A Necessary Conversation...

by 30 replies
40
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
#off topic forum
  • 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.
    • [1] reply
    • 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.
      • [1] reply
  • What are the timings?
  • 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.
    • [ 1 ] Thanks
  • 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.
    • [ 5 ] Thanks
    • [2] replies
    • [DELETED]
    • 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?
    • 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.

      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.
      • [1] reply
  • 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
    • [ 2 ] Thanks
    • [1] reply
  • 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
    • [ 1 ] Thanks
  • 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?
    • [ 1 ] Thanks
  • Banned
    Nuclear isn't the answer.

    Two words:
    • Chernobyl
    • Fukushima
    • [ 2 ] Thanks
    • [1] reply
    • 3 more words:

      Three Mile Island
  • 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.
    • [ 2 ] Thanks
  • 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.
  • 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
    • [ 1 ] Thanks
    • [1] reply
    • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
    • [ 1 ] Thanks
    • [1] reply
    • Banned
      Who will colonize the other planets?
  • 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
    • [ 1 ] Thanks
    • [1] reply
    • 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.

      And that's the real problem in a nutshell.
      • [ 2 ] Thanks
Join the discussion

Next Topics on Trending Feed

  • 40

    A Necessary Conversation...

    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.