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.
What they should do is offer free utilities to anyone within a 10 mile radius and sign me up as a life long resident of the Nuke Zone.
It's interesting that you say that. Most power plants generate a crap-load of waste-heat, I've heard that parts of some towns in Europe are located in "heating districts" where the houses get "free" heat from the power plant. Either that or the plant makes some extra $$ by selling the heat, probably cheaper than heat from other sources.
It's interesting that you say that. Most power plants generate a crap-load of waste-heat, I've heard that parts of some towns in Europe are located in "heating districts" where the houses get "free" heat from the power plant. Either that or the plant makes some extra $$ by selling the heat, probably cheaper than heat from other sources.
Back in the "day" when lots of towns had steam plants they would send the LP steam downtown after it left the turbine and bring it back to the condensor. Your correct this was a service provided by the utility... the ideal set up for modern gas fired generation is called combined cycle this process uses steam generated by exhaust energy to spin another turbine. Typically raises plant effeicency to 80%........
Back in the "day" when lots of towns had steam plants they would send the LP steam downtown after it left the turbine and bring it back to the condensor. Your correct this was a service provided by the utility... the ideal set up for modern gas fired generation is called combined cycle this process uses steam generated by exhaust energy to spin another turbine. Typically raises plant effeicency to 80%........
Actually between 55 and 60% efficient. Extracting steam for process heat is still done today, but less frequently for district heating systems than industrial customers.
My father is a retired nuclear engineer and specifically worked with safety, storage, and conversion of nuclear waste all over the U.S., and studied sites in France and Russia. He is an avid environmentalist as well, and is adamant that nuclear energy is the path to energy independence and pollution reduction in our country. It is one of the most highly regulated industries in the U.S., if not THE most, making it safer and cleaner than even clean coal technology. I asked him about wind and solar recently, and he said that the amount of land/habitat you would have to destroy to create solar/wind farms to reach the same level of nuclear energy output of one reactor is enormous. Not to say that solar and wind aren't an integral part of the puzzle, but the efficiency of nuclear energy can't be beat right now. It's CHEAP, and if the U.S. were to build more reactors it would create thousands if not hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs. I say go for it.
Your Dad's wrong about solar and wind. Wind has an insignificant footprint. Farmers just work around the bases. Distributed solar will most often be located on existing rooftops. The issue with nuclear is cost and risk. The hold up right now isn't government regulation, it's corporate boards of directors who are nervous about the $9 Billion price tag.
Actually between 55 and 60% efficient. Extracting steam for process heat is still done today, but less frequently for district heating systems than industrial customers.
Darn better tell the boss I've been screwing up the fuel effiency reports on the CT.......
Live around 25 miles from one. Lived within 100 miles of Three Mile Island when it was built and when it went whacko in '79. I haven't started glowing yet.
When it comes to a choice for power it seems the dollar and cents should have an impact. If I can power a house for $5 why would I spend $800?
Here are the numbers it is estimated that a nuclear power plant will cost $9.5 Billion if built today. It takes a minimum of 10 years to build one. Of every plant built they have all had 100% cost over run so the plant estimated int he 60's at $1B cost over $2B to complete... This makes sense if you think about it. - With inflation, income increases and so forth the price will double and more.
This means a plant planned for today will cost $19 B by the time it is completed.
A nuke will supply power of about 1,200 MW which will take care of 650,000 homes or so.
This means each house costs $29,000 to provide that energy to.
Each of these homes will average electric expenses of say $200 monthly or $2,400 annually or each household will spend 1.5B annually to buy that power.
The power plant will be decommissioned in 40 years yes it has a short shelf life. relatively.
on the other hand I contacted a wind mill company and they quoted me a system that would cost $16,000 and would be able to generate from 50-120% of my power. It's cost is $16,000 with no discounts for mass production.
My energy bill will range from $100 - a credit if sold back to the power company. on worse case I spend $1,200 annually or $48,000 over 40 years. The nuke assuming no price increases - cost me $96,000 over the same 40 years.
On the best case I will receive $5-10k income over those 40 years.
Windmills can be done immediately and likely can reduce the costs in mass production. So if you save 30% that would mean each unit would cost a little over $11,000. lets say you can only get them for $14,000 it is still more than 50% cheaper than the nuke.
Solar power is on the verge of making power at the rate of less than 25 cents per watt I can combine these two powers and make at least 100% of a home or businesses power and eliminate their monthly power bill.
Nukes keep consumers tied to the corporation wind and solar can free them... mind you not the super wind mills of the pickens plan but small home versions that are compact, efficient and attractive.
Nuclear power only makes sense to Westinghouse when they sell these plants. ... Did I mention when the Wolf Creek nuke came on line, Kansas City Power and light sent consumers notices that outlined our 400% price increases in the next 4 years. I expect that is the same with the others. so the $200 monthly is probably way under reality. in many cases.
Did we talk about the storage of the waste ... ok Yucca mountain looks good and they seem to be able to transport it ok. but it must be stored for 250,000 years. If we look back in time that long ago we were swinging from trees. do we think we can remotely keep a government around over 500? ok maybe as long as the Romans...1100 years. that leaves 248,900 to be concerned about it. BTW did we ever find a place in this country that has zero risk of earthquake? I'm also sure the corporations that run these plants will have our best interest at heart when something goes wrong. After all Con Ed did so well with 3-Mile Island, DOH , I guess they did deny there was a problem and then denied any nuclear waste was released... I'm sure their lies are isolated and other companies are more honest.
