Sheep has your kevlar vest right now. Best be careful, coz I'm gonna come so you what a REAL 'reactor' looks like ... (lol)
Seriously - for what it would cost to build enough reactors in this country to get us off oil, we could be on all the other powers. And nuclear will cost billions every year just to protect and defend against possible terrorist threat including home-grown terrorism, like the Oklahoma City bombing. Then there's the expense of waste transport, waste storage, etc. etc. So even after the start up trillion you're going to spend, you've got additional billions you're going to have to spend to protect it in ADDITION to the cost of running it. I really can't understand why you guys would rather spend trillions on something that has a hazardous potential then spend trillions on something that doesn't. Would someone PLEASE explain that to me!
[2 points]168 days ago by sillynillyReplyEdited 168 days ago by sillynilly
Absolutely electricity is the way to go with cars until (if and when) hydrogen is properly harnessed. Toyota is developing a plug-in electric powered car that will be available by 2010.
Last time I saw a price tag on a nuclear reactor, it was roughly $3 - $4B in 1999. ( http://www.worldwatch.org/node/1646 )Today, rough estimate $10B because you're going to have to introduce security measures to protect the exterior even more than they did in '99. The waste generated is not going to be allowed to travel very far - permits acquired and security measures are going to have to be implemented all along the route it travels. Again - terrorist (home grown as well as outside attacks). The waste cannot travel far from the plant. So now you're going to have to create and secure all waste sites. Forget uranium as a dirty bomb - setting off a bomb near a waste facility will do just as much damage. Then there's the potential threat against a leak. http://www.uky.edu/KentuckyAtlas/ky-maxey-flats.html
US electric consumption was 3.34 Terra Watts in 2005 - safe guess by the time we could get the reactors built - 5 - 6 Terra Watts. World consumption in 2004 - 15 Terra Watts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(power)
I think better with money than with watts. (lol) So, if nuclear produced power was dollars, the US currently has $97.40. And we need $5000.00 - $6000.00. So ... we're a bit short. And the landlord is knocking at the door.
To become COMPLETELY powered by nuclear for all electric generation, we would have to build an additional 500 nuclear power plants (at $10B for construction costs - that's $5 trillion just to build the plants), then we're going to have to claim the land (imminent domain is a hot button issue right now, so that's going to cost), plus find the land for waste disposal (remember, it can't travel very far), settle more imminent domain claims PLUS all the "Not in MY Backyard!" lawsuits. And that's just to get it up and running. Then there's the actual transport fees, permits, security and maintenance costs. And here's hoping we don't employ any idiots in one of those 5100 plants or we'll have another Chernobyl. And here's hoping no Timothy McVey stops his van at the railroad crossing and blows himself up as the train carrying the waste goes by.
Now becoming completely self-sufficient with nuclear is a crazy thing. But for what it would cost - here's some ideas that people like to poo-poo.
Some places get enough wind, others don't. But those who get more than enough wind can sell their power directly to the power companies. By law (Carter administration) the power company must purchase any extra power you produce. All power is easily transfered from one power company to another. So all that wind that blows across the plains of the Midwest, farmers can put in windmills along with crops - nice straight lines so they don't interfere with the combine path. People don't want them in their back yard, they don't have to. But if they DO - potential subdivision gestapo are told they cannot interfere with any windmill creation or placement. It's a national power emergency.
Creation of the windmills? Government backed OR an offer of a tax break to Ford, GM or Chrysler for re-tooling US plants (only) for the purpose of producing home and industrial windmills with generators - only US workers can be employed - otherwise, no tax break. There's a bunch of empty plants in Flint, Michigan. We've got a bunch of empty ones here in Ohio, too. McCain's got a good idea in re-educating workers - so lets teach them how to manufacture, install and repair windmills. We've got a 5.5% unemployment rate - higher here in Ohio and in Michigan.
Now, windmills alone won't do it. Single largest power-sucker in every home: hot water tank and the furnace. Tax breaks for everyone who installs a solar panel for their hot water heater. Let's educate a bunch of people on the unemployment rolls how to manufacture and/or install solar panels for hot water heaters. Teach them how to repair them, too.
