Poll Nuclear Power

Is Nuclear Power safe?

  • Yes

    Votes: 64 74.4%
  • No

    Votes: 22 25.6%

  • Total voters
    86

markl316

XR2 Ravenstar Commander
Addon Developer
Tutorial Publisher
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
450
Reaction score
1
Points
18
I define safety as "A system is in every situation controllable", even when a failure is on the way.

By those standards, not even airline travel is safe. Nor is walking. If I trip on my shoelaces and my center of gravity goes past my feet, the situation is no longer controllable.

As Zatnikitelman pointed out, nuclear power has caused zero deaths in the United States. Actually, wind turbines cause more deaths than nuclear power. Here's an excellent article:
http://notrickszone.com/2011/03/14/even-candles-kill-many-more-than-nuclear-power/

If properly managed, nuclear power is very safe. Heck, a giant tsunami hit (indirectly) a nuclear plant, and two workers died. In December 2008, 41 wind turbine workers died in the US, due to falling off of towers, etc.

So, is it safe? Yes. As long as procedures are followed.

And Urwumpe, you have a very good point about health risks, like cancer. These health risks do need to be more researched.
 
Last edited:

T.Neo

SA 2010 Soccermaniac
Addon Developer
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
6,368
Reaction score
0
Points
0
How many people have died while working at nuclear plants? And by that I don't mean death by being irradiated or exposed to radioisotopes, I mean death from industrial accidents.

There are deaths at KSC for example, that don't involve actual spaceflight.

That said, industrial accidents aren't really the scope of the discussion. It's about the propensity for nuclear powerplants to go mega-fukushima and irradiate entire countries, or give kids bone cancer. Or both.
 

Thunder Chicken

Fine Threads since 2008
Donator
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
4,403
Reaction score
3,330
Points
138
Location
Massachusetts
The unfortunate thing about nuclear in the U.S. is that the industry is in a Catch-22 situation - it is forced to limp along with 40-50 year old, safe (but not fail-safe) reactors as no one will allow them to build more modern, much safer reactors. Every time there is a minor breakdown or failure at these old plants, the anti-nuke crowd screams "Unsafe!" and forbids anything to be done except for outright shutdown and decommissioning.

The technology has come a long way since Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, but that is moot as no one will let this knowledge be used in new generation reactors in this country.
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,659
Reaction score
2,379
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
The technology has come a long way since Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, but that is moot as no one will let this knowledge be used in new generation reactors in this country.

The technology also went a long way of management "optimizations" before TMI and Chernobyl.

Safety isn't achieved by management decree.
 

Tommy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Messages
2,019
Reaction score
86
Points
48
Location
Here and now
Namely, the fact that out of the 104 reactors we've been operating at 65 plants over the past 40 years, we've had ONE, release of radiation, and ZERO direct deaths due to nuclear power in the United States. I'd call that pretty darn safe.

Unfortunately, the facts disagree with you.

19 November 1971
The water storage space at the Northern States Power Company's reactor in Monticello, Minnesota filled to capacity and spilled over, dumping about 50,000 gallons of radioactive waste water into the Mississippi River. Some was taken into the St. Paul water system.

July 1981
A flood of low-level radioactive wastewater in the sub-basement at Nine Mile Point's Unit 1 (in New York state) caused approximately 150 55-gallon drums of high-level waste to overturn, some of which released their highly radioactive contents. Some 50,000 gallons of low-level radioactive water were subsequently dumped into Lake Ontario to make room for the cleanup. The discharge was reported to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but the sub-basement contamination was not. A report leaked to the press 8 years later resulted in a study which found that high levels of radiation persisted in the still flooded facility.

25 January 1982
A steam generator pipe broke at the Rochester Gas & Electric Company's Ginna plant near Rochester, New York. Fifteen thousand gallons of radioactive coolant spilled onto the plant floor, and small amounts of radioactive steam escaped into the air.
15-16 January 1983
Nearly 208,000 gallons of water with low-level radioactive contamination was accidentally dumped into the Tennesee River at the Browns Ferry power plant.


15 February 2000
New York's Indian Point II power plant vented a small amount of radioactive steam when a an aging steam generator ruptured. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission initially reported that no radioactive material was released, but later changed their report to say that there was a leak, but not of a sufficient amount to threaten public safety.

November 2005
High tritium levels, the result of leaking pipes, were discovered to have contaminated groundwater immediately adjacent to the Braidwood Generating Station in Braceville, Illinois.
June 2011
An AP investigation revealed that three quarters of all nuclear plants in the U.S. were found to be leaking radioactive tritium. Over half the plants studied had concentrations exceeding the federal drinking water standard, and while none had reached public drinking supplies, leaks at three plants had contaminated the drinking wells of nearby homes.

That's significantly more than "one", and those are just the ones that have made it into the press.

That also doesn't count the leaks at fuel processing and disposal facilities:

11 May 1969
A plutonium fire broke out in Building 776 at the Atomic Energy Commission's Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant. Plutonium was released into the atmosphere and tracked out of the building on the boots of firefighters, and several buildings at the factory were so badly contaminated that they had to be dismantled.
1971
After experimenting with disposal of radioactive waste in salt, the Atomic Energy Commission announced that "Project Salt Vault" would solve the waste problem. But when 180,000 gallons of contaminated water was pumped into a borehole; it promptly and unexpectedly disappeared. The project was abandoned two years later.
1972
The West Valley, NY fuel reprocessing plant was closed after 6 years in operation, leaving 600,000 gallons of high-level wastes buried in leaking tanks. The site caused measurable contamination of Lakes Ontario and Erie.
December 1972
A major fire and two explosions occurred at a Pauling, New York plutonium fabrication plant. An undetermined amount of radioactive plutonium was scattered inside and outside the plant, resulting in its permanent shutdown.

16 July 1979
A dam holding radioactive uranium mill tailings broke, sending an estimated 100 million gallons of radioactive liquids and 1,100 tons of solid wastes downstream at Church Rock, New Mexico.
August 1979
Highly enriched uranium was released from a top-secret nuclear fuel plant near Erwin, Tennessee. About 1,000 people were contaminated with up to 5 times as much radiation as would normally be received in a year. Between 1968 and 1983 the plant "lost" 234 pounds of highly enriched uranium, forcing the plant to be closed six times during that period.
January 1980
A 5.5 Richter earthquake at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, where large amounts of nuclear material are kept, caused a tritium leak.
December 1984
The Fernald Uranium Plant, a 1,050-acre uranium fuel production complex 20 miles northwest of Cincinnati, Ohio, was temporarily shut down after the Department of Energy disclosed that excessive amounts of radioactive materials had been released through ventilating systems. Subsequent reports revealed that 230 tons of radioactive material had leaked into the Greater Miami River valley during the previous thirty years, 39 tons of uranium dust had been released into the atmosphere, 83 tons had been discharged into surface water, and 5,500 tons of radioactive and other hazardous substances had been released into pits and swamps where they seeped into the groundwater. In addition, 337 tons of uranium hexafluoride was found to be missing, its whereabouts completely unknown. In 1988 nearby residents sued and were granted a $73 million settlement by the government. The plant was not permanently shut down until 1989.
6 January 1986
A container of highly toxic gas exploded at The Sequoyah Fuels Corp. uranium processing factory in Gore, Oklahoma, causing one worker to die (when his lungs were destroyed) and 130 others to seek medical treatment. In response, the Government kept the plant closed for more than a year and fined owners Kerr-McGee $310,000, citing poorly trained workers, poorly maintained equipment and a disregard for safety and the environment. [See also 24 November 1992.]
1986
After almost 40 years of cover-ups, the U.S. Government released 19,000 pages of previously classified documents which revealed that the Hanford Engineer Works was responsible for the release of significant amounts of radioactive materials into the atmosphere and the adjacent Columbia River. Between 1944 and 1966, the eight reactors, a source of plutonium production for atomic weapons, discharged billions of gallons of liquids and billions of cubic meters of gases containing plutonium and other radioactive contaminants into the Columbia River, and the soil and air of the Columbia Basin. Although detrimental effects were noticed as early as 1948, all reports critical of the facilities remained classified. By the summer of 1987, the cost of cleaning up Hanford was estimated to be $48.5 billion. The Technical Steering Panel of the government-sponsored Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction Project released the following statistics in July 1990: Of the 270,000 people living in the affected area, most received low doses of radiation from Iodine, but about 13,500 received a total dose some 1,300 times the annual amount of airborne radiation considered safe for civilians by the Department of Energy. Approximately 1,200 children received doses far in excess of this number, and many more received additional doses from contaminants other than Iodine.
The National Research Council panel released a report listing 30 "significant unreported incidents" at the Savannah River production plants over the previous 30 years. As at Hanford (see 1986), ground water contamination resulted from pushing production of radioactive materials past safe limits at this weapons complex. In January 1989, scientists discovered a fault running under the entire site through which contaminants reached the underground aquifer, a major source of drinking water for the southeast. Turtles in nearby ponds were found to contain radioactive strontium of up to 1,000 times the normal background level.
24 November 1992
The Sequoyah Fuels Corp. uranium processing factory in Gore, Oklahoma closed after repeated citations by the Government for violations of nuclear safety and environmental rules. It's record during 22 years of operation included an accident in 1986 that killed one worker and injured dozens of others and the contamination of the Arkansas River and groundwater. The Sequoyah Fuels plant, one of two privately-owned American factories that fabricated fuel rods and armor-piercing bullet shells, had been shut down a week before by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission when an accident resulted in the release of toxic gas. Thirty-four people sought medical attention as a result of the accident. The plant had also been shut down the year before when unusually high concentrations of uranium were detected in water in a nearby construction pit. [Also see 6 January 1986 for details of an additional incident.] A Government investigation revealed that the company had known for years that uranium was leaking into the ground at levels 35,000 times higher than Federal law allows; Carol Couch, the plant's environmental manager, was cited by the Government for obstructing the investigation and knowingly giving Federal agents false information.

