Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
MOD NOTE: Keep the politics and discourse at a very low minimum... as such is expected given our wide views and desires, in the nature of a forum discussion, I've some (but not a lot) of tolerance for such BS in our state forum. There is no tolerance at all however for personal attacks, be they blatant or hidden. A person can make your point w/o such. Thanks.
Why is it that Europe and China are watching Japan's current crisis and are changing their plans?...
When does nuclear waste become safe and where do you store it?
Because it's a knee jerk reaction.
I think what happened in Japan should wake everybody up and make everybody take a harder look at existing plants and anything nuclear to avoid this again.
But I just don't think taking nuclear out of the energy equation is an option. Look at how much coal plants destroy the environment with ground and air pollutants. They are a true health hazard daily. The indirect needs to support coal is substantial alone. Hundreds of coal trains going to each plant, the mining of the coal etc.
I have read that there is new disposal/recycle technology for nuclear waste that we don't take advantage of because our plants are so old.
Is ash disposal 100% clean? More people are probably killed in coal mines than are even exposed to unhealthy doses of radiation.
Now again, I'm not supporting nuclear or coal or anything else here. But knee jerking overreacting to situations like this typically don't make things any better.
I do know it will probably require a good mix of technologies using different technologies for different scenarios. Maybe it's not a good idea to build a nuclear plant off shore of the most active fault line in the world.
But we are not going to fill the planet with windmills and solar panels and even if we did, I'm sure we would find out down the road that those are not as "clean" as we thought too. What is the carbon footprint of a solar panel or battery, I have heard it's extensive. Landfills full of batteries and battery fluids in the year 2030 probably won't be good either.
We need to spend our money to develop safer energy sources.
Dear God, what agenda could I possibly have except wanting safer energy?
I think you are taking kcmo out of context. I think he was being sarcastic about how misinformed people are about nuclear power plants.
Anyhow, I agree, we are not spending enough on alternative energy. However, if power demand is growing new technologies are not yet ready to bear the brunt of a primary load. Given the way our grid is now, if we try to supplant big power plants with solar or wind, any significant drop in supply from either source would overload the system and cause widespread failure.
I like what I saw at the Boone County co-op. They allowed me to commit some of what I paid for electricity to come from wind sources. It wasn't much, but it was a start.
Point is, in the meantime, what do you suggest? Both options have negative effects. One has a 100% possibility of spreading pollutants and contaminants. The other has a very minimal possibility of a shutdown situation. And an even smaller possibility of a partial meltdown which, in itself, has a low probability of significant radioactive release (given they use a modern design). For now, I'll take the mild risk and bury the mess somewhere (not ideal i know).
Anyhow, I agree, we are not spending enough on alternative energy.
However, if power demand is growing new technologies are not yet ready to bear the brunt of a primary load. Given the way our grid is now, if we try to supplant big power plants with solar or wind, any significant drop in supply from either source would overload the system and cause widespread failure.
I like what I saw at the Boone County co-op. They allowed me to commit some of what I paid for electricity to come from wind sources. It wasn't much, but it was a start.
Point is, in the meantime, what do you suggest?
WE also agree.
We are not spending enough on alternative energy.
Right now, Ameren says that it's making more electricity than is needed. That means that NOW is the time to invest in and develop alternative energy.
WE shouldn't wait until we are in the same situation as we are now with automobiles and gasoline...
I'm not a scientist. I don't hold the answers but I do know that alternative energy businesses will also bring jobs into our state -- both now and in the future.
Even with a lot of money it will take time. I see breakthroughs all the time in alt energy but these things take time to develop. Engineers have been harping about and working hydrogen power since the fifties and yet we still see slow progress. I even know of a few (not just one) viable hydrogen storage solutions but even those will take time to get to market and even when they do it will take time to scale up to our needs. In the mean time, what other alternative is there?
EDIT: Ameren producing more power than needed is a good thing. Keeping the grid flush with unused load prevents failures and brown outs. The extra load is there so that when demand surges there is no lag and therefore no damaging surges. If Ameren is wise they should be selling that power to where there are shortfalls. I am curious to see what Missouri's current max power capacity and what future demands are like.
