- Thread starter drbill
- Start date
Nuclear energy on the way?!
Like someone already pointed out, this is nothing more than a distraction tactic to try to sneak something under the public radar.
There have been studies ad-nauseum on the potential for hydroelectric power production in DR, and it is clear that this would be the most cost effective and safest way to permanently produce the electrical power needed in the country. However, we all know that the problem is much deeper than just being able to produce this needed energy, and that a great deal of additional money has to be invested in the infrastructure needed to make the entire delivery system reliable. In addition, an entire culture of people who are used to getting something for nothing, has to be changed into paying customers.
I personally do not want a nuclear power plant in DR because of the safety and environmental concerns. Just consider that many first world countries have not only stopped building them, but are looking for ways to phase out the ones that they already have.
There have been studies ad-nauseum on the potential for hydroelectric power production in DR, and it is clear that this would be the most cost effective and safest way to permanently produce the electrical power needed in the country. However, we all know that the problem is much deeper than just being able to produce this needed energy, and that a great deal of additional money has to be invested in the infrastructure needed to make the entire delivery system reliable. In addition, an entire culture of people who are used to getting something for nothing, has to be changed into paying customers.
I personally do not want a nuclear power plant in DR because of the safety and environmental concerns. Just consider that many first world countries have not only stopped building them, but are looking for ways to phase out the ones that they already have.
G
gary short
Guest
I've seen Pelton wheels in action running remote sawmills and logging camps.... Very slick and very reliable
I know nothing about hydroelectric power generation but checked out what a pelton wheel is on this wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelton_wheel
I am curious, are there watersources that are suitable to driving such a hydro generating wheel? Seems to me that one has to have a fast flowing river that does not flood easily? Anyone with experience with this?
I am curious, are there watersources that are suitable to driving such a hydro generating wheel? Seems to me that one has to have a fast flowing river that does not flood easily? Anyone with experience with this?
The studies that I mentioned on hydroelectric power production take into account the volume of water of the rivers and the speed at which they flow. In the long run, that is the most suitable solution to the electrical shortage in DR.
Where are those? Many places depend on nuclear power. What would they replace them with?Just consider that many first world countries have not only stopped building them, but are looking for ways to phase out the ones that they already have.
All that would be needed is a body of water and a tube for the water to flow through. If the tube diminishes in size along the way to the wheel pressure will be built up allowing the water to do its part.
As an example, Germany wants to phase out all nuclear power plants by 2020.
Most of the nuclear power plants that are being retired are being replaced by generating plants based on gas. The next most common fuel is mineral coal.
Most of the nuclear power plants currently in use have a life expectancy of 40 years, so the year 2020 has become a significant date for most of them, and the race is currently on to find some alternative sources of energy, preferably of the renewable type. Right now, hydrogen seems to be the most popular candidate, and the one with the most promise.
The Nuclear option.
I?ve done some research on fission and this is what I?ve found:
According to Scientific American magazine,- -and all quotes will stem from this source henceforth unless otherwise specified--. There are three ?mature? technologies for extracting energy: There?s hydropower, carbon-based and uranium.
Then there are the other, ?immature? ones: solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, et al. More about these later. First, let us explore the ones we?re more familiar with.
Hydropower: It?s the best alternative if the proper topographic conditions are present. It is clean, relatively low tech/cheap to build. Unfortunately not every nation has the mighty rivers necessary to realize any significant power from this source.
Carbon-based power plants: We?ve been burning these -coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels- since the onset of the industrial revolution with obvious consequences. Today, as a result, the thread of the runaway global heating is only too real to dismiss as nonsense.
Quote: ?The debate on global warming is over. Present levels of carbon dioxide-nearing 400 parts per million in the earth?s atmosphere-are higher than they have been at any time in the past 650,000 years and could easily surpass 500 ppm by the year 2050 without radical intervention.?
No one knows exactly what will happen next if we go on spewing carbon dioxide from motorized vehicles and coal or gas-fired utilities. Quote: ? almost all of the 20 hottest years on record have occurred since the 1980's?