That's not counting transport problems. The DOE published, in 1996, a report detailing 8 incidents where the supposedly "leakproof" containers DID leak. While non was truly severe, the NRC still claims that no leaks have occurred - so clearly the NRC CANNOT be trusted.

As Coolhand said:

Safe is a word that needs to be put into context, its a relative thing, nothing is "safe" as you might consider its idealised meaning. and its "safe" until something goes wrong, safe until something unexpected happens, safe while operating under normal parameters... Its just a word people use and means nothing.



As Zatnikitelman pointed out, nuclear power has caused zero deaths in the United States.

The facts disagree with you as well.

3 January 1961
The world's first nuclear-related fatalities occurred following a reactor explosion at the National Reactor Testing Station in Idaho Falls, Idaho. Three technicians, were killed, with radioactivity "largely confined" (words of John A. McCone, Director of the Atomic Energy Commission) to the reactor building. The men were killed as they moved fuel rods in a "routine" preparation for the reactor start-up. One technician was blown to the ceiling of the containment dome and impaled on a control rod. His body remained there until it was taken down six days later. The men were so heavily exposed to radiation that their hands had to be buried separately with other radioactive waste, and their bodies were interred in lead coffins. Another incident three weeks later (on 25 January) resulted in a release of radiation into the atmosphere.

24 July 1964
Robert Peabody, 37, died at the United Nuclear Corp. fuel facility in Charlestown, Rhode Island, when liquid uranium he was pouring went critical, starting a reaction that exposed him to a lethal dose of radiation.

27 July 1972
Two workers at the Surry Unit 2 facility in Virginia were fatally scalded after a routine valve adjustment led to a steam release in a gap in a vent line.

9 December 1986
A feedwater pipe ruptured at the Surry Unit 2 facility in Virginia, causing 8 workers to be scalded by a release of hot water and steam. Four of the workers later died from their injuries. In addition, water from the sprinkler systems caused a malfunction of the security system, preventing personnel from entering the facility. This was the second time that an incident at the Surry 2 unit resulted in fatal injuries due to scalding

Again, just the immediate deaths. Deaths due to cancer caused by radiation exposure aren't tracked or reported by ANY agency.