And for those who have access to geo-thermal power for home heating and cooling? Lets give them a big fat tax break to install it in their homes. Average cost: $5k. Let's give them a ONE TIME deduction of $4k to install it. Hell, Bush sent everybody $2500 for FREE, so lets just give them up to $4k back of their own money if they do something to lower their power demand. Not to mention how much of the power supply removing all those furnaces and air conditioners will do - those who don't have access to it will have more power available due to lowered consumption elsewhere. And those workers who will be re-educated to build, install, maintain and repair those home heating systems. They can be built by the government as well - they can foot the entire cost of the production and installation, make it all in the USA with US workers - and we will STILL be under the $5 trillion we would be for just building the nuke plants.
Add windmills and GIANT solar panels to the desert areas - windmills that rotate to the wind, solar panels that move to face the sun. People don't like encroaching on federal parks, but this will be clean and quiet, and reducing the power and pollution of America. Not to mention making us 'green' and 'energy efficient' which is what those environmentalists are always screaming we should do. Bet the environmentalists will give in pretty easy. They'll have to.
[1 point]167 days ago by sillynillyReplyEdited 167 days ago by sillynilly
Okay 'Nilly. I read every word and I'm exhausted. But you got some good points, I have to admit.
If you're right about the cost of nukes, though, then we're toast. If nukes can't be brought online along with solar and wind, then solar and wind will have to bear the weight of all our needs, right? I think you'll give me that.
Now, the cost to homeowners of fitting panels is a *huge* financial burden and should have begun probably five years ago to prevent a manufacturing crunch.
How can panels possibly come online - to the extent that they must - to save us from a serious, energy-related collapse in the short term?
Did I ever mention I can type up to 80 wpm? (lol) Sorry, but I wanted to get as many details as possible.
Immediate problem solving. Drilling our own reserves. That would be the only way I would ever support drilling our own reserves. Allow the oil companies in - royalty free. CAP the amount that they can charge us for our own oil since we're giving it to them. Max fuel charge - $1 per gallon. No whining. Do it or get out of the fuel business. Most of the oil companies own the gas stations and lease them to the owners - so they're getting the majority of the retail price. Station owners are making less than 10% on the gas. So the MAX they can charge is $1. Same for diesel. THEN - add $1 federal tax to every gallon to fund the conversion to solar and wind. States can add UP TO an additional $0.25 per gallon. To make sure demand drops - after 3 years - tax increases to $1.50 per gallon to continue decline in demand. At the five year mark - $2.00 a gallon tax. Increase tax breaks (using the collected taxes to fund the breaks) to those who continue to install wind and solar power. At the six year mark - all drilling on US soil for oil will cease. We're back to imported oil. Then remove the cap, increase the taxes to $3.00 and let the market move as it will.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how I think America should win this war with the middle east.
[1 point]167 days ago by sillynillyReplyEdited 167 days ago by sillynilly
No - I'm not against oil. Can't be. We need it. I don't want us drilling our own because (ah-hem) I'm a bit of a conservative. (lol) I'm against it for the damage it will do to the environment, but I'm REALLY against it because we will need that oil in case of a TRUE national emergency, like war. The only reason I would ever advocate opening our oil fields would be war - or to cover us as we completely removed ourselves from needing oil at all. If we kept things up at that rate, we would no longer need to mine for coal, either. And being from Kentucky - I hate the coal companies with every breath. You should see what they're doing to that beautiful state. They're literally chopping down the mountains and leaving bare rock, blasting their way down to the coal. It's called "Mountain Top Removal." They say they're going to "put it back" when they're done but, in all honesty, HOW do you put a mountain back? It can't be done. What will happen is the company will bonus payroll the executives to the point of corporate bankruptcy, then they'll declare it so they'll never have to fix the environment back like they "promised" they would. They're destroying the water table with it.
