Future nuclear bill and subsidies

[ChrisT]

conservation is a great idea too. you know...candles, communal showers, bike riding, walking, etc

[Double_E]

Another storage mechanism is to use the excess to pump water uphill. Then when you need the energy back you release the water back down through a turbine or whatever.

 

that is the reason why Banks Lake, in central WA, exists. It was filled when Grand Coulee Dam was built.

 

Dams rock. Gotta love clean power. Don't like what it does to the fish and other critters, and to the watershed, but fuckit... it's a whole lot better than most of the alternatives.

 

 

 

nuclear power, for one.... gives me the willies.

[Double_E]

never could figger out how to reconcile my deep appreciation of Edward Abbey's books ....... with my affinity for dams.

[spicoli11]

Will there be an end??? Is it not a choice of lifestyle and location that fuels this one?? Are we concerned about humanity or lower costs? Learn to love sucking off the nipple or become self-sufficent. We're DOOMED!!

[Dru]

http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html

[Alan]

Dams rock. Gotta love clean power. Don't like what it does to the fish and other critters, and to the watershed, but fuckit... it's a whole lot better than most of the alternatives.

 

 

What about the otter? Save the otter!

[selkirk]

http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html

 

Your point is? That like saying you've got a 30,000 volt battery, but nothing to ground it to... it's so very helpful!

 

And yes, damn's certainly rock from a power standpoint, but they're very limited in location, and the net amount of maximum power output available (though very good points on the storage issue utilizing reservoirs and modifying the flow through. And utilizing on demand power (coal/gas/oil to fill in as needed).

 

So, is this applicable to say, New York? Or France, Germany, China? It's great in spots, where you have the vertical drop and the waterflow available, but it isn't broadly enough available. In addition, it doesn't really have the capacity to grow. Somehow I doubt were going to get much more Hydro out of the Columbia There may be a few more rivers we could tap, but it's pretty finite.

 

Conservation is also great, as is utilizing low tech high output energy generation when possible (windmills are wonderful for that)

 

However that's not going to account for the relatively quickly growing need, or the necessity of having it available at steady rates and geographically everywhere. As we grow and consume more power were going to need more power plants. We may need fewer if start utilizing greener technology, but were still going to need new ones. And what we can do in the NW isn't going to work everywhere, so while we all agree hydro rocks, does anyone say were going to be able to get more of it?

 

In the end were going to need to keep increasing the number of power plants online, as well as upgrading/replacing existing ones and I would still much rather see nuclear than fossil fuel. Nuclear power matched with avialable breeder reactor technology gives us one hell of a lot of high energy density fuel available, without having the greenhouse gas, acid rain, issues. At first blush, at current rates we have something like 170 yr worth of easily recoverable fuel, with Breeders we can significantly extend that as they actually create more fuel then they consume, match this with potential extraction from sea water, and we can stretch it even further.

 

We have the technology, we have the capacity, we have the need for electricity/energy and it continues to grow. Should this be the only technology developed? Hell no, we should certainly tap every feasible green source available to stretch our reserves of coal, oil, gas and uranium as possible. But I really doubt it's going to be enough, especially not in the short term.

 

The biggest drawback to nuclear is political. All the wonderful radiation movies from the 50's, a couple of high profile accidents (though only one was really bad), and issues cleaning up from weapons production and the infancy of energy production have people spooked and fearing mutant babies, and growing third eyes.

 

Somehow I doubt that if my grandfather the electrician at Hanford didn't grow any extra arms, I doubt I will either .

 

I'd love to hear exactly what spooks people so badly about it.

[j_b]

Well - I think it comes down to how one defines subsidies.

 

it comes down to what constitutes an asset, and explains why our perception of subsidy is at odd. human and environmental resources are as important and valuable assets as that which show up in the company bottom line. consequently, a subsidy is the transfer of any public asset (under any form) to a private entity.

 

 

I generally oppose paying people to produce goods and services in excess of effective market demand, and tarrifs or quotas that protect enable producers to charge consumers higher prices than they would be able to command in the absence of such impediments to competition.

