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.
· Nuclear energy is expensive. It is in fact one of the least expensive energy sources. In 2004, the average cost of producing nuclear energy in the United States was less than two cents per kilowatt-hour, comparable with coal and hydroelectric. Advances in technology will bring the cost down further in the future.
This number is a little misleading because it is the cost of nuclear fuel not the cost of building the plant. A nuclear plant might easily cost 10 billion dollar for several thousand MW plant with several reactors. America builds its nuclear plants like a fine Italian sports car, the workmanship is superlative and each are one off and made by hand. They also have Lambourghini prices.
Thats a fallacy, it goes hand in hand with the "nuclear is dangerous" argument.
People think of three mile island, but what they don't see is that three mile island was actually a success story. The concrete containment held the reactor, and prevented a meltdown. That was in 1979, imagine what we can do today.
The danger in nuclear power demonstrated by TMI was the multibillion dollar hit that Metropolitan Edision and its investors especially those on Wall Street took when TMI Unit #2 was written off. This doesn't happen with coal, oil or gas fired plants. But then came Chernobyl which showed what can happen if a reactor explodes and puts several hundred tons of its core into the air as dust. Chernobyl had a confinement building but the explosion puched through it. One of the problems in cleaning up TMI #2 was that part of the reactor melted and the rest was so warped that the control rods were frozen in place. The reactor was uncontrolable. A full meltdown at TMI could have put radioactive material in the ground water and then into the Susquehana river and than the Chesapeake Bay with the potential of ending the use of one of America's great fisheries.
Even if CO2 is an issue none what so ever. China just recently passed the US as the number one producer of CO2 emissions and India is pulling up fast. Neither of these countries is slowing down but instead accelerating the use of coal for an energy source and combined they account for roughly 1/3 the world's population.
I don't know about the global warming or whatnot, but no reason to compete with those guys in producing more emissions. I mean it is just not too much fun to breath when they burn the coal. Trust me, I have been to China very recently. It is really really difficult to breath. If you need to burn CO2 coalman, I prefer it not be in my neighborhood. I am willing to pay more if it will keep me not inhaling that thing.
The danger in nuclear power demonstrated by TMI was the multibillion dollar hit that Metropolitan Edision and its investors especially those on Wall Street took when TMI Unit #2 was written off. This doesn't happen with coal, oil or gas fired plants. But then came Chernobyl which showed what can happen if a reactor explodes and puts several hundred tons of its core into the air as dust. Chernobyl had a confinement building but the explosion puched through it. One of the problems in cleaning up TMI #2 was that part of the reactor melted and the rest was so warped that the control rods were frozen in place. The reactor was uncontrolable. A full meltdown at TMI could have put radioactive material in the ground water and then into the Susquehana river and than the Chesapeake Bay with the potential of ending the use of one of America's great fisheries.
Actually,
TMI was actually a success. The radiation was completely contained, with no leaks whatsoever. Chernobyl was a Russian disaster, caused by poor construction standards. Like you said, "A full meltdown at TMI could" but it didn't, HUGE DIFFERENCE.
America has never had a problem using Nuclear energy, because we are safe about it.
I have been to China very recently. It is really really difficult to breath. If you need to burn CO2 coalman, I prefer it not be in my neighborhood. I am willing to pay more if it will keep me not inhaling that thing.
China has practically no environmental laws but that is besides the point where CO2 is concerned because it is a greenhouse gas, it's not a pollutant. Other than the Global Warming debate it's harmless except in high concentrations and life on this planet would die without it. You could for example asphyxiate yourself with a CO2 fire extinguisher if you were dumb enough to set one off without an air apparatus. The amount coal plants and other fossil fuels produce is negligible.
The bigger concern for air quality and environmentally is other things like mercury, particulate matter etc. which are already regulated in the US but that is really for another topic.
China has practically no environmental laws but that is besides the point where CO2 is concerned because it is a greenhouse gas, it's not a pollutant. Other than the Global Warming debate it's harmless except in high concentrations and life on this planet would die without it. You could for example asphyxiate yourself with a CO2 fire extinguisher if you were dumb enough to set one off without an air apparatus. The amount coal plants and other fossil fuels produce is negligible.
The bigger concern for air quality and environmentally is other things like mercury, particulate matter etc. which are already regulated in the US but that is really for another topic.
So if we were to burn coal for heat or electricity here, it won't have that same smell here as it is out there in China, is that what you are saying? It won't necessitate to wear a mask on a cold winter night to go out? It won't cause breathing problems if you live around one of those plants that produce energy from coal? You are the coalman, you need to enlighten us.
So if we were to burn coal for heat or electricity here, it won't have that same smell here as it is out there in China, is that what you are saying? It won't necessitate to wear a mask on a cold winter night to go out? It won't cause breathing problems if you live around one of those plants that produce energy from coal? You are the coalman, you need to enlighten us.
