High oil prices are the "Achillies heel" of our economy...

[roadrat]

Originally Posted by Philip T

Yep. First one off Oil wins.

And wins big.

First one off oil will win, but only if you replace it with something capable of suppling all our power needs.
Not some touchy feelie green nonsense that will just leave us in more debt with nothing to show for it.


bill

[Philip T]

Originally Posted by roadrat

First one off oil will win, but only if you replace it with something capable of suppling all our power needs.

Which are not really as big of deal as is commonly promoted by the drama queens in these discussions.

Oil -- as we tend to use for fuel and energy -- tends to be so lossy that it only takes a fraction of the energy embodied in the Oil to produce the same result.

Just taking US off Oil saves US major consumption of energy.

Not some touchy feelie green nonsense that will just leave us in more debt with nothing to show for it.

That part is all just your own garbage/agenda you bring to the conversation.

You are welcome to it, but at this point it does not merit much response.

[Philip T]

Originally Posted by roadrat

No I do not please enlighten me!

bill

Well, I will play a little bit like you are sincere.

Let's start with the Big Numbers.

First the US is much larger than France. (duh, huh?) And we use much more overall energy. (another duh, huh? ) Means we would need A LOT more Nukes to operate on a French model.

Real rough numbers are about 20% of US electricity comes from the existing 104 Nukes. To scale up to 75% per the French model would -- by rough linear numbers -- mean around an additional 300 Nukes. These things take 10 years or more to build.

Even if we were building 10 at a time, that means 300 years to meet the level of France, while existing ones would be falling off line during that 300 years. But we would never run that long, as we would be up to our irradiated eyebrows in waste.

And as Nukes are about the most expensive power possible, and we are running on limited funds, this is pretty silly to even consider economically.

==================

Want me to go into the power export model (of France) that we do not available to US?

-------------------------------

How about the Daily Time of Use in the US that Nukes do not fit?

-------------------------------

Or the total lack of a functional waste management program?

[Chango]

Originally Posted by roadrat

This is exactly the "Fear and Ignorance" I am talking about, Fukashima is old (built in 71) and out dated, and built in a place none for earthquakes and tsunamis.

The French model for utilizing nuclear power is a great example of how it should be done.
Nuclear Power in France | French Nuclear Energy
Why The French Like Nuclear Energy | Nuclear Reaction | FRONTLINE | PBS

and as far as the spent fuel,
Nuclear Wasteland - IEEE Spectrum

Recycling Nuclear Fuel The French Do It Why Cant Oui

P.S. Thanks for putting up the Yucca mountain info.


bill

Originally Posted by M3 Mitch

I think the Fukushima fallout map is wildly exaggerated - 750 Rads, assuming beta-gamma primarily which is good for fission products - is approximately 750 REM, which is beyond the LD 50-30 dose (the dose that will kill half of "average" troops within 30 days) (assuming minimal medical care)

I am on the west coast, I don't see dead bodies piled up.

Even Chernobyl - firstly, the event only happened because an operating crew took the plant way, way outside its normal "envelope" - secondy they inadventently established the outer limits for what a reactor accident can be, given the worst plant and the worst accident management - and it was bad, but having been to the zone it's not a wasteland, it would not be a good idea to live there but the wildlife and trees are like a nature preserve.

Fukushima was bad, and accident management was not all it could have been, but to the best of my knowledge only 3 people at the plant died during the event, none of these due to any radioactive effects.

Originally Posted by Philip T

Do you actually read the articles you link?

Do you understand why a "French" model is a mis-fit for the US?

You people are missing the point. No, Nuclear energy is NOT the boogey-man, but ocassionally s&!t happens... and when it does, it happens big a la Fukushima or Chernoybl. Meanwhile, our best solution to deal with the waste from nuclear reactors is to bury it in the Nevada desert, where it will remain hot for thousands of years.

So you still think this is a great idea that can totally replace fossil fuels? Seriously?

[2018]

Originally Posted by roadrat

First one off oil will win, but only if you replace it with something capable of suppling all our power needs.

And therein lies the true problem. We use too much energy. The USA uses twice as much energy per-capita as Germany, France, or Japan. Even if you account for climate and land area, we still use far more.

All the windmills, solar panels, and nuclear plants in the world will not solve this problem. And we don't need to sell our souls to OPEC to fuel this country. But we have to take a realistic look at our energy usage first.