Transmission losses can be eliminated by the use of DC.  The fossil powered plant (built on a coal field with a dedicated electric rail line) at Delta Utah generates electricity largely for Southern Ca and transmits the power via DC where substations convert it to AC for local distribution.  DC being a potential difference has virtually no line losses when compared to AC. Some European countries have already established a policy of using mostly DC to transmit their power.

TwistTieCollector wrote on Dec 9^th, 2007 at 5:00pm:



I'd like to see your documentation regarding these "facts"

there is an intial beneficial effect on lifespan with a certian amount of radiation exposure.

   A long time ago there was pretty good data that radon was not in fact bad for you at household levels but actually good for you.  Just to swing the discussion in an unexpected direction I give you ..

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

"Approximately 10,000 people occupied these buildings and received an average radiation dose of 0.4 Sv,
unknowingly, during a 9-20 year period. They did not suffer a higher incidence of cancer mortality, as the LNT
theory would predict. On the contrary, the incidence of cancer deaths in this population was greatly reduced – to
about 3 per cent of the incidence of spontaneous cancer death in the general Taiwan public. In addition, the
incidence of congenital malformations was also reduced – to about 7 per cent of the incidence in the general
public. These observations appear to be compatible with the radiation hormesis model."

I'll speak for myself, but I'm sure that many others agree.  As for us scientist and engineers, we could solve many of the problems both on the production side and the waste side if:  POLITICS GOT OUT OF THE PICTURE.

But, that's not going to happen.

Quote:

A nuclear power plant does operate on a virtually CO2-free basis, it actually is about on a par with fossil-fuel generating plants when the carbon emissions needed to build the plant, process the ore, manufacture the fuel assemlies.  When the whole of the fuel cycle is considered nuclear isn't all that much better than burning fossil fuels.

CO2 sequestration seems to be the short-term answer.  We cannot wean ourselves off of the energy stored in carbon-based reserves fast enough to have an effect.

Another problem is the bulk of nuclear waste that has built up.  Yucca Mountain, once it finally gets to open, has enough material already waiting for burial to fill it up, with much, much more to spare.  Where is the waste currently being stored?  For nuclear power plants, it's on site.  That's right, the gov't taxes the companies for a storage site the gov't has yet to open, then forces the utilities to pay for facilities to store their spent fuel on site.  You don't hear of a second waste site being bantied about, have you?

Energy gains can be made through making the delivery sytem more efficient.  Much of our grid is old and wastes a lot of energy.  Lighting is a large percentage of our energy usage, so small gains there translate into big savings.  Ideas like these need to be promoted because they provide the biggest return on the dollar.

Large public works projects, spending large sums of gov't money (raised thru taxes), have had positive effects on the quality of the economy.  Eisenhower's interstate plan, the TVA, Rural Electrification Act are examples.  We need to finance more such projects.

Energy is an illustration of but one of the problems facing this country.  Much of its infrastructure needs upgrading or replacement.  The first segments of the interstate system are over 50 years old, bridges are into the twilight years of their anticipated life span.  The fabric of our country is full of holes.  It sorely needs replacing.

The CAVE people probably can't afford to gad-fly around with the price of gas today
No matter what energy plan is put forth, someone is going to have a problem with it.
Your damned if you do, damned if you don't
By the time the nay-sayers get on board, America will be playing catch-up instead of leading the pack.
I firmly believe that we need a national energy policy with the urgency and commitment similar to that which put us on the moon.
Millions of new jobs would be created, we could become energy independent and maybe start to rebuild the nations infrastructure which is badly in decay. That would energize the construction trades and stimulate the economy as well.
 I'm as tired of being held hostage to foreign oil as I am to seeing the Detroit Lions lose every year
Fortunately I think we can solve the energy crisis

"Along with solar/wind/tide technologies we could energize the economy and insure our national security."

You might be interested in this article from our local newspaper regarding tidal/wavepower energy;

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

It seems that no matter what, there are those who are against it.  When I first moved to this community in the 1980's we used to have an activist group called the CAVE people. CAVE stands for Citizens Against Virtually Everything.  They used to go to all the City council meetings and would oppose everything just on priniciple. I haven't seen them around lately.   

Interestingly enough one of the issues on the tele here in London is the new Nuclear plants being built in several countries.  They have recognized that the energy produced by sun, wind, waves is not going to be enough to fuel the growth and the nuclear option is better than fossil fuels. 
I was suprised, however, it will be many years before any new plants are on line.

Chasinmendo wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2007 at 12:58am:


I bet that's not something the majority of people are aware of?
The nuclear genie is out of the bottle like it or not.
Modern medicine has reaped its benefits and we as a nation should be focused on developing and reaping the good that it can bring instead of obsessed with the bad. Whether your a producer or consumer we all have a stake in the health of the planet. IF the proponents/opponents of nuclear energy would put aside the rhetoric and work together to maximize the benefits and minimize the risks, MAYBE we could get off the foreign oil teat and set a course for alternative fuel sources by setting the greatest producers in the world, the American farmer loose to provide the raw materials needed to get us off the fossil fuel merry-go-round?
Along with solar/wind/tide technologies we could energize the economy and insure our national security.