The 9/6/06 edition of the Washington post has a very frightening report titled: ?Study says methane a new climate threat?. It goes on to say that methane gas, frozen for millions of years in the permafrost, is evaporating into the atmosphere which traps heat 20 times more efficiently than carbon dioxide thereby heating the atmosphere which melts more ice which releases more methane and so on.
In short, The perils of climate change and subsequent thread to civilization as we know it is- undisputably real- and can not be ignored further. Quote: ?No one knows exactly what will happen if things are left unchecked?the exact date when a polar ice sheet will complete a phase change from solid to liquid cannot be foreseen with precision.?skeptical public-interest groups still carry on about the uncertainties of climate change. But no climatologist wants to test what will arise if carbon dioxide levels drift much higher than 500 ppm.?
There?s another article in the 9/ 14/ 06 edition of the Washington Post titled ?Decline in winter ice linked to greenhouse gases?. I could go on and on.
The effects of a sudden climate change ( to put it mildly), can indeed be catastrophic. When and if we let it happen, it will be irreversible with unimaginable consequences. It will be a planet-wide holocaust that may indeed spell the end of humanity! I can not stress more the urgency with which we need to address this very real and present danger. The thread of a Chernobyl-like catastrophe pales in comparison.
Nuclear fission: Again, I need to quote from the aforementioned magazine. ?Global electricity consumption is projected to increase 160 percent by 2050"... "building hundreds of nuclear plants will help meet that need without large new emissions of carbon dioxide.?... The world?s ample supply of uranium could fuel a much larger fleet of reactors than exist today throughout their 40- to 50- year life span.?
Nuclear power supplies a sixth of the world?s electricity. Along with hydro power( which supplies slightly more than a sixth), it is a major source of ?carbon-free? energy today. The technology suffered growing pains seared into the public?s mind by the Chernobyl and Three mile island accidents, but plants have demonstrated remarkable reliability and efficiency recently.?
If you were to compare a car built in the 1950's to one built recently, It would be immediately obvious the difference in safety and ease of use. The build-in safety devices are there to protect you from the same prevailing situations found since roads were first built. Nothing much has change except less people are killed by car accidents today than ever before ( as a percentage of the population).
The same can be said about nuclear plants. Chernobyl was a relic of an early technology. It is surprising to me that it didn?t cause greater damage. Today?s technology can well afford the real but unlikely event of a malfunction. We will never again have another Chernobyl. Even in laid- back DR.
? Taking into consideration the capital invested in construction, cost of fuel and waste management, a nuclear plant can compete with coal/ gas at 4.2 (US) cents per kilowatt-hour.?
In this aspect, there are no disadvantages between the two. However, the big difference is that gas/coal pollutes globally while nuclear does it locally. Waste management: The biggest obstacle by far, is how to dispose of spent fuel and other radioactive products. ? The most widely favored approach is geologic disposal, in which waste is stored in chambers hundreds of meters underground. Decades of studies support the geologic disposal option.?
Finding and building a large enough hole in the ground in DR is no easy task. But it can be done.
There are very dry, geologically stable areas in the southwest ideally suited for long- term disposal. To some this is a daunting task, the skeptics abound. There are those that insist it can not be done in DR. All I can tell you is that before you dismiss this as pure folly or absolute idiocy, I urge you to look into it and decide whether you want to take a chance with nukes or face certain death with the possibly uncontrollable and irreversible consequences of a planet-wide atmosphere gone berserk.! In light of the assured destruction brought on by carbon dioxide/methane, I?d rather build me a couple of plants to tie us over until we?re smart enough to find cleaner, safer alternatives. How about you?
Solar cells, wind turbines, etc.: These are all still in their developmental infancy. Unfortunately, because of cheap fossil fuels, these have not been researched enough to make any significant contribution to the world?s energy needs.
Someone once said: ?necessity is the mother of invention?. And precisely because of the abundance of carbon- based fuels is why we now faced an technological crisis in alternative fuel engineering or methods to generate sufficient clean energy to power our homes factories and vehicles.
Quote: "Each of these renewable sources is now at or near a tipping point, the crucial stage when investment and innovation, as well as market access, could enable these attractive but generally marginal providers to become major contributors to regional and global energy supplies.
