40 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
40 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

A Necessary Conversation...

by Kay King
30 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
    • |
Thursday night CNN will show Pandora's Promise - a film about future energy needs.

I definitely want to watch it because it seems to be about a topic I've held forth on for years - a place for nuclear energy in meeting future energy demands around the world.

We talk clean energy a lot but the truth is while solar, wind, geothermal and hydro energy have a place, all of them combined don't provide enough power to move away from fossil fuels or to provide power as fossil fuels are depleted.

This film is produced by Oliver Stone so the quality will be there - don't know what the message will be but it may challenge what we think we know and where we think we're going.

kay
  • Profile picture of the author MikeTucker
    Damn, just last week I promised myself that I was done with CNN
    and that I even preferred Fox over it. But I can't let Nancy Grace
    stand between me and Oliver Stone.

    In all seriousness, I really feel like the coming Energy crisis is going
    to be the cause of the worst war in the history of the world.
    Signature

    The bartender says: "We don't serve faster-than-light particles here."

    ...A tachyon enters a bar.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8673289].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author byeazel
      I would be a wholehearted supporter of nuclear energy if we could come up with a fool proof way to dispose of the waste. Maybe we already have and I just don't know about it. If that's the case then it needs to be broadcast.

      If Oliver Stone is producing this documentary, I can't really believe it will be supportive of the nuclear industry.
      Signature

      Bob Yeazel

      Discover the path to true prosperity. Find out more here.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8673307].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
        Banned
        Originally Posted by byeazel View Post

        If Oliver Stone is producing this documentary, I can't really believe it will be supportive of the nuclear industry.
        That's Robert Stone, I think? (At least, he's the director).
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8673558].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
          Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

          That's Robert Stone, I think? (At least, he's the director).
          Robert..Oliver...what's the difference? It's not like it changed who the guy is.

          So he's got a Special on Nuclear energy...and he doesn't like wind power, eh?

          The Bible says; "He who is without wind, should cast the first Stone"

          And that's how Robert Stone got cast as director. :rolleyes:



          Originally Posted by thunderbird View Post

          Weird as it may sound, I think wind mill generated energy in North America is problematic. It kills scores of birds and bats.
          And birds and bats are our only defense against..Spiders! Giant, quarter sized translucent fungal infected cellar spiders!

          Attack of the Spider Zombies!

          It's eight arms against two....we don't stand a chance!
          Signature
          One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

          What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8673589].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ricardo Furtado
    What are the timings?
    Signature

    Ricardo Furtado

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8673302].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    I don't have a prob with adding nuclear power to the mix of alternative energies that would be so helpful to the nation and the planet in many ways.

    Mike's on to something regarding a war over energy and we need to start seriously moving forward before we get to the point where us or someone else decides to make a break for it regarding energy that turns into a disaster.
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8673309].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kurt
    There's a saying that if you want to find an undiscovered earthquake fault, build a nuclear plant.

    The risk simply isn't worth the reward. Not only is there human error, there's sabotage as well as military and terrorist targets, not to mention the waste being used to build "dirty bombs". That's a lot of stuff to protect.

    it also is a huge political problem telling countries like Iran that they can't have nuke power, while we expand our own. And any country with nuke power is a small step away from having nuke bombs. No thanks.

    The truth is, we have enough solar and wind energy to easily power this country many times over. It's simply a matter of building it. Let's tax green energy at the same rate as Big Oil and see what happens.

    We can also be more efficient with the power we already generate. Virtually all major electricity providers produce lots of juice at night that is never used. This is because it's much cheaper just to keep the turbines going than it is to restart them.

    Getting on a more 24 hour economy could go a long way to easing energy demands and would also help with gas consumption as it would much of the traffic congestion without requiring any more roads, which would give drivers higher gas mileage. As a long time night taxi driver, I can say that there's no one on the streets after about 9 pm, even in Las Vegas.

    If you want a nuke plant, put it your backyard, along with the nuke waste as well. I don't want the crap around me or where I live.
    Signature
    Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
    Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8673357].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

      There's a saying that if you want to find an undiscovered earthquake fault, build a nuclear plant.