I absolutely agree with doing all of the things you mention. But you have to add nuclear to that. You cannot generate even close to enough power without them.
You think the brownouts in SoCal are bad from air conditioners. Wait until every household is plugging in their cars to charge up. That will suck the grid dry.
Oh, you know it. That's why we're going to invest slowly and use our own oil, and the oil companies that have been gouging our arses while we get it up and running over the next few years. We can do it without the nukes. Add harnessing ocean currents off the coasts to the equation. We could be on solar and wind in far less time and less money than it takes to build a dozen reactors.
That's the beauty of the CANDU... all natural uranium, no enrichment necessary, plus you don't have to go offline to refuel. The French can't touch that.
Based on your needs, I would recomment the Enhanced CANDU 6 model. I think you'd be pleased with the security and accident response improvements. Very popular in Romania.
[1 point]167 days ago by waugsReplyEdited 167 days ago by waugs
4 to 4.5 years from first pour concrete to online. $7.6 billion. Volume discount available. We have an excellent track record for on schedule, on budget.
He only takes Canadian dollars. The price just went up by 7.6 billion cents. So we're back to $10B US. Then there's the land purchase, imminent domain claims to pay, security ... (lol)
For 7.6 billion. how many houses could you equip with solar/wind? How many could produce enough to sell back? What a colossal waste of money.
Like this stupid oil war we're in right now. For 170 million a day, we could already be energy independent, without nukes.
Or, just a thought--we could change our lifestyles. No more single-use zoning. Back to living where we work. Reduced dependence on toys of all kinds that plug in. You know, a sane and sustainable lifestyle. or at least a real good effort at it?
My next major purchase for my house is a woodburner to replace the pellet stove, then a windmill for the well pump, then solar panels for the hot water heater. That just leaves my energy-saver fluorescents, computer, sewing machine, and microwave/electric stove/refrigerator for energy consumption. Oh, and the occasional DVD player. I am looking forward to having energy bills under $100 a month--in the winter!
[1 point]167 days ago by dauguyReplyEdited 167 days ago by dauguy
I would really like to know the answer to the first question you pose. I don't know enough about the math to determine if it is a waste of money or not. It seems that to really determine that, you'd need to determine how much solar/wind power could be generated for that amount of investment, and compare it.
You should see the whole documentary--unless the entire hour-and-a-half was up on YouTube.
Once while walking to work in Vallejo, I saw an electric car parked by the park. I asked the Parks person if it was part of the California program mandating a certain percentage of electric cars by a certain date. He allowed as how it was, but that the program had been repealed and that the car, like every single electric car GM had produced, was slated for being crushed.
You see, everyone, now the Aussie is going to "OPEC" us!
We're not interested, Aussie. We will not submit to you and the coming Australian hegemony. (Although the girls there are kinda pretty. I once had a bathing suit calendar in my garage. It was there for two years, I think. Very nice.)
We haven't received enough votes with gender data to show this graph yet.
We will show the graph as soon as we have enough votes!
Results by Country
Results by Voter Type
Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
Loading...
No, not anymore, I'm done, I changed my mind.
I ran across a video on YouTube called "Who killed the electric car". It pissed me off.
I am now more of a nuclear & batteries supporter.
STOP WITH THE NUKES!
Sheep has your kevlar vest right now. Best be careful, coz I'm gonna come so you what a REAL 'reactor' looks like ... (lol)
Seriously - for what it would cost to build enough reactors in this country to get us off oil, we could be on all the other powers. And nuclear will cost billions every year just to protect and defend against possible terrorist threat including home-grown terrorism, like the Oklahoma City bombing. Then there's the expense of waste transport, waste storage, etc. etc. So even after the start up trillion you're going to spend, you've got additional billions you're going to have to spend to protect it in ADDITION to the cost of running it. I really can't understand why you guys would rather spend trillions on something that has a hazardous potential then spend trillions on something that doesn't. Would someone PLEASE explain that to me!
(lol) 'Nilly, tell 'Sheep that the vest was expensive.
Now, you know I luv 'ya but I really don't think nukes will cost that much for what they'll provide. But I'm willing to listen.
Question: Are we in agreement that *electricity* is the way to power cars and trucks?
Absolutely electricity is the way to go with cars until (if and when) hydrogen is properly harnessed. Toyota is developing a plug-in electric powered car that will be available by 2010.
Last time I saw a price tag on a nuclear reactor, it was roughly $3 - $4B in 1999. ( http://www.worldwatch.org/node/1646 )Today, rough estimate $10B because you're going to have to introduce security measures to protect the exterior even more than they did in '99. The waste generated is not going to be allowed to travel very far - permits acquired and security measures are going to have to be implemented all along the route it travels. Again - terrorist (home grown as well as outside attacks). The waste cannot travel far from the plant. So now you're going to have to create and secure all waste sites. Forget uranium as a dirty bomb - setting off a bomb near a waste facility will do just as much damage. Then there's the potential threat against a leak. http://www.uky.edu/KentuckyAtlas/ky-maxey-flats.html
At this time, the US has 104 operating nuclear power plants. The cumulative output is 97.4 GW. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_reactors/reactsum.html
US electric consumption was 3.34 Terra Watts in 2005 - safe guess by the time we could get the reactors built - 5 - 6 Terra Watts. World consumption in 2004 - 15 Terra Watts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(power)
I think better with money than with watts. (lol) So, if nuclear produced power was dollars, the US currently has $97.40. And we need $5000.00 - $6000.00. So ... we're a bit short. And the landlord is knocking at the door.
To become COMPLETELY powered by nuclear for all electric generation, we would have to build an additional 500 nuclear power plants (at $10B for construction costs - that's $5 trillion just to build the plants), then we're going to have to claim the land (imminent domain is a hot button issue right now, so that's going to cost), plus find the land for waste disposal (remember, it can't travel very far), settle more imminent domain claims PLUS all the "Not in MY Backyard!" lawsuits. And that's just to get it up and running. Then there's the actual transport fees, permits, security and maintenance costs. And here's hoping we don't employ any idiots in one of those 5100 plants or we'll have another Chernobyl. And here's hoping no Timothy McVey stops his van at the railroad crossing and blows himself up as the train carrying the waste goes by.
Now becoming completely self-sufficient with nuclear is a crazy thing. But for what it would cost - here's some ideas that people like to poo-poo.
Homemade windmills:
http://www.free-press-release.com/news/200707/1183735723.html
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gNlE6u4rPxs
Some places get enough wind, others don't. But those who get more than enough wind can sell their power directly to the power companies. By law (Carter administration) the power company must purchase any extra power you produce. All power is easily transfered from one power company to another. So all that wind that blows across the plains of the Midwest, farmers can put in windmills along with crops - nice straight lines so they don't interfere with the combine path. People don't want them in their back yard, they don't have to. But if they DO - potential subdivision gestapo are told they cannot interfere with any windmill creation or placement. It's a national power emergency.
Creation of the windmills? Government backed OR an offer of a tax break to Ford, GM or Chrysler for re-tooling US plants (only) for the purpose of producing home and industrial windmills with generators - only US workers can be employed - otherwise, no tax break. There's a bunch of empty plants in Flint, Michigan. We've got a bunch of empty ones here in Ohio, too. McCain's got a good idea in re-educating workers - so lets teach them how to manufacture, install and repair windmills. We've got a 5.5% unemployment rate - higher here in Ohio and in Michigan.
Now, windmills alone won't do it. Single largest power-sucker in every home: hot water tank and the furnace. Tax breaks for everyone who installs a solar panel for their hot water heater. Let's educate a bunch of people on the unemployment rolls how to manufacture and/or install solar panels for hot water heaters. Teach them how to repair them, too.