In every case, the problem turns out to be human fault. While it's theoretically possible for nuclear power to be safe, it's not realistically possible because humans make mistakes - sometimes through ineptness or fatigue, sometimes through laziness or greed, etc.

There are 23 reactors in the US that are the same type as the one in Japan, and while they aren't located on seacoasts, some are located near faultlines and on floodplains.

As to the workers who fell from windtowers, I say good riddance. I am a certified tower climber, and have worked on wind turbines, aerials, etc. There are VERY simple proceedures that can eliminate the possibility of a fall, and these guys should have used their harnesses correctly. My sympathy to the families - but this is just Darwin at work, and I'm glad to see these idiots out of the gene pool.
 

Mantis

Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
547
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
Mississauga, Ontario
Nuclear power is the safest and cleanest source of power presently available in great quantity. It's far better for the environment than coal or natural gas and provides far more power than wind farms or solar arrays. When you consider nuclear power, you cannot lump all reactor designs into the same category. The reactor at Chernobyl was a terrible design. Canadian designed and built CANDU reactors (CANadian Deuterium Uranium) reactors on the other hand are amogst the safest on the planet and are completely immune to the type of thing that took place at Chernobyl, 3-Mile Island and Fukushima. For starters, the lack of cooling (heavy water in this case) immediately stops the reaction - the reaction cannot occur in the absense of heavy water. Secondly, it does not use plutonium or enriched urnaium, in fact, CANDU reactors and use spent fuel rods from other reactors to produce power. Finally, the containment around the reactor core is designed to withstand just about anything that could be thrown at it.
 

xlns

Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Points
6
What does everyone here think of nuclear power? Personally, I think that it's a safe, clean, and efficient way to generate electricity in spite of past disasters. I know quite a bit about it, since my dad has a degree in physics, works at a nuclear plant, and used to be a reactor operator.

In all honesty, Chernobyl was not caused by the dangers of nuclear energy, but the poor management due to communism. Three Mile Island was a non-disaster, while the Japanese should have built Fukushima somewhere else and stronger.

I'll go with safe. As for Fukushima, root of trouble was a massive earthquake combined with flawed design of reactor which was knows as early as 1975. So, I'd say bureaucracy is not safe, saving money on staff training is not safe.

If there were such an earthquake at Three Gorges Dam, God forbids, and it caused a structural failure, there would be tens of millions of casualties in matter of a hour. That doesn't necessarily mean hydroelectric plants should not be used.
 

Tommy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Messages
2,019
Reaction score
86
Points
48
Location
Here and now
Nuclear power is the safest and cleanest source of power presently available in great quantity.
Had we spent even 1/10th as much building renewable sources (solar, wind, etc) as we did building and subsidizing nuke plants, renewables would generate MORE power. Just because we chose the wrong path (for political/military reasons) in the past is no reason to continue down that wrong path.

It's far better for the environment than coal or natural gas and provides far more power than wind farms or solar arrays.
This is debatable. While nuclear power doesn't create greenhouse gasses, it DOES create the most toxic (even if you don't consider the radiation) waste on the planet. There is NO workable plan to safely store this waste - currently most of it is still sitting in pools at the nuke plant. The storage facility we plan to put it in is located near a fault line, and there was an 8.6 earthquake centered less than 50 miles from the site just a couple years ago. Nuclear waste loses it's radioactivity - eventually - but the waste will remain toxic FOREVER, and is not biodegradable at all.

I don't consider Chernobyl when thinking about safety of nuke plants - what happened there wasn't an "accident", it was an ERROR. It was caused by the design of the plant (built for military purposes, including production of bomb material), and the Russians were doing some VERY, VERY stupid things there - things that wouldn't happen in a plant made for power generation.

Hydro power can be dangerous if it's done wrong. Building a huge dam upstream of population centers is wrong. There are two hydro dams within walking distance of my house - one right in the middle of town, the other just outside the city limits. There are 4 more within an hours drive. Any of these dams could fail without a single loss of life. They are reasonably sized, and no-one is allowed to build on the floodplains.

There's also another problem with nuclear power, aside from the safety concerns. Centralization.

