Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, [10] ] |
| Subject: Re: We need ALL sources of power | |
|
Author: jw |
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 07:28:59 03/12/07 Mon In reply to: Oropan 's message, "We need ALL sources of power" on 13:25:17 03/08/07 Thu If you deny global warming, or beleive in the fable of clean coal and ingnore the massive devestation of the american landscape that coal mining causes, we have more than enough coal, we do not need nuclear. Let's be realistic here, those who support nuclear tend to be on the right, the "free market" worshipers. The free market has not produced a single new nuclear power plant since the late 80's, and although there are plans for 11 new ones, these plans have been around for years now, we seem to be years away from construction, it is not the environmentalists who killed nuclear power, it is the free market which is only concerned about increasing profit in the short time, to hell with the consequences. We should keep current nuclear sites running until we find a cleaner solution, this will involve rebuilding some of these reactors, perhaps with higher efficiency and output. >And to heavily use those sources we pocess here in the >US. That includes Nuke, coal, oil, Nat gas, water, >wind and solar. Some are better for greenhouse gases >than others but we need them ALL. Technology for clean >coal burning is advancing rapidly and coal can be >turned to liquids. Nuke power is the best in my >opinion until we get solar cost effective on large >scale projects. Then that will probably be the best. >Wind is great but I doubt we have enough places to >build wind turbines and it would bother me to see >giant wind turbines wherever I looked. But the idea >there is some magic bullet that will replace all other >sources is not going to happen in our lifetimes IMO. > > > > > > > >> In the meantime I came across a catalog that is >>mainly aimed at the Amish people. It calls itself the >>non electric catalog however it does have some >>electrical things in it. We are without power so often >>was tickled to find the company . Hope no one >>considerers this spam I am just trying to help the >>environment the name of the company is Lehmans .I am >>sure it must be online if anyone is interested in >>ordering a catalog . the catalog costs 3 dollars but >>well worth it just for looking enjoyment . >> now for the article about Nuclear power . >> >>href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0307/p01s04-sten.h >t >>ml">http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0307/p01s04-sten.htm >l >> >> >>How green is nuclear power? >>Some call it a carbon-free alternative to fossil >>fuels, but others point to significant environmental >>costs. >>By Mark Clayton | Staff writer of The Christian >>Science Monitor >>Page 1 of 3 >> >>In Kansas, where winds blow strong, the push for clean >>energy includes not only new wind turbines but also >>new nuclear-power plants as part of a "carbon-free" >>solution to climate change. >> >>It's an idea that may be catching on. At least 11 new >>nuclear plants are in the design stage in nine states, >>including Virginia, Texas, and Florida, according to >>the Nuclear Energy Institute website. >> >>But that carbon-free pitch has researchers asking >>anew: How carbon-free is nuclear power? And how >>cost-effective is it in the fight to slow global >>warming? >> >>"Saying nuclear is carbon-free is not true," says Uwe >>Fritsche, a researcher at the Öko Institut in >>Darmstadt, Germany, who has conducted a life-cycle >>analysis of the plants. "It's less carbon-intensive >>than fossil fuel. But if you are honest, >>scientifically speaking, the truth is: There is no >>carbon-free energy. There's no free lunch." >> >>Nuclear power has more than just a little greenhouse >>gas attached to it, when mining uranium ore, refining >>and enriching fuel, building the plant, and operating >>it are included. A big 1,250 megawatt plant produces >>the equivalent of 250,000 tons of carbon dioxide a >>year during its life, Dr. Fritsche says. >> >>That's still much less than coal-fired power plants >>and natural-gas turbines. It even does better than >>solar power and small-scale hydro projects. However, >>the gap with solar is closing and emissions from >>manufacturing photovoltaic panels are now on par with >>nuclear, a new study funded by the US Energy >>Department finds. >> >>Officials in the nuclear power industry say references >>to carbon-free energy in their promotions refer only >>to the power-plant operation – and are not intended to >>describe carbon emissions during the entire nuclear >>life cycle. >> >>"Yes, absolutely there's carbon," says Paul Genoa, >>director of policy development for the Nuclear Energy >>Institute, which represents the nuclear power industry >>in the US. "Most studies have found life-cycle >>emissions of nuclear to be comparable with renewable. >>Some show nuclear to be extremely high, but we do not >>find those credible." >> >>Neither do many researchers. A 2003 Massachusetts >>Institute of Technology study recommended vast >>expansion of nuclear power to make a dent in the >>climate-change problem. Princeton researchers also >>cited it as an option, although they acknowledged >>concerns about terror threats and potential >accidents. >> >>Page 1 | 2 | 3 | Next Page [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |