Nuclear Power Needs To Go

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

It doesn't??

Something some of the electric car proponents seem to believe.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Electric cars powered by electricity from non-polluting, renewable sources. Electric cars by themselves aren't the solution but they're a part of it.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Electric cars powered by electricity from non-polluting, renewable sources.

At the risk of repeating myself,

Your argument reminds me of criticism of the Green Party in Germany back about 35 years back. Roughly translated, it was that the Greens believed that their electricity came directly from the power receptacle (i.e., it was spontaneously generated in a pure fashion magically at the plug).

How exactly is it that the electricity used to charge electric car batteries is inherently non-polluting and renewable? Do they direct electrons only with a renewable energy provenance to charging stations (while directing dirty electrons to the homes of the unworthy?)

Moreover, the overall energy efficiency of a real gas-sipper (e.g., a gas-powered Honda Civic) and a full electric Nissan Volt is nearly identical (which makes perfect sense in terms of conservation of energy). The real difference is that electric vehicles have no emissions at the point of use, but have emissions at the point of power generation.

https://www.masterresource.org/elect...e-vs-electric/

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by finnbow

If Harry Reid hadn't effectively closed Yucca Mountain (that was built with financing from the civilian nuclear industry) or if we chose to recycle spent fuel, it wouldn't be an intractable issue.

That said, we have ~100 operating power reactors in the United States. What do you propose? Shutting them down before their operating licenses expire? What good would that do? You'd still have ~100 plants to decommission, lots of spent fuel to store or reprocess, 800 billion kilowatt-hours of power to replace, and untold billions to pay the utility companies for reneging on the operating licenses and pissing away their money on Yucca Mountain.

Other than that, you're right.

And since I never said any of that, I'm right.

And you bring up another area where nuclear sucks. Decommissioning old nukes is a real can of worms.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by finnbow

At the risk of repeating myself,

Your argument reminds me of criticism of the Green Party in Germany back about 35 years back. Roughly translated, it was that the Greens believed that their electricity came directly from the power receptacle (i.e., it was spontaneously generated in a pure fashion magically at the plug).

How exactly is it that the electricity used to charge electric car batteries is inherently non-polluting and renewable? Do they direct electrons only with a renewable energy provenance to charging stations (while directing dirty electrons to the homes of the unworthy?)

We must begin the transition to 100% renewable non-polluting sources. You don't need to direct the dirty electrons elsewhere when there aren't any. Solar, wind, tidal and geothermal are all non-polluting renewable means of power generation.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Boreas

We must begin the transition to 100% renewable non-polluting sources. You don't need to direct the dirty electrons elsewhere when there aren't any. Solar, wind, tidal and geothermal are all non-polluting renewable means of power generation.

Solar is only really viable where the sun shines a lot and people don't live (i.e., where you have the space for solar panel "farms"). Wind power is only viable where the wind reliably blows and people don't live or don't mind turbines in their yards or beaches. Tidal is only viable along coasts with very high tidal range and geothermal is viable in places like Iceland. Morever, generating solar power in the middle of a remote desert or wind power on a remote mountain top both require lots of new transmission lines (beyond those of the current grid).

I firmly believe in replacing as much non-renewable energy as is practical/possible in an industrialized economy. To think that we'll get to 100% anytime soon is a pipe-dream of Bernie-like proportions.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Solar is only really viable where the sun shines a lot and people don't live (i.e., where you have the space for solar panel "farms"). Wind power is only viable where the wind reliably blows and people don't live or don't mind turbines in their yards or beaches. Tidal is only viable along coasts with very high tidal range and geothermal is viable in places like Iceland. Morever, generating solar power in the middle of a remote desert or wind power on a remote mountain top both require lots of new transmission lines (beyond those of the current grid).

I firmly believe in replacing as much non-renewable energy as is practical/possible in an industrialized economy. To think that we'll get to 100% anytime soon is a pipe-dream of Bernie-like proportions.

Did I say that? Getting there as quickly as possible isn't the same as "any time soon" but it should be the goal and the first thing to go should be nukes. And is it better to charge your Tesla with 100% "dirty" electrons or even 80% "dirty" electrons?

[nailer]

Originally Posted by Boreas

And since I never said any of that, I'm right.

And you bring up another area where nuclear sucks. Decommissioning old nukes is a real can of worms.

I just happen to be an SME on that subject. They do it in Bremerton and during a visit I was provided a detailed tour of the Ticonderoga class cruiser being deconstructed.

FWIW you are dead on target regarding nuclear waste in this country.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by finnbow

At the risk of repeating myself,

Your argument reminds me of criticism of the Green Party in Germany back about 35 years back. Roughly translated, it was that the Greens believed that their electricity came directly from the power receptacle (i.e., it was spontaneously generated in a pure fashion magically at the plug).

How exactly is it that the electricity used to charge electric car batteries is inherently non-polluting and renewable? Do they direct electrons only with a renewable energy provenance to charging stations (while directing dirty electrons to the homes of the unworthy?)

Moreover, the overall energy efficiency of a real gas-sipper (e.g., a gas-powered Honda Civic) and a full electric Nissan Volt is nearly identical (which makes perfect sense in terms of conservation of energy). The real difference is that electric vehicles have no emissions at the point of use, but have emissions at the point of power generation.

https://www.masterresource.org/elect...e-vs-electric/

I challenge you this assertion. Energy generation in power plants is a heck of a lot more efficient than automobiles since heat generated in automotive engines goes out through the tail pipe and the radiator. Waste heat generated in power plants is sequentially trapped and used elsewhere. They don't simply go up the smoke-stack nor is an internal combustion engine designed to develop heat. So those are two strikes against an internal combustion engine.

So to claim that energy conversion in a electric car vs. internal combustion engines are the same is ludicrous.

[nailer]

The Japanese auto industry has put a lot into improving the efficiency of the much beloved ICE. As an automobile engine an ICE is not being designed to generate heat, in fact it could be said that high efficiency designs are designed to minimize heat generation. Wouldn't this lessen the impact of strike two.

On the other hand, stee-rike one was 100+ mph heat.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by nailer

The Japanese auto industry has put a lot into improving the efficiency of the much beloved ICE. As an automobile engine an ICE is not being designed to generate heat, in fact it could be said that high efficiency designs are designed to minimize heat generation. Wouldn't this lessen the impact of strike two.

On the other hand, stee-rike one was 100+ mph heat.

Point I was making is that the ICE engine was developed to provide rotational torque to power automobiles. It's a four stroke engine with one power stroke, the other strokes are essential to complete the cycle but not exactly designed for power generation. For power generation, a boiler is used, a giant heating tank where coal or oil is used to fire the boiler. Energy needed to keep the boilers going can and is optimized so that waste heat is minimal. Waste heat can also be effectively trapped.

How many strikes is that, one or two?