Translation: These (technologies) contribute next to nothing to the world?s needs. In the case of solar, it is a mere 5,000 megawatts at a cost of 20 to 25 cents (US) per kilowatt hour.
Wind power is much better with 60,000 megawatts generated worldwide. But it is still a trifling amount when you consider the world?s need at the moment stands at 30 trillion megawatts and growing.
As I stated earlier, we need sufficient clean energy to tie us over the next 20 years or so to be able to raise a smarter generation than ours to rescue us from fossil fuels and build us a brave new world. We in DR have very little choice in this matter. It?s either nuclear or certain death. What?s it gonna be?
I?ve done some research on fission and this is what I?ve found:
According to Scientific American magazine,- -and all quotes will stem from this source henceforth unless otherwise specified--. There are three ?mature? technologies for extracting energy: There?s hydropower, carbon-based and uranium.
Then there are the other, ?immature? ones: solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, et al. More about these later. First, let us explore the ones we?re more familiar with.
Hydropower: It?s the best alternative if the proper topographic conditions are present. It is clean, relatively low tech/cheap to build. Unfortunately not every nation has the mighty rivers necessary to realize any significant power from this source.
Carbon-based power plants: We?ve been burning these -coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels- since the onset of the industrial revolution with obvious consequences. Today, as a result, the thread of the runaway global heating is only too real to dismiss as nonsense.
Quote: ?The debate on global warming is over. Present levels of carbon dioxide-nearing 400 parts per million in the earth?s atmosphere-are higher than they have been at any time in the past 650,000 years and could easily surpass 500 ppm by the year 2050 without radical intervention.?
No one knows exactly what will happen next if we go on spewing carbon dioxide from motorized vehicles and coal or gas-fired utilities. Quote: ? almost all of the 20 hottest years on record have occurred since the 1980's?
The 9/6/06 edition of the Washington post has a very frightening report titled: ?Study says methane a new climate threat?. It goes on to say that methane gas, frozen for millions of years in the permafrost, is evaporating into the atmosphere which traps heat 20 times more efficiently than carbon dioxide thereby heating the atmosphere which melts more ice which releases more methane and so on.
In short, The perils of climate change and subsequent thread to civilization as we know it is- undisputably real- and can not be ignored further. Quote: ?No one knows exactly what will happen if things are left unchecked?the exact date when a polar ice sheet will complete a phase change from solid to liquid cannot be foreseen with precision.?skeptical public-interest groups still carry on about the uncertainties of climate change. But no climatologist wants to test what will arise if carbon dioxide levels drift much higher than 500 ppm.?
There?s another article in the 9/ 14/ 06 edition of the Washington Post titled ?Decline in winter ice linked to greenhouse gases?. I could go on and on.
The effects of a sudden climate change ( to put it mildly), can indeed be catastrophic. When and if we let it happen, it will be irreversible with unimaginable consequences. It will be a planet-wide holocaust that may indeed spell the end of humanity! I can not stress more the urgency with which we need to address this very real and present danger. The thread of a Chernobyl-like catastrophe pales in comparison.
Nuclear fission: Again, I need to quote from the aforementioned magazine. ?Global electricity consumption is projected to increase 160 percent by 2050"... "building hundreds of nuclear plants will help meet that need without large new emissions of carbon dioxide.?... The world?s ample supply of uranium could fuel a much larger fleet of reactors than exist today throughout their 40- to 50- year life span.?
Nuclear power supplies a sixth of the world?s electricity. Along with hydro power( which supplies slightly more than a sixth), it is a major source of ?carbon-free? energy today. The technology suffered growing pains seared into the public?s mind by the Chernobyl and Three mile island accidents, but plants have demonstrated remarkable reliability and efficiency recently.?
If you were to compare a car built in the 1950's to one built recently, It would be immediately obvious the difference in safety and ease of use. The build-in safety devices are there to protect you from the same prevailing situations found since roads were first built. Nothing much has change except less people are killed by car accidents today than ever before ( as a percentage of the population).
The same can be said about nuclear plants. Chernobyl was a relic of an early technology. It is surprising to me that it didn?t cause greater damage. Today?s technology can well afford the real but unlikely event of a malfunction. We will never again have another Chernobyl. Even in laid- back DR.
? Taking into consideration the capital invested in construction, cost of fuel and waste management, a nuclear plant can compete with coal/ gas at 4.2 (US) cents per kilowatt-hour.?
In this aspect, there are no disadvantages between the two. However, the big difference is that gas/coal pollutes globally while nuclear does it locally. Waste management: The biggest obstacle by far, is how to dispose of spent fuel and other radioactive products. ? The most widely favored approach is geologic disposal, in which waste is stored in chambers hundreds of meters underground. Decades of studies support the geologic disposal option.?
Finding and building a large enough hole in the ground in DR is no easy task. But it can be done.
There are very dry, geologically stable areas in the southwest ideally suited for long- term disposal. To some this is a daunting task, the skeptics abound. There are those that insist it can not be done in DR. All I can tell you is that before you dismiss this as pure folly or absolute idiocy, I urge you to look into it and decide whether you want to take a chance with nukes or face certain death with the possibly uncontrollable and irreversible consequences of a planet-wide atmosphere gone berserk.! In light of the assured destruction brought on by carbon dioxide/methane, I?d rather build me a couple of plants to tie us over until we?re smart enough to find cleaner, safer alternatives. How about you?
Solar cells, wind turbines, etc.: These are all still in their developmental infancy. Unfortunately, because of cheap fossil fuels, these have not been researched enough to make any significant contribution to the world?s energy needs.
Someone once said: ?necessity is the mother of invention?. And precisely because of the abundance of carbon- based fuels is why we now faced an technological crisis in alternative fuel engineering or methods to generate sufficient clean energy to power our homes factories and vehicles.
Quote: "Each of these renewable sources is now at or near a tipping point, the crucial stage when investment and innovation, as well as market access, could enable these attractive but generally marginal providers to become major contributors to regional and global energy supplies.
Translation: These (technologies) contribute next to nothing to the world?s needs. In the case of solar, it is a mere 5,000 megawatts at a cost of 20 to 25 cents (US) per kilowatt hour.
Wind power is much better with 60,000 megawatts generated worldwide. But it is still a trifling amount when you consider the world?s need at the moment stands at 30 trillion megawatts and growing.
As I stated earlier, we need sufficient clean energy to tie us over the next 20 years or so to be able to raise a smarter generation than ours to rescue us from fossil fuels and build us a brave new world. We in DR have very little choice in this matter. It?s either nuclear or certain death. What?s it gonna be?
Sigh. A false dichotomy, Juan, and I think you're intelligent enough to know that it is, or at least to suspect that it is.
Please study carefully the following graphics from the UN Environment Programme (UNEP):
What does this tell you?
It should tell you that eliminating the DR's greenhouse gas emissions by switching its power supply to nuclear is not going to do much toward changing global climate change. Changing outputs in the US, Europe, Russia, China, India and Brazil will matter much more.
In truth, stopping deforestation on Hispanola will probably contribute as much or more to averting disruptive global climate change than changing the power supply emissions in the DR. And it would have the added "benefit" of averting the eventual transformation of the island into a dessert (did you read the story in today's "Hoy"?). That is something Dominicans, and probably only Dominicans, can directly change the the outcome of.
BTW, I am not as blown away by the citations to the Scientific American piece as others seem to be. I subscribe to SA, and read the entire "Energy's Future Beyond Carbon." I also read the special Economist piece from last week, the DR's communication to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, several reports by UNEP and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, among others. Why? Because I write on environment issues, including climate change, and in fact recently blogged on its probable impact in Latin America and the Caribbean.
In short, increased nuclear power might be a justifiable argument in those nations with huge or fast-growing, globally significant greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions resulting from power generation, but the DR is not one of those. Wrong argument to use as the foundation for your support of nuclear power, Juan. Sorry.