      The risk simply isn't worth the reward. Not only is there human error, there's sabotage as well as military and terrorist targets, not to mention the waste being used to build "dirty bombs". That's a lot of stuff to protect.

      it also is a huge political problem telling countries like Iran that they can't have nuke power, while we expand our own. And any country with nuke power is a small step away from having nuke bombs. No thanks.

      The truth is, we have enough solar and wind energy to easily power this country many times over. It's simply a matter of building it. Let's tax green energy at the same rate as Big Oil and see what happens.

      We can also be more efficient with the power we already generate. Virtually all major electricity providers produce lots of juice at night that is never used. This is because it's much cheaper just to keep the turbines going than it is to restart them.

      Getting on a more 24 hour economy could go a long way to easing energy demands and would also help with gas consumption as it would much of the traffic congestion without requiring any more roads, which would give drivers higher gas mileage. As a long time night taxi driver, I can say that there's no one on the streets after about 9 pm, even in Las Vegas.

      If you want a nuke plant, put it your backyard, along with the nuke waste as well. I don't want the crap around me or where I live.
      I hear you Kurt.

      If we can do it without n-power then fine by me.

      There's one about 60 miles from me maybe less.

      I wonder what France is doing with their n-waste? They get 75% of their electricity from n-energy.

      Part of the "conversation" should be is how are we doing on this important issue and is anything preventing or slowing us down from harnessing the abundant amount of alternative energies under our control?
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8673428].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      It's all in the perspective and the need for energy.

      We can say (and mean it) the risk isn't worth the reward....now.

      But as China, India and other countries continue to expand energy use we will have to change our focus. If the choice is not enough power or no power vs power from nuclear plants...the risk argument no longer works.

      If we avoid discussing the potential for nuclear energy we won't do what's needed in research and development to make the technology safer. We won't spend the money on research because we "don't like nuclear power" and that makes the subject a political pariah.

      The main focus of nuclear research is on the management/elimination/neutralizing of nuclear waste. If we can start a nuclear reaction - could it be we could find a way to stop it? Or to create a reaction with a shorter, manageable half life?

      We've been talking about - and investing in - solar power for a generation. It's feasible for off the grid living - for high cost homes - for areas where passive solar has potential. It won't run the factories or power the cities.

      Wind power is the same - it has uses but has limitations based on nature just as solar does. What no one discusses much is the amount of energy used to produce solar panels or wind turbines to begin with.

      Have you ever seen a plant producing solar panels where the plant is solar powered? Probably not.

      What are the timings?
      It's at 9 PM Eastern Standard Time on CNN - but will also probably be viewable online on the CNN site.

      It may be more blah blah - but then again it might start a new conversation about energy in the future.
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
      ***
      Live life like someone left the gate open
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8673453].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kurt
        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

        It's all in the perspective and the need for energy.

        We can say (and mean it) the risk isn't worth the reward....now.
        It isn't worth the risk in the future, either. There's been 3 nuke disasters in the past 45 or so years. That's 1 every 15 years. If we have 10 times as many nuke plants, we should expect 10 times as many nuke accidents, unless you have some reason why things will be safer in the future.

        This means in the next 45 years, assuming 10X the number of plants, 30 more Japans, Three Mile Islands and Cherynobles.

        But as China, India and other countries continue to expand energy use we will have to change our focus. If the choice is not enough power or no power vs power from nuclear plants...the risk argument no longer works.
        This is a strawman fallacy, as it isn't a choice only between no energy vs. nuke plants.

        While I don't like fracking, it has totally changed the energy future of the US. We have more oil now than we did 10 years ago, despite having used alot of oil over the last 10 years.

        Plus, we have wind, solar, geo thermal, bio fuels to also factor into the risk/reward argument. I have a feeling if the sun and wind go away in the future, energy will be the least of our problems.

        If we avoid discussing the potential for nuclear energy we won't do what's needed in research and development to make the technology safer. We won't spend the money on research because we "don't like nuclear power" and that makes the subject a political pariah.
        It's already a "political pariah". See Iran.


        The main focus of nuclear research is on the management/elimination/neutralizing of nuclear waste. If we can start a nuclear reaction - could it be we could find a way to stop it? Or to create a reaction with a shorter, manageable half life?
        Solve this issue, then we'll reopen the conversation. But in the meantime, consider that the drought in the SE USA almost caused many nuke plants to close there, as they were very close to not having enough water to cool the rods.

        We've been talking about - and investing in - solar power for a generation. It's feasible for off the grid living - for high cost homes - for areas where passive solar has potential. It won't run the factories or power the cities.
        Solar is cheaper now that ever. You can get solar panels for about 50 cents a watt.

        Also, the way expenses are calculated are faulty. They don't take into account the actual cost of energy in the future, as it will probably double in 10 years, making solar a better investment than it seems.

        BTW, one 10 mile by 10 mile area in Southern Nevada has enough solar energy to power the entire US.

        Wind power is the same - it has uses but has limitations based on nature just as solar does. What no one discusses much is the amount of energy used to produce solar panels or wind turbines to begin with.
        This is a worn out argument. It takes far less energy to produce wind and solar devices than they will generate. The same argument could be used for building and protecting nuke plants.

        Plus there's kits online where people can make their own generators for a few hundred dollars that will power about half of an average home, assuming they have enough wind. I'm sure these generators/turbines will create more energy than the calories burned to assemble them.

        To be fair, the wind turbines/generators aren't all that's needed, but they are by far the most expensive part of the system, with batteries being second.

        Have you ever seen a plant producing solar panels where the plant is solar powered? Probably not.
        Have you ever seen a nuke powered crane build a nuke plant? Me neither.

        BTW, solar panels aren't the most efficient way to convert the sun's energy to usuable power. A combination of parabolic dishes to heat either sterling engines, or to heat super salts, which will create steam to turn turbines, is 2-3x more efficient for creating electricity than panels are. Panels are just easier for the average person to use on a smaller scale. And super salts can hold their heat well into the night to generate power.

        Not to mention, the majority of energy used in the US is to power our cars. We just need to commit to electrical cars. We can start with fleets, such as the USPS and other delivery fleets, especially in the West where we have tons of sun.

        These vehicles return "home" every night, don't travel all that far per shift, and can use batteries that are swapped out, being charged when the sun is out and stored until needed.

        Another option is to use self-driving vehicles, such as Google has been developing. These can be programed to work in conjunction with each other and greatly reduce congestion and the energy needed.

        Plus, since they can drive much closer together than human controlled cards, they can be designed to block the air for the cars that follow, which alone could eliminate much of the air drag, which could double or even triple their milage.

        Get 10 computer guided electrical cars to drive from Las Vegas to LA in a tight caravan, with a pace car to lead them and block the air, and the other cars can travel at over 100 mph and still double their "milage" and range, just from the reduced air drag.
        Signature
        Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
        Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8673605].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
          Banned
          Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

          If we have 10 times as many nuke plants, we should expect 10 times as many nuke accidents, unless you have some reason why things will be safer in the future.
          With other technological/scientific developments whose histories now spread over decades, have they typically become "safer in the future", with increased understanding, skill, education, research, regulation, safety procedures and learning from previous experiences?
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8674143].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kurt
            Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

            With other technological/scientific developments whose histories now spread over decades, have they typically become "safer in the future", with increased understanding, skill, education, research, regulation, safety procedures and learning from previous experiences?
            Greed likely also plays a part in "safety" (just ask BP), as well as the wise thing to do is consider how many technologies are potential targets of terrorists and military and are a stepping stone to nuclear weapons. :rolleyes:

            Let's not forget about it being a numbers game. While cars are much safer, there are still more accidents today than 100 years ago, simply due to more people driving cars. The same reasoning should be applied to more nuke plants, as well.

            They may get safer on an individual basis, but due to more plants (and possibly more threats), accidents and incidents should be expected to increase. And the more nuke plants built, the more nuke waste needs to be transported and stored, yet another numbers game with the numbers increasing.