For the purpose of this post, I'm going to define two terms. One is Energy, which means the electricity produced. The other is Power, which is the ability to change or control others, or your surroundings, or get work done.

Contrary to popular belief, Knowledge is NOT power - it is merely a tool which allows you to leverage the power you already have. Power is the ability to control people or governments, or the ability to flip a switch and have light, or have a box that keeps your beer cold without you having to put ice in it.

Power is derived from the ability to control Energy.

Nuclear plants centralize both Energy and Power, creating an Elite that has the ability to control the masses. This creates a high level of inequity that is damaging to society.

Also, it means that energy needs to be transported long distances, and there are dangers in moving that much electricity around.

Small scale generation, spread around the country, is better than large scale concentrated generation. Less danger of massive blackouts, less danger of huge accidents that kill or harm millions.

We have the technology to satisfy all our Energy needs using small scale generation - even micro generation. It will be SAFER and CHEAPER than government subsidized nuclear, coal , or NG. It is ABSOLUTE STUPIDITY to continue things the way they are.

However, the people in Power (ie, oil companies, politicians, etc) benefit (and profit) from having all our eggs in their basket. They control the energy - so they have the power. And believe me, they want to keep it.
 

Sky Captain

New member
Joined
Jan 29, 2009
Messages
945
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Any large scale renewable energy plan capable of replacing most of nuclear and fossil fueled generation would need even more massive and interconected power grid than right now with centralized generation because you would need capability to move dozens of GW of power over hundreds if not thousands of km to compensate for lack of wind and sun in one place when there is too much wind or sun resulting in too much power generated in some other place. Also the best wind and solar resources tend to be in the middle of nowhere requiring long power lines to transfer power where it is needed.

Main reason why I'm for advancing nuclear power is because it uses a fuel resource that don't have major usage in any other industry and with advanced reactor designs could last for thousands of years. Burning fossil fuels just to generate electricity is a vaste of valuable resource which is far more needed in transportation industry. Coal and natural gas can be made into liquid fuels for which currently there are no large scale alternatives especially when it comes to aviation and transoceanic shipping..
 

Capt_hensley

Captain, USS Pabilli
Donator
Joined
Oct 20, 2010
Messages
841
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
Alamogordo
Website
www.h-10-k.com
OK my two cents,

Diversify (electric) power generation over 10(ten) technologies, Make each type generate 10% nominal load, with 30%(that's 300% of actual needs) capacity to counter surge needs, localized outages and maintenance actions.

Examples are:
Neo-Nuclear, Coal, Solar, Wind, Natural gas, Methane, Hydro-electric, Oil, Tidal Hydro-electric, Bio-Fuels, and so on...

Decentralize any power plant types, and ensure each type is in a given zone(10 of them)

Overhaul the primary grid to handle leaching of supply from neighboring plants(not easy but the right thing to do)

These simple actions do several things:
1. Reduce our dependency on any given technology(especially oil and coal)
2. Provides desperately needed redundancy
3. Creates Jobs Building new/decommissioning and clean-up of old
4. Stimulates Research and Development
5. Injects/reinvests money into the economy/country
6. Makes an "internal" export market for energy trade
7. Supports and embodies the Rural Electrification Act

I'm sure there are more but you get the idea
Neo-Nuclear is "safer" than current Nuclear solutions, and creates less undesired/in-disposable bi-product.

Or we could figure out FUSION and get on with evolution.

(soapbox abruptly removed from underneath my feet, sad look on my face):(
 

Tommy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Messages
2,019
Reaction score
86
Points
48
Location
Here and now
Any large scale renewable energy plan capable of replacing most of nuclear and fossil fueled generation would need even more massive and interconected power grid than right now with centralized generation because you would need capability to move dozens of GW of power over hundreds if not thousands of km to compensate for lack of wind and sun in one place when there is too much wind or sun resulting in too much power generated in some other place.
Simply not accurate. For one, the grid is already fully interconnected, that's why ONE failed protection relay snowballed into a blackout that covered almost %15 of the continent, affecting around 55 million people. Yes, there were plenty of contributing factors, but this shows how interconnected the grid already is - not just in the US, but with Canada as well.