I think you are taking kcmo out of context. I think he was being sarcastic about how misinformed people are about nuclear power plants.
Anyhow, I agree, we are not spending enough on alternative energy. However, if power demand is growing new technologies are not yet ready to bear the brunt of a primary load. Given the way our grid is now, if we try to supplant big power plants with solar or wind, any significant drop in supply from either source would overload the system and cause widespread failure.
I like what I saw at the Boone County co-op. They allowed me to commit some of what I paid for electricity to come from wind sources. It wasn't much, but it was a start.
Point is, in the meantime, what do you suggest? Both options have negative effects. One has a 100% possibility of spreading pollutants and contaminants. The other has a very minimal possibility of a shutdown situation. And an even smaller possibility of a partial meltdown which, in itself, has a low probability of significant radioactive release (given they use a modern design). For now, I'll take the mild risk and bury the mess somewhere (not ideal i know).
Both Ameren and KCP&L offer those wishing to net meter $2/watt installed up to 50kW, I believe, in a cash payback, as long as they commit to remaining tied to the grid x 10 years. That, along with the current federal 30% tax refund for installed solar/wind/fuel cell/biomass, are the subsidies which make even the slightest consideration of investment into such energies affordable for most. SERC's in Missouri are non-tradable and worth nothing compared to many other states. I suspect they are basically a ponzi scheme anyway.
Were solar/wind more efficient it would not require subsidization by both the federal government and utilities, IMO. To install the most efficient PVC array manufactured tommorrow I can only expect 19% efficiency on the top end. Lesser panels run between 15-17% efficiency.
I'm firmly against buring biofuels for electricity. We are already depleting our soil at record rates via traditional farming methods. Adding corn production for ethanol use has only accelerated the process. Burn those canes and stalks or switchgrass et al. at a biofuel plant and what is left to be returned to the soil?
Coal is the least expensive and nuclear is the most efficient is it not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichMonk
Yes, the time is NOW to invest.
Even with a lot of money it will take time. I see breakthroughs all the time in alt energy but these things take time to develop. Engineers have been harping about and working hydrogen power since the fifties and yet we still see slow progress. I even know of a few (not just one) viable hydrogen storage solutions but even those will take time to get to market and even when they do it will take time to scale up to our needs. In the mean time, what other alternative is there?
EDIT: Ameren producing more power than needed is a good thing. Keeping the grid flush with unused load prevents failures and brown outs. The extra load is there so that when demand surges there is no lag and therefore no damaging surges. If Ameren is wise they should be selling that power to where there are shortfalls. I am curious to see what Missouri's current max power capacity and what future demands are like.
I don't think Missourians want to see "rolling blackouts" or brownouts become routine as seen in California.
Were demand to significantly outweigh supply, under the coming "smart grid", who determines where in the grid the energy is directed, individual utilities, or a federal agency?
Last edited by ShadowCaver; 03-17-2011 at 01:04 PM..
I'm firmly against buring biofuels for electricity. We are already depleting our soil at record rates via traditional farming methods. Adding corn production for ethanol use has only accelerated the process. Burn those canes and stalks or switchgrass et al. at a biofuel plant and what is left to be returned to the soil?
Coal is the least expensive and nuclear is the most efficient is it not?
Using switchgrass and and stalks can be a sustainable practice if proper farming methods are used. In particular crop rotation with plants that fix nitrogen like clovers (Happy St. Patrick's Day) replenish the soil. In recent years crop rotation has been abandoned because of nitrogen fertilizers. Unfortunately, nitrogen fertilizers often require a lot of resources to generate and the excess runoff affect the global nitrogen cycle in negative ways. We would have to get back to the basics of what works but its totally doable.