            I'll take my chances with wind, geo thermal, bio fuels and solar, and not giving countries like Iran nuke power, but thanks anyway. Like you said, the technologies will improve in the future (but without the risk).
            Signature
            Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
            Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8674206].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author thunderbird
    Weird as it may sound, I think wind mill generated energy in North America is problematic. It kills scores of birds and bats.
    Bat Fatalities at Wind Turbines: Investigating the Causes and Consequences
    How Do Wind Turbines Kill Birds | Wind Farms Eagles | LiveScience
    Signature

    Project HERE.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8673469].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kurt
      Originally Posted by thunderbird View Post

      Weird as it may sound, I think wind mill generated energy in North America is problematic. It kills scores of birds and bats.
      Bat Fatalities at Wind Turbines: Investigating the Causes and Consequences
      How Do Wind Turbines Kill Birds | Wind Farms Eagles | LiveScience
      Those are horizontal axis wind turbines. Verticle axis wind turbines are bird friendly.

      There's a number of different designs for verticle wind turbines. Here's one:
      Signature
      Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
      Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8673634].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
        Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

        Those are horizontal axis wind turbines. Verticle axis wind turbines are bird friendly.

        There's a number of different designs for verticle wind turbines. Here's one:
        Vertical wind turbines Santiago, Dominican Republic - YouTube
        Kurt; These look less efficient. When you have two sails, one on each side...isn't one slowing down the other? In other words, the wind is hitting both sails. Is't one sail resisting the pull of the other one? And there is only a small difference in each sail's ability to "catch " the wind? It's my first thought, but I could be entirely wrong.

        And on a horizontal turbine, aren't all the blades being pushed by the wind in the same direction?

        Am I making sense?
        Signature
        One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

        What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8673673].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kurt
          Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

          Kurt; These look less efficient. When you have two sails, one on each side...isn't one slowing down the other? It's my first thought, but I could be entirely wrong.
          Yes, there's pros and cons for each design. One drawback of verticle axis turbines is that one side does "push" against the other as it rotates.

          However, there are some new designs where the "off side" collapses, so it reduces the resistance greatly.

          The pluses for verticle axis, in addition to being bird friendly, is that they work better at low wind speeds.

          They also aren't dependant on the direction of the wind and will work no matter what direction the wind is blowing.

          Another plus is that they produce far less vibration.

          Also, you can use "magnetic levitation" with verticle axis, in place of bearings, which will greatly reduce friction.

          For these reasons, the trend is to use more verticle axis turbines in the future.
          Signature
          Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
          Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8673691].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kay King
            Here's what I found:


            There are over 430 commercial nuclear reactors in 32 operating today in 31 countries

            Those reactors provide about 13.% of the world's electricity.

            In addition there are 240 research reactors and in 56 countries and 180 nuclear reactors power 150 ships and submarines.
            Somecountries are handling it very well - interesting pbs article on how France handles nuclear waste and why they like nuclear power.Why The French Like Nuclear Energy | Nuclear Reaction | FRONTLINE | PBS


            we could put all the n-plants in the empty states
            I disagree - when the times comes that more power plants have to be built...no matter what fuel those plants use to create power, those who use the electricity should be willing to have plants located in their region.

            There are no "empty" states and many you might think of as "less populated" are the states growing the food and livestock consumed in other states.

            I'm not advocating for nuclear power but I think we have to keep our minds open for what we may need to do in the future - and keep research going to find better/safer ways to do it.

            http://www.dallasnews.com/business/e...-wind-farm.ece
            Signature
            Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
            ***
            Live life like someone left the gate open
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8673794].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author bizgrower
    I would prefer without nuclear power as well.

    I have a conservative -when it comes to science - engineer
    friend who told me a different technology is coming whereby
    we could provide enough electricity for a large part of the US
    from about a 1/4" of the surface of the Great Lakes. I hope
    he is correct. I think it was non-radioactive and not cold fusion.

    Dan
    Signature

    "If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8673471].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    If we have to go nuclear, we could put all the n-plants in the empty states.

    Hopefully the technology is available that so we can send the power long distances from the empty states.

    - Idaho and Montana can supply the west coast etc.

    - The Dakotas can supply the middle and north eastern part of the country.

    - New Mexico and Arizona can supply the southern part of the country.

    Problem solved. But what about the waste?
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8673528].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yukon
    Banned
    Nuclear isn't the answer.

    Two words:
    • Chernobyl
    • Fukushima
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8673660].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    If people were not in denial, I would think that earthquake/tsunami @ Fukushima translating into radiation in California soil, air and water would be a major clue about the possible irreversible damage for generations.

