So, Who Still Wants Nuclear Power??

[sixdogsmom]

Since the disaster in Japan, I'm wondering how many still think that nuclear power is the way to go? I'm thinkin' that I will take wind power over nuclear, if something goes wrong the consequences are small. Kinda like having your neighbor bitten by your chihuahua, and you get bitten by their pit bull. The results hardly compare. 

[evanstrail]

The key to utilizing wind and solar is in finding a way to make the electricity from them "base load".  Currently, just creating electricity from these two sources doesn't provide a stable, continuous flow of energy onto the grid.  Any wind or solar generation added to the grid has to be backed up somewhere on the grid by another source, usually gas turbine, that can come online quickly when the wind dies down, or the skies turn cloudy.

What's needed is a way to "store" the electricity generated by wind and solar to where it can be placed on the grid in a controlled, constant manner.  There are multiple ways to do this, but none that are really cost effective, yet.  One that is utilized is using wind energy to pump water uphill into reservoirs, then releasing the water through hydro-electric generators during peak load times.  This is done some in the western states where topography and economics make it feasible at times.

Other ways would be to use the wind and solar electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, then use the hydrogen in place of natural gas turbine generation.  Or you could store the electricity in batteries, but the right kind (read cost-effective) of battery has yet to be developed.

However it is eventually done, wind and solar will become a larger part of our mix of energy sources, but keep in mind that we are currently using natural gas to back them up.

[sixdogsmom]

Lots of information, not answering the question though. 

[evanstrail]

Sorry.

My thoughts on nuclear power are very hard to explain, and I told myself I wasn't getting into the Politics section and yet here I am!

Very short answer - I am hesitantly pro-nuclear.

[Anmar]

I've been sitting on the fence for the last few years, but watching japan has kind of started to push me towards thinking its a bad idea.  I'd say that its probably best to see how the situation unfolds before deciding.  If I had a plant being built near me, I'd really work hard to try and at least delay the completion until we really saw the final outcome of whats going on in japan.

[Diane Amberg]

If we are smart enough to over design the buildings and place them in relatively safe areas, not on  known live fault lines or in  tsunami prone areas, I have no problem with it. We have Three Mile Island, Oyster Creek, Salem and Peach Bottom not that far from us. We watched very intently when Three Mile happened. My chances of being killed in a vehicle accident are hugely greater than from a nuclear accident. It was the tsunami that caused the problems in Japan, not the earthquake. Areas should take advantage of what they can use for power, there doesn't have to be just one answer. Sometimes there are huge accidents from gas too, yet we don't abandon it.

[sixdogsmom]

Again, lots of information, but not answering the question? 

[twirldoggy]

Kansas is the breadbasket of the world.  So where is there a nuclear power plant?  Wolf Creek ! If something goes wrong there, the area will be ruined for hundreds, perhaps thousands of years.   

[W. Gray]

Colorado's nuclear power plant at Fort St Vrain went on line in 1976 and functioned, more or less, until 1989 when it was decommissioned after being plagued by many problems. It became a literal money pit.

It had a new design that proved troublesome. Its owner gave up the huge expense of constant repair.

It took three years to remove the nuclear material and then another four years to convert to gas turbine operation.

Today, it has a capacity of 965 megawatts vs the 1200 megawatt capacity of Wolf Creek.

[sixdogsmom]

So, Waldo, are you fer or agin?? Nuclear, I mean.