Second, the argument that even more interconnection would be required comes from the Big Energy companies, and has been used to derail "green" sources for decades. It's based on the idea that we would be replacing large fueled generators with equally large "green" generators - and that there wouldn't be any storage of excess energy. This is NOT the right way to do it.

There are several ways to store the "excess" energy created when the Sun is bright, winds are high, etc. While non of these methods are extremely efficient, they don't really need to be. "Green" powerplants like solar, wind, and hydro cost the same whether they are producing or not - so saving the excess power doesn't raise the per-kilowatt cost of the generator, the saved power is essentially "free", minus the cost to build and small cost to maintain the storage system. However, these systems have a limited capacity and will only work with small scale generators - not the Multi Megawatt plants that Big Energy wants.

The better solution is to use smaller windmills, which can be located much closer to population (much less trouble from "flicker" and noise). Sure, building more small windmills costs more than building a few huge ones - but it's still a tiny fraction of what it would cost to upgrade our nuclear plants. The cost of the power is much lower than nuclear once you take away all the government subsidies that the nuclear industry receives.

There are more than 75,000 dams in the US, and less than 10% of them generate power. Most are "flood control" dams built by the Army Corp of Engineers, and are long overdue for refurbishing. Almost all these dams can be easily "converted" to produce electricity - we did it with the one in my town and the cost of the conversion was less than $30k, and paid for itself in less than 20 months.

Also the best wind and solar resources tend to be in the middle of nowhere requiring long power lines to transfer power where it is needed.

Wind and Solar plants don't need to be in the "best" places - unless you're trying to build multi-megawatt plants that generate profits more than power. The smaller plants work just fine - and can be profitable - in places that are less than optimal for generating - but are closer to the end users.

Main reason why I'm for advancing nuclear power is because it uses a fuel resource that don't have major usage in any other industry and with advanced reactor designs could last for thousands of years. Burning fossil fuels just to generate electricity is a vaste of valuable resource which is far more needed in transportation industry. Coal and natural gas can be made into liquid fuels for which currently there are no large scale alternatives especially when it comes to aviation and transoceanic shipping..

The same arguments can be made for "Green" power. It doesn't use fuel we need for transportation, will last as long as the planet does, and generates ABSOLUTELY NO TOXIC WASTE. It also does this at a fraction of the cost of nuclear, with far less potential for danger.
 

T.Neo

SA 2010 Soccermaniac
Addon Developer
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
6,368
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The better solution is to use smaller windmills, which can be located much closer to population (much less trouble from "flicker" and noise).

Where they could take up space needed for farms, residential areas, and protected ecological zones...

The cost of the power is much lower than nuclear once you take away all the government subsidies that the nuclear industry receives.

But what about the subsidies that the renewable energy companies would recieve? Just because their means of generating energy is cleaner, does not mean that their business dealings are.

There are more than 75,000 dams in the US, and less than 10% of them generate power. Most are "flood control" dams built by the Army Corp of Engineers, and are long overdue for refurbishing. Almost all these dams can be easily "converted" to produce electricity - we did it with the one in my town and the cost of the conversion was less than $30k, and paid for itself in less than 20 months.

Converting dams is nice, but what if you lack dams? You are then faced with ecological disruption and relocation problems.

And what if the nature of your country does not allow the construction of many hydroelectric powerplants?

South Africa produces somewhere in the range of 30 GW of power, but we only have around 2GW of hydropower available.

At least we have a lot of sun.

The smaller plants work just fine - and can be profitable - in places that are less than optimal for generating - but are closer to the end users.

And crowd out areas that are useful for other things?

Look, I know it's a tall order, but in a perfect world, I'd want to generate my energy deep in some desert somewhere, where the life is only dung beetles and grass-tufts, and then use fancy cables to ship the power to where it's needed, leaving farm, residential, and biodiversity areas alone...
 

Tommy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Messages
2,019
Reaction score
86
Points
48
Location
Here and now
Where they could take up space needed for farms, residential areas, and protected ecological zones...