And for those who have access to geo-thermal power for home heating and cooling? Lets give them a big fat tax break to install it in their homes. Average cost: $5k. Let's give them a ONE TIME deduction of $4k to install it. Hell, Bush sent everybody $2500 for FREE, so lets just give them up to $4k back of their own money if they do something to lower their power demand. Not to mention how much of the power supply removing all those furnaces and air conditioners will do - those who don't have access to it will have more power available due to lowered consumption elsewhere. And those workers who will be re-educated to build, install, maintain and repair those home heating systems. They can be built by the government as well - they can foot the entire cost of the production and installation, make it all in the USA with US workers - and we will STILL be under the $5 trillion we would be for just building the nuke plants.
Add windmills and GIANT solar panels to the desert areas - windmills that rotate to the wind, solar panels that move to face the sun. People don't like encroaching on federal parks, but this will be clean and quiet, and reducing the power and pollution of America. Not to mention making us 'green' and 'energy efficient' which is what those environmentalists are always screaming we should do. Bet the environmentalists will give in pretty easy. They'll have to.
Okay 'Nilly. I read every word and I'm exhausted. But you got some good points, I have to admit.
If you're right about the cost of nukes, though, then we're toast. If nukes can't be brought online along with solar and wind, then solar and wind will have to bear the weight of all our needs, right? I think you'll give me that.
Now, the cost to homeowners of fitting panels is a *huge* financial burden and should have begun probably five years ago to prevent a manufacturing crunch.
How can panels possibly come online - to the extent that they must - to save us from a serious, energy-related collapse in the short term?
Did I ever mention I can type up to 80 wpm? (lol) Sorry, but I wanted to get as many details as possible.
Immediate problem solving. Drilling our own reserves. That would be the only way I would ever support drilling our own reserves. Allow the oil companies in - royalty free. CAP the amount that they can charge us for our own oil since we're giving it to them. Max fuel charge - $1 per gallon. No whining. Do it or get out of the fuel business. Most of the oil companies own the gas stations and lease them to the owners - so they're getting the majority of the retail price. Station owners are making less than 10% on the gas. So the MAX they can charge is $1. Same for diesel. THEN - add $1 federal tax to every gallon to fund the conversion to solar and wind. States can add UP TO an additional $0.25 per gallon. To make sure demand drops - after 3 years - tax increases to $1.50 per gallon to continue decline in demand. At the five year mark - $2.00 a gallon tax. Increase tax breaks (using the collected taxes to fund the breaks) to those who continue to install wind and solar power. At the six year mark - all drilling on US soil for oil will cease. We're back to imported oil. Then remove the cap, increase the taxes to $3.00 and let the market move as it will.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how I think America should win this war with the middle east.
Oh oh oh! I thought you were against oil altogether. That makes more sense to me now.
No - I'm not against oil. Can't be. We need it. I don't want us drilling our own because (ah-hem) I'm a bit of a conservative. (lol) I'm against it for the damage it will do to the environment, but I'm REALLY against it because we will need that oil in case of a TRUE national emergency, like war. The only reason I would ever advocate opening our oil fields would be war - or to cover us as we completely removed ourselves from needing oil at all. If we kept things up at that rate, we would no longer need to mine for coal, either. And being from Kentucky - I hate the coal companies with every breath. You should see what they're doing to that beautiful state. They're literally chopping down the mountains and leaving bare rock, blasting their way down to the coal. It's called "Mountain Top Removal." They say they're going to "put it back" when they're done but, in all honesty, HOW do you put a mountain back? It can't be done. What will happen is the company will bonus payroll the executives to the point of corporate bankruptcy, then they'll declare it so they'll never have to fix the environment back like they "promised" they would. They're destroying the water table with it.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ziuFW-7h1LM
I absolutely agree with doing all of the things you mention. But you have to add nuclear to that. You cannot generate even close to enough power without them.
You think the brownouts in SoCal are bad from air conditioners. Wait until every household is plugging in their cars to charge up. That will suck the grid dry.
Oh, you know it. That's why we're going to invest slowly and use our own oil, and the oil companies that have been gouging our arses while we get it up and running over the next few years. We can do it without the nukes. Add harnessing ocean currents off the coasts to the equation. We could be on solar and wind in far less time and less money than it takes to build a dozen reactors.
