are irreplacable and are useful (especially oil) in ways other than burning, and they're not particularly efficient for all that.

     OK, so why is nuclear such a good thing? First off, it's ready NOW. The technology of nuclear power plants is a well-developed one; we've been using it for over 50 years now. If the decision was made, the entire U.S. could be powered by nuclear plants within a decade (or two, we've got to take beauracracy into account). The same is not true for any other "alternative" power source. Like geothermal, coal, and oil, but unlike wind, water, and solar, nuclear plants are relatively cheap to build for the amount of power they produce. For another, it is a very lightly-polluting way to produce power. A 1000 Mw nuclear plant of the same design as the nuke plants currently in use would produce about a cubic yard of high-level waste per year. Which brings up an important point: the distinction between high- and low-level nuclear waste, and the reason waste disposal presents such a problem. High-level waste is the really dangerous stuff--90% of the waste from a nuke plant can be reprocessed and fed back in as fuel. What's left after reprocessing is the high-level waste. Low-level waste is stuff like pipes, used gloves and tools, etc., and presents a negligible hazard. A plan for a civilian reprocessing facility for spent fuel was commenced as a joint project of government and industry at Barnwell, South Carolina. But in 1977, the Carter administration halted further work on Barnwell, and at the same time, cut the industry off from the military reprocessing which it had been using for twenty years. Thus, 100% of what comes out of nuke plants is having to be treated as high-level waste, and that is creating disposal problems that were never anticipated--the industry was designed on the assumption that only that 10% of un-reprocessable waste would be disposed of. The "problem" of getting rid of so much nuclear waste is a political one, not a technical one. There are perfectly safe ways--or at least ways which are safe enough to make danger an extremely low statistical probability--to dispose of nuclear waste in the tenfold smaller quantities which are supposed to be produced.

[Mr. Lothario]

     Con't.

     Nuclear power is cheap, highly efficient, and lightly-polluting. It also has more intriguing benefits, foremost among which are very high temperatures from the process and the intense heat of nuclear plasma. The intense heat of nuclear plasma strips all atoms of their electrons, making them become raw, highly charged nuclei, which means that they can be manipulated simply and cheaply by magnetic fields. This gives us a method for economically extracting the trace elements that exist in all forms of rock, desert sand, seawater, and construction debris, without requiring geological ore deposits to make it worthwhile and hence replacing all of our existing primary metals industries. Also, it gives us a total recycling method for all forms of waste. The intense heat of the reaction can also be used to cheaply desalinate huge quantities of water, thereby allowing the irrigation of enormous areas of currently useless land. Turn the Sahara back into useable land, anyone? Also, at nuclear plasma temperatures seawater cracks thermally into its constituent atoms, providing a potentially unlimited supply of hydrogen, which could, among other things, act as the base for a whole range of synthetic liquid fuels to replace gasoline (after all, gasoline is just hydrocarbons--hydrogen and carbon). Finally, there's the prospect of transmuting elements on a bulk scale, thereby ending all materials-shortage problems. All atoms can be broken down into protons, and the protons can be assembled into whatever is desired. There are other advantages in the same vein, but I'll leave it there. Basically, nuclear power is good now, and it is the gateway to an entirely new set of technologies and industries, just as electricity spawned new industries and technologies that could not exist in the world of steam power.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

First off...wow Loth, you have me convinced.  Good argument, took Bucc's solid base and expanded it even farther.

And you can't push the electricity from the coastlines all the way inland either.  There is a large cost in power to move it around a city, let alone to move it from the coast inland.

That isn't entirely correct.  The whole west at least is connected to one large grid and at any moment I here in CO may be using energy produced anywhere on the grid.  Typically this is only the case if the local demand exceeds local supply.  Yes, you lose a bit of energy to heat (caused by the resistance) in the lines as it goes so it lowers the overall efficiency raising the cost per used unit of energy...but it remains that moving electricity from coast to the middle of the country is viable and in use.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

That isn't entirely correct.  The whole west at least is connected to one large grid and at any moment I here in CO may be using energy produced anywhere on the grid.  Typically this is only the case if the local demand exceeds local supply.  Yes, you lose a bit of energy to heat (caused by the resistance) in the lines as it goes so it lowers the overall efficiency raising the cost per used unit of energy...but it remains that moving electricity from coast to the middle of the country is viable and in use.

Nope.  What I said was still correct, you just don't have the concept of the grid down right Bondo.  

First, it doesn't lose a bit of energy, it loses s shit load of energy on the grid.  The local grid here runs from Canada (yes, Windsor is on the same grid as Detroit) through SE Michigan and down into Ohio.  

But, about using power on the grid and the illusion of using power from, say, the Hoover Damn.  Here is how that works.  It's called Customer Choice (we have it here too).  It means that if I wanted to buy my electricity from the Ohio plants, for whatever reason I had in my mind, I could.  Those ohio plants would be responsible for putting more power on the grid.  But, the electricity that is powering this computer, would actually still come from FERMI, no matter what I wanted, because that is the powerstation putting it out close to me (when it's online).  

It's all accounting.  By putting more power on the grid, they are actually suppling customers just a little further away from them, not me at 100 miles away.

It works because grids are exactly that, grids.  You can take any powerstation offline, and nobody will have to lose power because the other stations on the grid can make up the slack.  That works fine until there are not enough stations producing enough for the grid.  A common sign of this is brown-outs.  

Now, that's the real basics of grids, what we haven't talked about is how pumping electricity through powerlines is like pumping water through pipes.  Pipes with leaks.  The further away you get from the pump, the harder it is to pump.  Eventually you don't have enough pressure to work.  Yes, you can talk about the engineering and stepping up and down the pressure, but you can never overlook the cost in how much energy is just leaking off and being lost (mostly as heat).  It's a geometric progression.  The curve of loss over distance keeps getting steeper with the greater distance.  This is why powerplants are distributed on the grid, and not just all in one place (well, one of the reasons).  

Now, with the way it's set up in the Western US, Hoover Dam pumps out such a huge amount of electricity, and does it cheap, that it was cost effective to have it in the middle of nowhere and pump it.  But if you think that being on the same grid, you are using electrons that were produced there and you have a powerplant 30 miles away from you, you better think again.  It's just not how it works.

Loth, and except for the fact that I think the fuel cells will be better in a few years, I agree with you that nuclear is the best source we have.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

I'll note that neither bit nor shitload are specific terms so it is hard to compare.  That is like whether couple or several actually mean 2 and 7 or if they can mean different things.

Anyway, I wouldn't suggest that you only have power plants on the coast and none in the center of the US.  I just don't think we should use nuclear everywhere just because we could.  Use nuclear over fossil fuel sources but if there is a solid wind/hydro option I don't see why you would want to ignore it and just go with nuclear there as well.  Go ahead and have wind plants in Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and off the coasts, have hydro in Washington and Oregon, have solar in Arizona and New Mexico...use the strengths of the region to diversify the source of electricity to the grid.  If none of these options exist in abundance then go ahead and have nuclear plants to supply the rest.

To use a clich?, when it comes to energy, don't put all your eggs into one basket.