A small wind turbine takes less groundspace than a cellular tower - about 1 square meter.

But what about the subsidies that the renewable energy companies would recieve? Just because their means of generating energy is cleaner, does not mean that their business dealings are.

Wind, Solar, and Hydro COMBINED receive less than one percent of the subsidies nuclear power does.

Converting dams is nice, but what if you lack dams? You are then faced with ecological disruption and relocation problems.

And what if the nature of your country does not allow the construction of many hydroelectric powerplants?

South Africa produces somewhere in the range of 30 GW of power, but we only have around 2GW of hydropower available.

At least we have a lot of sun.

You've answered your own question. Solar and Wind make more sense than (dam based) Hydro. Of course, last time I checked SA had a LOT of unused coastline, which means Tidal power could be quite usefull - especially off-shore plants that wouldn't affect the beaches.

And crowd out areas that are useful for other things?

The space isn't being used now, and most of it is unsuitable for much besides power generation. Nobody is saying you need to build the stuff in the middle of Sun City, or in industrial parks.

Look, I know it's a tall order, but in a perfect world, I'd want to generate my energy deep in some desert somewhere, where the life is only dung beetles and grass-tufts, and then use fancy cables to ship the power to where it's needed, leaving farm, residential, and biodiversity areas alone...
This still doesn't explain why you wouldn't use a cheaper, cleaner, safer, renewable energy source instead of nuclear. Even if you want multi-megawatt capability and long lines.
 

T.Neo

SA 2010 Soccermaniac
Addon Developer
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
6,368
Reaction score
0
Points
0
A small wind turbine takes less groundspace than a cellular tower - about 1 square meter.

And you are going to need a whole lot of them.

At least compared to the number of cell-towers.

Wind, Solar, and Hydro COMBINED receive less than one percent of the subsidies nuclear power does.

Maybe because the amount of electricity generated by these means is less than nuclear power in total? ;)

Well, for wind and solar... hydro is more popular.

Unless you're talking in relative terms.

You've answered your own question. Solar and Wind make more sense than (dam based) Hydro. Of course, last time I checked SA had a LOT of unused coastline, which means Tidal power could be quite usefull - especially off-shore plants that wouldn't affect the beaches.

That sounds expensive. Are there any operational tidal powerplants in the world?

The space isn't being used now, and most of it is unsuitable for much besides power generation. Nobody is saying you need to build the stuff in the middle of Sun City, or in industrial parks.

I don't know. There's still a lot of land near residential areas that is unused but not unussable. It isn't like you suddenly get this deficient sort of wasteland conveniently located next to a city.

Arid areas, however are deficient wastelands (to varying degrees). But they have abundant solar energy, of course. They're not useful for much else (to varying degrees)

But they are generally far away from the places that need power. One can get pretty West-centric here, I guess; these places do exist in arid regions, they're just not that common.
 
Last edited:

Tommy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Messages
2,019
Reaction score
86
Points
48
Location
Here and now
And you are going to need a whole lot of them.

At least compared to the number of cell-towers.

So? I don't hear you b@&%*#ing about the land used for cell towers. One square meter out of a 1000 acre farm is pretty insignificant.

Maybe because the amount of electricity generated by these means is less than nuclear power in total? ;)

Even if you look at the rate of subsidies per kilowatt, Nuclear gets over 1000 times as much money.

Well, for wind and solar... hydro is more popular.

And Meth is more popular than fish oil supplements. Your point is?

Here's a list of operational tidal plants - and those under construction and those planned.
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tidal_power_stations"]List of tidal power stations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 

T.Neo

SA 2010 Soccermaniac
Addon Developer
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
6,368
Reaction score
0
Points
0
So? I don't hear you b@&%*#ing about the land used for cell towers.

Yeah, because there obviously aren't as many cell towers as there would be wind turbines.

Ok, so I know it isn't wind turbines. But let's imagine feeding Paris solar power:

Let's say that "Paris" includes 3 000 000 people (the actual city contains a little over 2 million, the metropolitan area contains nearly 12 million). They need an average of 500 watts per person; this is 1.5 gigawatts.