If you read fully the SA treatment of the issue, then you know that they pointed out several problems facing the possible expansion of nuclear power: (1) high initial capital costs; (2) the nuclear waste management issue; (3) nuclear proliferation (the security issue); (4) public acceptance. None of these is insignificant for the DR. In your posts you have ignored all but the waste issue. And I have to wonder about your confidence on "finding the right hole" for it in the DR. Have you looked into the geologic requisites demanded by regulators for what is euphemistically termed by the industry as "long term storage" (decidedly not disposal)? Does the DR have a deep-veined, geologically stable salt mine I don't know about that is not located in the middle of an ecological preserve or tourism pole??
You've also dodged the other issues I and others have raised on this thread, such as the DR's (long-term) record on health, safety and maintenance. It hurts to hear that brought up, I'm sure, but let's talk reality here. Especially when we are talking about an awesome responsibility like proper management of nuclear power plants and the nuclear fuel cycle.
Other problem you've conveniently ignored: persistent (as in over the course of decades!) problems in fixing distribution and transmission efficiency, and the collections problem (including the government itself paying its own power bills!), neither of which will be fixed simply by changing power sources. If you're going to make the huge investment required for a nuclear power plant, you need to assure you can pay for it, or else all you're doing is digging a deeper debt burden for our Dominican children and grandchildren, Juan. How does that help the country?
You've also dodged the question I raised of switching dependency on foreign oil and coal to a dependency on foreign fuel rod reprocessors.
And what happens if you switch most or all your power grid to nuclear and the plant has to go off-grid for safety, environment or even maintenance? To get a proper ROI -- at least a real one, rather than one subsidized by assymetical long-term contracts signed by corrupt government officials, you need to get most of the country's power customers to be paying for that huge loan you took to build the nuclear plan. If it goes offline for any length of time (not un-imaginable in a Dominican context), what are you going to do? Rev up the hydroelectric plants? What if it happens during a long drought?
Get the point? In a country the size of Canada or the US, or a continent the size of Europe, with all their inter-connected grids, if a nuclear plant has to go ouffline for a week or so, the electric company can buy power from elsewehere on the grids or step up power generation from plants utilizing traditional fuels. Who will the DR buy from? Haiti? Or do you propose stringing transmission lines from Puerto Rico? Or are you proposing that the DR also keep a few traditional fuel plants on standby, with fuel reserves waiting? If so, from a cost point of view (since you'll have to pay those plants while they wait idle), what is the point of having the nuclear power plant in the first place?
I am puzzled by your citations on alternative sources. These are generalities; the SA article was speaking of the globe as a whole, not the DR in particular. And that is what we're supposed to be debating here, isn't it?
If you've read the Green Team blog, you'd know that you're quite wrong about the lack of real potential for alternative energy sources for the DR. I do agree that hydro is not the way for the DR -- it does not have the rivers for much potential improvement in power generation from that source (except in micro projects for local consumption), and if one believes any of the climate change models, the extreme climate and rainfall fluctuations the Caribbean can expect in the next 34 years would not make them a reliable source.
Sorry, Juan, but I just don't buy your arguments. As I said before, there are lots of better ways to spend that precious cash, including education and health.
If you truly are concerned about global climate change (and it sounds like you are), one of the lessons you'll take from the reports I blogged about is that small island nations like the DR would better spend their money on improving energy efficiency (in all its forms) and in adaptation to climate change. The DR is more likely to be affected by harsher tropical storms, sea level rise (which may mean saltwater intrusion in some important Dominican acquifers), wild fluctuations in rainfall (and therefore water supplies), and increases in tropical diseases such as malaria and dengue.
So the Dominican population might be better served by improve civil defense planning and preparation, improvements in public health management and some true, sensible water resource management.
None of those require nuclear power, at least not in the DR's case. :glasses:
A false dichotomy?
I don't think so. My premise here deals with the assured world- wide Holocaust brought on by Co2. It is not limited to whatever measures are taken in DR, however insignificant it may be on a world level.
Again, the gist of my argument is that just because Co2 emissions in DR are next to nothing in comparison to other nations, this per se should not give us license to contribute further to the obvious catastrophe awaiting us down the line.
Keith, You make a pretty good argument. It is all full of sensible and accurate data. Anyone would find it hard to find flaws in your line of reasoning but, I think you're missing my point.