We'll ship you down some CANDU reactors, get you a deal.
Canadian reactors, huh? What sort of guarantee do they come with?
90-day money back guarantee. Extended warranty available, may be voided if you violate any nuclear non-proliferation treaties.
I don't know, France down the street says you don't use the good control rods. They'll give us the good rods and a 120-day mbg.
That's the beauty of the CANDU... all natural uranium, no enrichment necessary, plus you don't have to go offline to refuel. The French can't touch that.
http://www.candu.org/candu_reactors.html#advantage
Is that what you do? You sell nuclear power plants?
Maybe I should consider it, huh?
Is that DuPont-Canada? (lol)
AECL, it's a crown-corporation. They are quite popular around the globe, would you like to see our catalog?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU
Based on your needs, I would recomment the Enhanced CANDU 6 model. I think you'd be pleased with the security and accident response improvements. Very popular in Romania.
HEYYYY! No WONDER you're so pro-nuke! BAD boy! BAD boy! (looking around for whip ...)
no! It's not the way it looks!
4 to 4.5 years from first pour concrete to online. $7.6 billion. Volume discount available. We have an excellent track record for on schedule, on budget.
Would you like to place an order?
Okay. I'll take two, please. We'll be paying you in dollars. Hope that's alright.
He only takes Canadian dollars. The price just went up by 7.6 billion cents. So we're back to $10B US. Then there's the land purchase, imminent domain claims to pay, security ... (lol)
Aaargh! Okay, okay, fine!
We will declare a "War on Energy Gouging" and take it by force!
WE SHALL LET THEM DROWN IN THEIR A-RAB OIL! WE SHALL WIN! WE ARE AMERICA!!!!!
Oh - and if our oil companies bitch about doing it for $1 ... we'll ask BP if they want the deal!
For 7.6 billion. how many houses could you equip with solar/wind? How many could produce enough to sell back? What a colossal waste of money.
Like this stupid oil war we're in right now. For 170 million a day, we could already be energy independent, without nukes.
Or, just a thought--we could change our lifestyles. No more single-use zoning. Back to living where we work. Reduced dependence on toys of all kinds that plug in. You know, a sane and sustainable lifestyle. or at least a real good effort at it?
My next major purchase for my house is a woodburner to replace the pellet stove, then a windmill for the well pump, then solar panels for the hot water heater. That just leaves my energy-saver fluorescents, computer, sewing machine, and microwave/electric stove/refrigerator for energy consumption. Oh, and the occasional DVD player. I am looking forward to having energy bills under $100 a month--in the winter!
I would really like to know the answer to the first question you pose. I don't know enough about the math to determine if it is a waste of money or not. It seems that to really determine that, you'd need to determine how much solar/wind power could be generated for that amount of investment, and compare it.
Truly, I don't know the answer either. But it might be nice to look into.
(PS--just clicked on your profile by accident--I can recommend a good dentist, if you are interested)
I thought the whitening treatments were coming along well... you don't think so, huh?
Not really, no, although the orthodontia was damn good.
This comment was deleted by waugs .
[1 point] 167 days ago byIf you want to see something really scary, watch "A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash".
You should see the whole documentary--unless the entire hour-and-a-half was up on YouTube.
Once while walking to work in Vallejo, I saw an electric car parked by the park. I asked the Parks person if it was part of the California program mandating a certain percentage of electric cars by a certain date. He allowed as how it was, but that the program had been repealed and that the car, like every single electric car GM had produced, was slated for being crushed.
Uranium down here For Sale.
Coal For Sale.
You see, everyone, now the Aussie is going to "OPEC" us!
We're not interested, Aussie. We will not submit to you and the coming Australian hegemony. (Although the girls there are kinda pretty. I once had a bathing suit calendar in my garage. It was there for two years, I think. Very nice.)
I Wish we were all calendar girls !
Yes. Anything to reduce the US dependence on foreign oil would be useful now.