Let's say that these panels are 40% efficient (maybe perhaps a good deal more efficient than current panels, but not inconcievable), and that the average solar power flux is 140 watts/m^2.

This gives us an area of 26 786 000 m^2. If expressed as a square, it would be a square 5.175 kilometers on a side, not making provision for area between cells on panels, and not making provision for space between panels.

This image shows a 5.175 kilometer square superimposed over a satellite image of Paris (original image here):

attachment.php


While it does not look that dramatic, one must remember that pretty much all the space it is sitting on is used by something or someone. Obviously in a real case, it would not be one big monolithic square, but instead a number of smaller installations around the city, but these too need land to sit on.

And considering that more area would be needed for additional power storage, and that there are times in the year when Paris gets relatively little sun, more area would be needed.

The efficiency of an energy storage system does matter, because although it might not matter much to the system itself (it does not need to fit on an aircraft, ship, or space vehicle, so it can be relatively large and heavy), it does matter when considering the actual power collection systems. Already to collect energy for day (currently being used) and night ()(being used to charge storage systems) would necessitate twice the collective ability, not accounting for fluctuations in power usage or storage system efficiency.

Even if you look at the rate of subsidies per kilowatt, Nuclear gets over 1000 times as much money.

How does it compare to coal power? That may be a good comparison, since coal is widely used around the world to generate a lot of electricity.

Maybe their excuse is that it goes with all the other factors that go into a nuclear plant. It is more difficult and dangerous to built a nuclear plant, after all.

And Meth is more popular than fish oil supplements. Your point is?

My point is that it is more popular. ;)

Hydropower has actually seen a lot of use, in the past 100 years... but wind and solar power are relatively new, and relatively unused.

To be honest, I think it's because they're that much more difficult. A hydroelectric powerplant will produce power as long as a river is flowing, and a resovoir is fill, and barring some spectacular event, they usually are.

Solar and wind power are by no means impossible to use effectively, it's just a case of "path of least resistance", I guess.

Here's a list of operational tidal plants - and those under construction and those planned.

Most of those that are operational, are pretty small (~2MW), but there are some pretty impressive proposals (the Penzhin Bay proposal looks like it is trying to impersonate the power production of a Saturn V).

It isn't without impact though. You could affect all sorts of coastal ecosystems... or coastal communities. In a hypothetical world with all tides absorbed for power generation, it could have some pretty weird effects.
 
Last edited:

Sky Captain

New member
Joined
Jan 29, 2009
Messages
945
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Small wind turbines in built up areas usually don't work well. 4 years ago I had small homemade 500 W wind turbine on 12 m mast that charged a car battery. It worked more or less satisfactory on average about one day per week, other days there simply were too little wind. Capacity factor probably were ~2 - 3 % at most. Obviously it is not something you can rely on for reliable power. A properly located industrial size wind turbine can have capacity factor 20 - 25 %, offshore turbines even higher.

Higher capacity factor means less requirements for energy storage and less total installed capacity because there will be less time when power plant in not generating power. And energy storage is not cheap, currently only cost effective industrial size energy storage is pumped storage and viability of that depends on location. There are also molten salt thermal storage systems for solar thermal plants but these are limited to deserts with plenty of direct sunshine.
 

Zatnikitelman

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Messages
2,302
Reaction score
6
Points
38
Location
Atlanta, GA, USA, North America
There's also a hidden cost to solar, wind and hydro. What effects will they have on the environment? Energy isn't free, wind energy captured at a turbine is unable to be used downstream. Solar shades areas and prevents the sun from heating the Earth, and even at 40% efficiency, I doubt that 60% is doing the job it was originally supposed to. Hydro disrupts the natural course of streams and rivers, with tidal preventing the natural tidal energy from um...doing whatever tidal energy does.
Nuclear however, has a tiny physical footprint per watt of energy produced, and short of Chernobylling or even Three Mile Islanding has comparatively minimal impact on Earth. Yea, it warms up some of the local water a bit, but compared to disrupting a whole river, or whole stretch of coastline (tides), or disrupting the wind, I'd call that a relatively minor disturbance.
 
Top