To wit: (1) Global warming is here to stay. (2) It will get worse before it gets better if nothing is done about it. (3) Even if the entire world were to embark on an aggressive quest to reduce greenhouse emissions, it would take a century to realize a pre-industrial level. (4) The number of poor or "failed states" throughout the world keeps growing as reported in the 9/15/06 edition of the Washington Post. What does this have to do with DR and nukes? Plenty.
Energy in any form is absolutely vital to the survival of any nation. Any or all of these backward and therefore corrupt nations will, without much prodding, pursuit any and all forms of energy to satisfy their needs regardless of the original source.. Beginning from chopping down their forests, if they have any, to allowing construction of nuclear plants by radical nations bent on destroying "the great Satan" i.e the US, and us along with it. This whole new world crises is much, much bigger than Nuclear vs. any other source of energy. Our very survival as a race of human beings is at stake here.
My point here is that mainly the US along with all developed Nations must go on a relentless mission to equip the poor ones with the necessary energy for survival.
If it means going nuclear, so be it. It is a hell of a lot better than the alternative! That being the burning of the great tropical forests of the world to the invasion of wealthy nations by the poor ones! And this phenomenon has seen the very first stages of its ultimate logical conclusion. One only needs to witness what is happening along the borders of the US, the DR, and many European nations.
Poor people will always migrate to find a better place to live and if they can't will commit to any crazy measures just to survive.
If we, the human race, complacently allow the world to go down the toilet with the notion that "what happens half way down the world is none of my concern therefore it won't affect me" will catch you with your pants down!
Just for one moment consider where most of the energy consumed in the DR comes from. It comes from Mr. Chavez and other very volatile nations.
The same goes for the US. It has to rely on the same jerk and quite a few radical Islamic nations that can easily pull the plug as it happened back in 1972.
These nations, for the most part hate the western world and sooner or later will wage a Jihad against it with dire consequences. I ask you. What in the world are we going to do when this will, not maybe, happen? When they decide to cut down production or stop it all together?
My understanding is that most Uranium comes from poor but still stable countries in Africa. If we can shift the source of most of our energy consumption from oil to Uranium, the western world, will in effect cut off the throats of the radical Islamic nations (including crazy Chavez), win the war against terrorism and last, but not least, save our beautiful world from complete destruction caused by oil.
Again I ask you, would you rather "let things be?" and continue on pondering what to do with the trivial electrical wiring theft and the "installed capacity discrepancy"? Or would you seriously consider what to do to tie us over untill wind,solar etc. come of age? Eh?
I don't think so. My premise here deals with the assured world- wide Holocaust brought on by Co2. It is not limited to whatever measures are taken in DR, however insignificant it may be on a world level.
Again, the gist of my argument is that just because Co2 emissions in DR are next to nothing in comparison to other nations, this per se should not give us license to contribute further to the obvious catastrophe awaiting us down the line.
Keith, You make a pretty good argument. It is all full of sensible and accurate data. Anyone would find it hard to find flaws in your line of reasoning but, I think you're missing my point.
To wit: (1) Global warming is here to stay. (2) It will get worse before it gets better if nothing is done about it. (3) Even if the entire world were to embark on an aggressive quest to reduce greenhouse emissions, it would take a century to realize a pre-industrial level. (4) The number of poor or "failed states" throughout the world keeps growing as reported in the 9/15/06 edition of the Washington Post. What does this have to do with DR and nukes? Plenty.
Energy in any form is absolutely vital to the survival of any nation. Any or all of these backward and therefore corrupt nations will, without much prodding, pursuit any and all forms of energy to satisfy their needs regardless of the original source.. Beginning from chopping down their forests, if they have any, to allowing construction of nuclear plants by radical nations bent on destroying "the great Satan" i.e the US, and us along with it. This whole new world crises is much, much bigger than Nuclear vs. any other source of energy. Our very survival as a race of human beings is at stake here.
My point here is that mainly the US along with all developed Nations must go on a relentless mission to equip the poor ones with the necessary energy for survival.