I believe what he was saying about China and even India for that matter, is that they have told the rest of the planet basically jump in a lake as far as pollution concerns. In their view , the industrialized nations of North America and Europe had their shot at wealth and now it's their turn. Equipping their industrial machines and other polluting devices with smog controls cuts into obtaining obscene profits and is not an option for them at this late date. Now it's their turn at prosperity at any cost.
Since the early 1970s, admittedly Europe and the United States and Canada have severely enforced strict laws in most major industries. I don't even believe China or India have smog device one on any of their vehicles. Or anything else for that matter. Even raw contaminents are dumped straight into their waterways directly with no filtering or cleanup attempted. That's why China has some of the worst dead water zones in the world. A documentary not long ago showed how bad it really is in that it is effecting Japanese fishing in their own waters.
My username "thecoalman" comes from owning a family business that dates back to my Great Grandfather which serviced homeowners who use anthracite coal for home heating. Soft coal the type used in power plants is not exactly my area of expertise but I'd imagine I know more than most.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seren77
So if we were to burn coal for heat
For heat the primary type of coal is anthracite but it's only mined in Northeastern Pennsylvania so it's use doesn't extend outside of the northeast US because the the shipping costs go up the farther you get away from the area. Other uses include water filtration <gasp>. This is the highest rank of coal and it's only found in a few parts of the world, the carbon hovers in the 90% to 95% whereas soft coal used in power plants is much lower. Right off the bat we have much lower emission footprint because it doesn't contain the impurities of soft coal, the CO2 emission however are elevated. Because of the high carbon content and low levels of impurities like sulfur you get a nice clean burn, anthracite is "smokeless" and the smell is not much greater than any other fuel.
I'll note I'm using anthracite in a very urban environment, there's half million dollar homes right down the end of the block. It's not what you're thinking, I know you have this picture in your head of some big cloud hanging over my house but you'd never know my house was heated by anthracite inside or out. I'm sure some of my neighbors would be quite surprised.
When you're considering this you need to consider the the "big picture". In my case I'm using a local product so the energy or emissions expended to get it from the point of mining to my house is quite low compared to other fuels. Less machinery required, less fuel etc. Even less infrastructure required ...these are all factors you need to consider.
I'm also burning the product in an appliance that is about 80% efficient some of which can almost get to 90% so I'm extracting nearly all the energy from the product.
Now if the house next door is using electric to generate their heat half of that heat is coming from coal however power plants are not that efficient nor is the grid that delivers it to the house. Whereas the power plant may need to burn 2 tons of coal I only need to burn one. To that you need to add emissions from the other 50% coming from other sources.
These numbers are not firm but the basis is sound, someone using electric for heat is actually much more total energy than myself to heat their home. The only advantage a coal fired power plant has over directly burning it inside a home is the pollution controls but again the total amount of coal is much more and the quality of the coal is much lower.
I wish I could provide some better data but since anthracite is such a niche product information is sparse and trying to pinpoint the exact numbers would be really tough as it's going to vary because the "big picture" will be different for everyone.
Quote:
It won't cause breathing problems if you live around one of those plants that produce energy from coal?
Compared to China again you have a lot of pollution control here that they do not use. I suspect many of the problems in China are becuse of many small inefficient antiquated facilities with no pollution control whether they are power stations or right at the factory.
Comparing the use of coal in China to here is really an apples and oranges comparison.
I believe what he was saying about China and even India for that matter, is that they have told the rest of the planet basically jump in a lake as far as pollution concerns........
Basically that's the gist of it and increased energy prices here in the US will drive more manufacturing jobs to these countries exacerbating the issue causing more harm than good.
I often tell people to look around them, everything you see is some way shape or form was made possible by cheap electric produced from coal. That goes right down the very building blocks of our society such as cement which is an industry that will be heavily impacted from carbon caps because they use a tremendous amount of coal to produce it. Cement is used to build the foundations of houses, it's used for sidewalks, roadways, bridges, airports and it's cost will impact everything. It's not just about energy but the economy as a whole, the US is what is today due in part to cheap energy.
· Nuclear energy is expensive. It is in fact one of the least expensive energy sources. In 2004, the average cost of producing nuclear energy in the United States was less than two cents per kilowatt-hour, comparable with coal and hydroelectric. Advances in technology will bring the cost down further in the future.
Thats a fallacy, it goes hand in hand with the "nuclear is dangerous" argument.
People think of three mile island, but what they don't see is that three mile island was actually a success story. The concrete containment held the reactor, and prevented a meltdown. That was in 1979, imagine what we can do today.
There were huge writeoffs on current plants and most of the time what's reported is the O&M cost, which is quite low.
The new generation of nuclear plants could end up costing $6,000 - 7,000 per installed kW. Who's going to bear that risk? Right now the utilities that want to build nuclear intend to stick the ratepayers with that risk. I'm fine if we have have third party suppliers build nuclear for fixed price electrical contracts, but I don't think there a single entity that would finance such a risky venture.
Nuclear isn't dangerous if handled correctly. It's very unforgiving of mistakes however.
Last edited by rlchurch; 08-20-2009 at 03:50 PM..
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.