 

this is circular reasoning. price, and market demand for oil (for example) is a direct function of whether you account for all the tax breaks, military interventions, environmental and human damage that go along with massive oil consumption. since none of it is reflected in the price at the gas pump, how do you expect consumers to know how much they are effectively paying for gas? gas prices (and that of everything which depends on oil, i.e. most everything) have little to do with market demand resulting from real cost to the consumer. let's not even get into how it affects competition between oil energy and clean alternative energy.

 

In other cases - when there's something that amounts to the government making a capital investment in improving the nation's productive capacities or competitiveness with public funds - I am generally in favor of such expenditures,

 

sure, like research, infrastructure, health and education .... among other things

 

But the reality is that the potential for such investments is infinite, resources to fund them are finite, and there will always be intense disputes about how to allocate resources amongst competing perogatives and interests.

 

whose prerogatives and interests is at the heart of the problem. the boardroom and/or the nation?

 

My basic contention is that the best way to insure that we have adequate means to fund worthy causes is to insure that the economy remains sound. Where you and I differ is with respect for the best way to go about doing that.

 

my reading of your posts also tells me that we differ on what constitutes a sound economy. it is notably reflected insofar your gauge of a sound economy appears to be flux of cash through the system, with little consideration to capital in all its forms, which i think is a terrible way to assess economic health.

[JayB]

Well - it's nice to know that the order of the universe remains intact, and the scope of our agreements remains narrow.

[Dru]

http://www.ieer.org/ensec/no-5/table.html

 

Combined cycle natural gas: half the kW/h price of nuclear, and cleaner.

[selkirk]

http://www.ieer.org/ensec/no-5/table.html

 

Combined cycle natural gas: half the kW/h price of nuclear, and cleaner.

 

Nice find. Though something is obviously goofy. Looking at their analysis burning natural gas produces less than no CO2? Isn't possible, unless the number of plants are different.

4. The CO2 emissions avoided are calculated on the assumption that both types of power plants would displace existing coal fired power plants emitting 0.37 kilograms (carbon basis) per kWhe. For nuclear the avoided emissions would therefore be 0.37 kg, to a first approximation. For combined-cycle with 50 percent efficiency, the figure is about 0.25 kg per kWhe (emissions from the coal-fired power plant less the emissions from the combined-cycle plant). The avoided CO2 emissions figures for combined-cycle plants are likely to be increased for plants installed a few years hence, because the efficiency of these plants is increasing.

 

So how can it produce less CO2 than Nuclear? Something is fishy here.

 

Also, how to proven or estimated reserves compare?

(better than 150yrs worth on current technology and usage rates? If were going to throw in breeder reactors, and the potential for seawater or other extraction technique this goes up)?

 

getting better but no gold start for you yet

[Dru]

the CO2 calculations are based on both replacing a coal fired plant. which you would have seen if you read the footnotes.

 

one large hurdle for nuclear: NO CONSUMER DEMAND. see Economist poll.

[selkirk]

yes but if you look at the notes below (#4) it says nuclear will reduce C02 emmissions by .37kg/KWh vs .25kg/KWh for combined cycle (when compared to coal emissions of .37Kg/KWh, so nuclear outputs 0 kg, and CC outputs .12kg/KWh). How then does the combined cycle output less C02 than zero?

 

I'll have to look at the Economist, but not today, actually have to work

 

Still haven't answered the analysis of reserves and how long they'll provide power for.

Edited May 19, 2005 by selkirk

[Dru]

Ever seen the lung cancer rates for uranium miners?

 

The combined cycle plant lasts longer and also they can get the fuel to it in a pipeline, not in CO2 spewing vehicles.

[PaulB]

The combined cycle plant lasts longer and also they can get the fuel to it in a pipeline, not in CO2 spewing vehicles.

Good grief... the arguments for/against can be extended to the extreme. e.g. How much energy does it take to make the hundreds (if not thousands) of kilometres of steel pipe and lay it in the ground? How do all the pipeline workers get to the job site? Probably not in hybrid Civics.

 

CC power plants are very cool, and are a great choice when there is a good supply of cheap natural gas or coal that can be gasified. As long as the price of fuel is low and the price of electricity is high, things are good. Unfortunately, there are a lot of CC plants around the world that became uneconomical to operate when deregulation (now there's a whole other topic of debate!) caused electricity prices to drop at the same time as fuel costs increased.

 

No technology is perfect in all situations, and it'll be a combination of those that we already have with ones that have not yet been invented that will let civilization move forward into the future.