    Hello, there is no isolation here - there is no 'empty state' - it's a globe.
    Signature

    Patricia Brucoli
    Plug-In Profit Site Helpdesk

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8673667].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeTucker
    I'm not sure I'm smart enough to hang out in this converstaion, haha.
    It seems to me that every solution has it's own problems.

    Personally, I favor the dark horse: Just using a lot less energy in general.
    Signature

    The bartender says: "We don't serve faster-than-light particles here."

    ...A tachyon enters a bar.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8673841].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author bizgrower
    I think there is tie in with Fukushima and
    the dying oarfish. Radiation apparently travels
    through the ocean in a kind of column.

    That whole scene is worse than is being let
    on and could be handled better than the Japanese
    are doing. They won't let anyone in to help, such as our
    big companies that could.

    Anyway, this may be the kind of electricity production
    my friend was talking about:

    Generating power from salty water: Unique salt allows energy production to move inland

    I don't know about the efficiency.

    Dan
    Signature

    "If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8673857].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Patrician
      Originally Posted by bizgrower View Post

      I think there is tie in with Fukushima and
      the dying oarfish. Radiation apparently travels
      through the ocean in a kind of column.

      That whole scene is worse than is being let
      on and could be handled better than the Japanese
      are doing. They won't let anyone in to help, such as our
      big companies that could.

      Anyway, this may be the kind of electricity production
      my friend was talking about:

      Generating power from salty water: Unique salt allows energy production to move inland

      I don't know about the efficiency.

      Dan
      Agree with what you said - You bring up another subject that gets my 'goat'. Why we can't produce potable water from the ocean (remove the salt) - It is said we do not do this because it is 'too expensive' and we think it is more logical to let countries and people die of drought while we live on a planet that is 3/4 water (guessing at that number - being hypothetical/lazy).

      It would be great to have a two-fer - get rid of nuclear power and produce enough water for everybody that needs it.
      Signature

      Patricia Brucoli
      Plug-In Profit Site Helpdesk

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8673932].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
    Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

    We talk clean energy a lot but the truth is while solar, wind, geothermal and hydro energy have a place, all of them combined don't provide enough power to move away from fossil fuels
    You forgot to add the word "yet" to the end of that.

    Ask the people around Fukushima how "safe" nuclear power is.

    Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Gas and Big Nuclear will fight to the death to ensure solar and wind in particular, remain unable to generate enough baseload power, so as to protect their buisness model.

    Eventually though these technologies will develop to the point where they can produce the baseload required. Then we'll wonder why we ever burnt fossil fuels in the first place.

    No more propping up of tyrants in oil rich countries. No more wars to keep the oil flowing.

    Resource poor nations will be able to power themselves instead of having to import fuel(s). Developing nations with a smaller need for "baseload" will gain the most.

    All that aside, the documentary sounds like it will provide much food for thought.
    Signature
    Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
    So that blind people can hate them as well.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8673914].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Energy is going to remain a problem no matter what we do until we can reverse the population to under carrying capacity levels again. I get sick of seeing people posting about the "square area" we could fit the entire population into. That has NOTHING to do with carrying capacity. We are way over it - and need to just stop over-producing until we get back down to numbers that are comfortably sustainable.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8674013].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author yukon
      Banned
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      Energy is going to remain a problem no matter what we do until we can reverse the population to under carrying capacity levels again. I get sick of seeing people posting about the "square area" we could fit the entire population into. That has NOTHING to do with carrying capacity. We are way over it - and need to just stop over-producing until we get back down to numbers that are comfortably sustainable.
      Who will colonize the other planets?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8674084].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author garyv
    Actually we're getting closer to having a Fusion reactor rather than a Fission reactor. Using a Fusion reactor would mean no chance of an explosion, and no radioactive spent fuel.

    BBC News - Nuclear fusion milestone passed at US lab
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8674268].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      Fusion is a possibility What I'm saying is we can't allow ourselves to be so frightened by nuclear incidents that we stop exploring safer nuclear options.

      It seems to me that every solution has it's own problems.
      And that's the real problem in a nutshell.
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
      ***
      Live life like someone left the gate open
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8674483].message }}

Trending Topics