There are many reason to not add nukes. but the simple fact is they cost too much. $69,000,000,000 vs $9,100,000,000 the math is simple. which do you want to pay for? call me cheap but I want the wind and solar.
When it comes to a choice for power it seems the dollar and cents should have an impact. If I can power a house for $5 why would I spend $800?
Here are the numbers it is estimated that a nuclear power plant will cost $9.5 Billion if built today. It takes a minimum of 10 years to build one. Of every plant built they have all had 100% cost over run so the plant estimated int he 60's at $1B cost over $2B to complete... This makes sense if you think about it. - With inflation, income increases and so forth the price will double and more.
This means a plant planned for today will cost $19 B by the time it is completed.
A nuke will supply power of about 1,200 MW which will take care of 650,000 homes or so.
This means each house costs $29,000 to provide that energy to.
Each of these homes will average electric expenses of say $200 monthly or $2,400 annually or each household will spend 1.5B annually to buy that power.
The power plant will be decommissioned in 40 years yes it has a short shelf life. relatively.
on the other hand I contacted a wind mill company and they quoted me a system that would cost $16,000 and would be able to generate from 50-120% of my power. It's cost is $16,000 with no discounts for mass production.
My energy bill will range from $100 - a credit if sold back to the power company. on worse case I spend $1,200 annually or $48,000 over 40 years. The nuke assuming no price increases - cost me $96,000 over the same 40 years.
On the best case I will receive $5-10k income over those 40 years.
Windmills can be done immediately and likely can reduce the costs in mass production. So if you save 30% that would mean each unit would cost a little over $11,000. lets say you can only get them for $14,000 it is still more than 50% cheaper than the nuke.
Solar power is on the verge of making power at the rate of less than 25 cents per watt I can combine these two powers and make at least 100% of a home or businesses power and eliminate their monthly power bill.
Nukes keep consumers tied to the corporation wind and solar can free them... mind you not the super wind mills of the pickens plan but small home versions that are compact, efficient and attractive.
Nuclear power only makes sense to Westinghouse when they sell these plants. ... Did I mention when the Wolf Creek nuke came on line, Kansas City Power and light sent consumers notices that outlined our 400% price increases in the next 4 years. I expect that is the same with the others. so the $200 monthly is probably way under reality. in many cases.
Did we talk about the storage of the waste ... ok Yucca mountain looks good and they seem to be able to transport it ok. but it must be stored for 250,000 years. If we look back in time that long ago we were swinging from trees. do we think we can remotely keep a government around over 500? ok maybe as long as the Romans...1100 years. that leaves 248,900 to be concerned about it. BTW did we ever find a place in this country that has zero risk of earthquake? I'm also sure the corporations that run these plants will have our best interest at heart when something goes wrong. After all Con Ed did so well with 3-Mile Island, DOH , I guess they did deny there was a problem and then denied any nuclear waste was released... I'm sure their lies are isolated and other companies are more honest.
There are many reason to not add nukes. but the simple fact is they cost too much. $69,000,000,000 vs $9,100,000,000 the math is simple. which do you want to pay for? call me cheap but I want the wind and solar.
here is the thing about Solar and Wind generation. They are COMPLETELY subject to geographic location. With wind generators more specifically residential size, they must be located 30' above any object within 300', this means other wind generators, which can cause air turbulence, effecting the production of the other generators within 300'. They have a short life. The generator has to have a steady wind, 10mph. Wind gusts are NOT going to net a good result in terms of energy production. and you have days where there is no wind. Well tough luck for energy production Solar, is very expensive unless you live in an area where there are massive rebates (Excel energy zones for instance give 55% rebate) The quantity of panels 3' x 5' needed to replace your energy consumption is extremely high. We have one home we finished the designs on that has 87!!! panels on the roof, they are producing 125-140% of the energy needed for that home. The panels weight add up and homes need to have the engineering of the roof looked at to see if the trusses will support the weight. If not the roof must be reinforced, or the trusses may have to be designed with larger lumber for new home construction. The area around the house must be designed very carefully. A shadow over one of the panels will reduce the production of the system by 80%!!! yes, they are strung up like xmas lights, one goes out they all do. This is going to GREATLY limit Architectural designs, if you thought Mcmansions and your typically spec home was bad, just wait. Next for solar you really need to look at location. A solar array is NOT going to be good in Seattle, whereas Denver is a GREAT choice, Denver enjoys 360 days of sunshine, Seattle is well..... I have never seen it not be cloudy.
and if you ever saw it you would even say it glows.
all of the reindeer loved him they would shout it out with glee
i wana glow like rudolf
we'll go down in history.
in all seriousness jane fonda did us a great disservice with china syndrome (1979 film)
such accidents are rare.
oil is guna kill us asap. who you guna call.
When it comes to a choice for power it seems the dollar and cents should have an impact. If I can power a house for $5 why would I spend $800?
...
There are many reason to not add nukes. but the simple fact is they cost too much. $69,000,000,000 vs $9,100,000,000 the math is simple. which do you want to pay for? call me cheap but I want the wind and solar.
How about if we have nuclear and solar and wind? I'm all for that, too.
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.
The facts about Nukes
