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.
We could keep the lights on with natural gas and the newest generation of nuclear power plants. And nuclear power is statistically safer than coal or solar.
But the republicans want coal power because the coal corporations give the republicans campaign money. And then the republicans bash alternative energy sources (when alternative energy sources create more jobs than all other power sources combined.)
I'm happy someone was able to answer why the last US nuclear plant was built in the 1970s. The Hard Greens essentially killed nuclear, they're now working on coal. In my little neck of the woods they're going after natural gas.
It's only a matter of time before they start hitting solar and wind.
Nope. Absolutely incorrect. Newest nuclear plant went on line in 2016
WATTS BAR II
Owner - TVA
Location - Spring City, Tenn.
Went critical May 23, 2016
Connected to power grid Jun 3, 2016
Fully operational Oct 19, 2016
Nominal power - 1218 Me
There are also 4 more nukes under construction in the USA.
I would be curious as to the # of nuclear plants it takes to account for 20% of the energy share vs the # of coal plants it takes to produce its 33% share.
I would assume, with no foreknowledge, that a single nuclear plant has a substantially higher energy output than a single coal plant since it is harnessing a substantially more energetic physical reaction but I could be wrong.
The problem with nuclear is that it is not fool proof; look at Japan's mess. Heck they are burning up the best robots money can buy trying just to get into the high radiation areas of the old facility. They did not foresee the tsunami and we could very easily underestimate natural and man made events.
With nuclear generating plants humans can not simply walk away; the radiation last for thousands of years. In the first Gulf War we targeted Iraq's oil wells. Nuclear plants are part of our infrastructure and could do considerable damage to our Country if they fail - that paints one big bull's-eye on the side of these reactors. Tsunami's could hit some of our costal reactors as well as earthquakes could hit others. Man is not God and cannot see the future.
I still remember Three Mile Island. The night before it happened I took my wife to the "The China Syndrome". I fought with her on the way home - she stated that we were too smart to have anything like that happen here. I argued that I thought it was very possible. The very next day Three Mile Island was all over the news. Even now I try to remind her that she was wrong at least one time - of course I usually don't win the argument!
Are you talking about fracking? I learned about that when Kasich was speaking about creating jobs, the chemical spills, the breathing problems and the water being poisoned, oh, you were talking about coal? Maybe we should be talking about fracking! Bernie Sanders did:
Yes, clean energy would be great, but that requires an investment that companies don't want to make. They rolling in money with the fracking and padding the pockets of politicians to keep it going.
They have been talking clean energy since I was a girl, and that was a LONG time ago. When I was 17 years old in 1971, I remember going to look at electric cars in a showroom in Indiana. Yeah, what happened to that.
There are consequences to everything. Coal is dirty to mine and to burn. Natural gas is dirty to mine but is clean burning. Natural gas releases minimal CO2 and doesn't release SOX, NOX, and particulate matter (like coal and oil) which directly causes smog.
Try reading it again. 37% is from Duke's generation. 50% is the entire country.
The wording is a little vague. It says "37% of our electricity." In context the "our" appears to refer to the United States and not Duke Energy. Maybe I misread it.
Some things to realize, traditionally coal plants have made up the bulk of base power and that's probably not going to change much. These plants run almost constantly and the cost of the fuel is very large part of the cost of the electricity. Gas plants traditionally filled the role of intermediary and peaking plants. They were not run at or near full capacity constantly but much more cheaper to start up and shut down. The higher cost of the fuel was not as relevant. They are also cheaper to build and currently more efficient.
They are working on bringing the same high efficient tech to coal plants and if successful gas will be in the same boat it was 8 years ago for base power.... The other side of that coin is they are less costly to fill the roll of backing up intermittent supplies of solar and wind.
At the end of the day neither gas or coal is going anywhere, they both have a role to fill.
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.