If it means going nuclear, so be it. It is a hell of a lot better than the alternative! That being the burning of the great tropical forests of the world to the invasion of wealthy nations by the poor ones! And this phenomenon has seen the very first stages of its ultimate logical conclusion. One only needs to witness what is happening along the borders of the US, the DR, and many European nations.
Poor people will always migrate to find a better place to live and if they can't will commit to any crazy measures just to survive.
If we, the human race, complacently allow the world to go down the toilet with the notion that "what happens half way down the world is none of my concern therefore it won't affect me" will catch you with your pants down!
Just for one moment consider where most of the energy consumed in the DR comes from. It comes from Mr. Chavez and other very volatile nations.
The same goes for the US. It has to rely on the same jerk and quite a few radical Islamic nations that can easily pull the plug as it happened back in 1972.
These nations, for the most part hate the western world and sooner or later will wage a Jihad against it with dire consequences. I ask you. What in the world are we going to do when this will, not maybe, happen? When they decide to cut down production or stop it all together?
My understanding is that most Uranium comes from poor but still stable countries in Africa. If we can shift the source of most of our energy consumption from oil to Uranium, the western world, will in effect cut off the throats of the radical Islamic nations (including crazy Chavez), win the war against terrorism and last, but not least, save our beautiful world from complete destruction caused by oil.
Again I ask you, would you rather "let things be?" and continue on pondering what to do with the trivial electrical wiring theft and the "installed capacity discrepancy"? Or would you seriously consider what to do to tie us over untill wind,solar etc. come of age? Eh?
Perhaps the problem is in how we view those ?radical islamic nations including crazy Chavez' firstly, and secondly our unwillingness and downright inability to give anyone in alternative technologies a stepping stone up. Altogether too many stories of too many alternative technologies bought out and killed by big business.
The thought of swopping the 'radical nations' for nuclear power does something strange to my brain.
Agreed that global warming is bad, petroleum dependence too. Also that something needs to be done soon.
Granted the environmental and safety issues and the "learning curve".
Is nuclear power so cheap, though, that the effects of distribution inefficiencies could be compensated for?
Granted the environmental and safety issues and the "learning curve".
Is nuclear power so cheap, though, that the effects of distribution inefficiencies could be compensated for?
Lets Get The "HORSE" Back In Front Of The "CART"!
You can generate all the power you want here,but,and it's a HUGE BUT! If you can't distribute that power,and when you do distribute it,get it paid for,whats the use????
There is enough generating capacity right now! The "Generators" just take plants off line for "Repairs",and "Maintenance" when the Government gets behind in their payments.That is how they pressure the Government to pay!!! The other main reason the plants go off line is for lack of fuel.Again the fault of the Government for not paying it's fuel bills!
I like things just the way they are right now!!
"When In Rome!!!!".......................................
You can generate all the power you want here,but,and it's a HUGE BUT! If you can't distribute that power,and when you do distribute it,get it paid for,whats the use????
There is enough generating capacity right now! The "Generators" just take plants off line for "Repairs",and "Maintenance" when the Government gets behind in their payments.That is how they pressure the Government to pay!!! The other main reason the plants go off line is for lack of fuel.Again the fault of the Government for not paying it's fuel bills!
I like things just the way they are right now!!
"When In Rome!!!!".......................................
I've had private discussions with top executives at a very prominent power company (all to remain nameless), I'm their English Teacher. I've asked them candidly about the blackouts, this is what they tell me; There's plenty of generation capacity, not production but capacity. The problem is not generation which is now private (or shared, meaning the government does nothing but collects half the profit), nor distribution (again private, shared with government). The bottleneck in the system is Transmission, meaning the high voltage link between the Power Plant and the sub station (Government Run!). Time and time again money is allocated to upgrade transmission capacity, and the money disappears. So that's why they have to schedule blackouts to share the limited transmission capacity to your sector. Of course collection would help bring more money in the system, but where do you think that money will go? The little thiefs know this, why should they be eager to give their money to the big thiefs? A Nuclear Plant, is another golden opportunity for the construction companies to make money. But the truth is that Coal is cheap, clean coal technology/scrubbers/CO2 sequestration is new but promising, and all that new ethanol going into production is for export (another topic) won't help us here.