Measuring the cost of coal and nuclear depends on what you are measuring. Factoring indirect effects of coal raises its cost (mining, health issues, scarcity). Nuclear is very expensive. Operators don't see profit until at least 20-30 years of operation (even with subsidies). Also, nuclear isn't terribly efficient. During operation it has good efficiency ratings, however, after the fuel rods are removed, there is still decay going on and that heat is simply wasted. Plus the energy required to keep spent fuel cool is another factor.
The holy grail of energy production efficiency is actually very common. Mitochondria oxidize glucose and others (why we breathe oxygen) to produce chemical energy (human gasoline) and CO2. This is why I think bacterial and algal solutions to energy production are the most promising.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal
I don't think Missourians want to see "rolling blackouts" or brownouts become routine as seen in California.
Were demand to significantly outweigh supply, under the coming "smart grid", who determines where in the grid the energy is directed, individual utilities, or a federal agency?
IDK. In my opinion, power, being a public necessity should be a part of the commons (owned by the community that uses it). By that logic, the smart grid should be treated as though it is part of the commons. Therefore, the areas that need power now would get priority. That is the beauty of the smart grid, you can direct electricity where it is needed and not waste so much power routing around wires that are barely being used (i.e. bedroom communities during office hours).
Last edited by ShadowCaver; 03-17-2011 at 01:04 PM..
Using switchgrass and and stalks can be a sustainable practice if proper farming methods are used. In particular crop rotation with plants that fix nitrogen like clovers (Happy St. Patrick's Day) replenish the soil. In recent years crop rotation has been abandoned because of nitrogen fertilizers. Unfortunately, nitrogen fertilizers often require a lot of resources to generate and the excess runoff affect the global nitrogen cycle in negative ways. We would have to get back to the basics of what works but its totally doable.
Measuring the cost of coal and nuclear depends on what you are measuring. Factoring indirect effects of coal raises its cost (mining, health issues, scarcity). Nuclear is very expensive. Operators don't see profit until at least 20-30 years of operation (even with subsidies). Also, nuclear isn't terribly efficient. During operation it has good efficiency ratings, however, after the fuel rods are removed, there is still decay going on and that heat is simply wasted. Plus the energy required to keep spent fuel cool is another factor.
The holy grail of energy production efficiency is actually very common. Mitochondria oxidize glucose and others (why we breathe oxygen) to produce chemical energy (human gasoline) and CO2. This is why I think bacterial and algal solutions to energy production are the most promising.
This is slightly off-topic, but I thought I would add this to the first part of your post.
MU and NMSU have been conducting research with field peas regarding returning nitrogen to the soil with very good results.
My grandfather regularly rotated his cotton crop with field peas as far back as the 30s.
Common knowledge, I thought.
But I digress, carry on!
Yeah, it should be common knowledge. I remember learning about the benefits of crop rotation in elementary school. However, the large corporate farms that dominate much of the landscape today are content to maximize profit by using manufactured fertilizers instead of letting nature heal the soil on its own.
This is slightly off-topic, but I thought I would add this to the first part of your post.
MU and NMSU have been conducting research with field peas regarding returning nitrogen to the soil with very good results.
My grandfather regularly rotated his cotton crop with field peas as far back as the 30s.
Common knowledge, I thought.
But I digress, carry on!
Crop rotation is common knowledge. However, since ethanol came into play as a "cash cow" for farmers who plant corn on a large scale, I've noticed a significant decrease in crop rotation and the planting of corn year after year, after year in the same fields with no nitrogen producing cover crop in the fall/winter. Chemical fertilizers(anyhydrous, urea and lime) are being used to make up the difference. How can planting corn in the same fields x 5 years be good for the soil? IMO, this depletes the soil sans rotation. Am I incorrect?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichMonk
Yeah, it should be common knowledge. I remember learning about the benefits of crop rotation in elementary school. However, the large corporate farms that dominate much of the landscape today are content to maximize profit by using manufactured fertilizers instead of letting nature heal the soil on its own.
It is not just the corporate farms using this practice but medium sized family farmers across Missouri that I witness doing the same.
Aplology to the OP for taking this thread of topic but since he has not offered alternative energy sources discussing the remaining sources becomes the natural progression of such a thread as this.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
