Alternative Energy Sources

1. Everona97 Said,

   One of the most dangerous- yes. Where you put all what had been left from producing of electricity? You may not know that 21 year ago the most tremendous accident at Chernobyl nuclear power station completely destroyed life of millions people across former Soviet Republics for ever. Sorry, I am not agree that the cheap is an option
   References :

2. Kelly L Said,

   How you figure? You can purchase your own solar/wind generators and have a check cut back to you in about five years, when nuclear will always cost you. Besides nuclear plants cost millions to build and run. So to answer your question giant wind turbans are cheaper for the cost to electricity production ratio.
   References :

3. Telf Said,

   Despite the green lobby who would ban it outright, yes it is one of the cheapest means of production. As opposed to solar and wind it is also consistant so is a viable alternative to carbon fuels. It is also cleaner. Look up any climatology sites and find out the damage greenhouse gasses are causing, a wee drop nuclear waste to dispose of is better than the tons of carbon waste that is polluting our skies every day!
   References :

4. Bob Said,

   For right now, yes.

   Solar and wind need more development to be able to replace most of our fossil fuel use. We need to do that fairly rapidly, to reduce global warming.

   A reasonable goal would be to have a one time construction of nuclear plants, and, as they wear out, replace them with improved solar and wind plants (and maybe other new technologies).

   We can make nuclear plants that are safe and safe from terrorism. We're very good at that kind of engineering.

   We've demonstrated we can bury the waste safely, it's just a political problem to pick a site.

   http://www.wipp.energy.gov/
   References :

5. Factorblue Said,

   It is cheap because look at France they use nuclear energy and they got the cleanest air in Europe. But the problem with nuclear power is the wasted uranium or plutonium has to be contained in large metal boxes to dumped in the sea.
   But they leak sometimes, and they are still debating about whether they should continue with the nuclear power.
   But France reprocesses its nuclear waste to reduce its mass and make more energy.
   Scientists are still trying to reduce or eliminate the toxicity, but maybe in a hundred years maybe?
   References :
   Year 8 Geography lessons 2006 =D

6. Nickel Johann Said,

   WE DO NOT KNOW FOR ANY NEW NUCLEAR PLANT !!!

   A Nuclear plant is built for close to 50 years and the investment based on a period of 40 years.

   Knowing would imply:
   - a constant or neglectable price for uranium
   - a predictable price for the nuclear wastes
   - a predictable price for the competitors of nuclear energy (over 40 years)

   Now who can tell me what the price of coal will be over the next 40 years? (related to the emission of greenhouse gases for example)
   Who can tell me what the price of solar energy will be in 20 years (with a strong learning curve) ?
   -
   References :
   Nuclear an inexpensive form of power generation with a quite predictable price over 40 years. That doesn't mean that it will stay the cheapest within this period.

7. Jerry Lee Said,

   Much of the expense derives from the cost of safety and regulation. Nuclear plants cannot even be built in cities where the power will be used (cost: transmission lines to the customer). The industry is also paying (in advance) for things like Yucca mountain, and insurance.

   Nuclear plants can "burn" both uranium and plutonium. The plutonium gets used in a technology called "MOX". Enriched uranium is always desired.
   Depleted uranium can be used to make plutonium, or in heavy-water reactors.

   There is still "high-level" waste, but not as of what would be of interest to terrorists, and some of us consider pounds of high-level waste preferable to tons of carbon laced with mercury.
   References :
   Years in the industry.

8. snafu Said,

   a new up to date coal fired generator is the way to go
   they produce almost no harmful emissions
   although the start up cost is high it is no more or less than a nuclear reactor with no hazadous waste to dispense with
   in illinois we have 4 new "mine to mouth"generators either under construction or in the works at approx 2 billion apiece
   thats jobs for U.S. one is one is at my back door. in illinois alone we have proven reserves of coal to last the country 100s of years
   in time coal will be replaced by other sources but for now it is the best and most reliable source of energy we have
   References :

9. Chuck B Said,

   Nuclear energy is only cheap after you have built a power plant and before you have to deal with the waste. It only costs about 3 cents a kilowatt to generate using nuclear. But the construction costs (in the billions) and the disposal costs (unknown since we have no way to dispose of the waste yet) make it more expensive than either solar or wind.

   The advantage of nuclear compared to solar or wind is that it can generate consistently at a high level, and similarly does not contribute carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
   References :

10. Smarty pants : ) Said,

    By "cheapest" you are referring to the monetary cost.
    But it is the most EXPENSIVE when you factor in the COST and NEGATIVE eefects on human life and risks to our health and that of the environment.

    Is saving a little money worth the cost of human lives?
    References :

11. thor Said,

    If some fairy comes down and zaps you a nuclear reactor and takes it away after it is done its useful life, then yes nuclear is the cheapest way to produce electricity. If one has to figure in the costs of construction, demolition and storage of waste then no- nuclear is one of the most expensive forms of power production.
    References :

12. emiller1998 Said,

    Yes for large scale electrical production.

    Wind power needs a lot of land for thousands of wind mills and a windy area. Good for small amounts of power but not practical for large amounts.

    Solar power needs lots of land for solar panels and a large amount of sun light. Places like Alaska wouldn't work because its dark half the year and they would get covered with snow.
    References :

13. Crabby_blindguy Said,

    No, its actually fairly expensive. It used to be a little more expensive than using coal, in fact. With the skyroketing price of fossil fuels, though, its now cheaper.

    In the next few years, we are almost certainly going to see more nuclear plants built–and since they'll have 30 years of technology and knowledge that wasn't available wen the existing plants were built, they should be more cost-effictive.

    Currently other things–solar, wind, etc. are not ceap–though they've dropped a lot in price (about half in the last few years). Oprating a sollar powersystem is cheap–VERY. But the up front cost is high. They will pay for themselves in time–but a lot of people can't–or won't –invest the $15-30,000 in a solar power system that one big enough to meed an average home's needs costs.

    That is changing–with new technology being developed, we will soon see solar power systems at very low prices–well within most people's price range.
    References :

14. John Sol Said,

    They are cheap until you add the cost of decommision at the end of thier lives, and the proper storage of the radioactive waste, which only Switzerland has bothered to do.

    The 'greens' only support it as a short term measure, 'till we get renewables and eficiency sorted out.

    If you after a direct comparison then it is a bit irrelevant as they fulfil different functions, Nuclear is suitable as a 'base load' that is on all the time, including the night when there is very low demand. Wind and solar are weather dependant and are therefore limited as to how much it canadd to the grid without causing unwanted fluctuations, at the moment they are balanced with fossil fuel stations. Tidl power is looking good for a reliable, always on source of power.

    Micro generation, domestic wind and solar, is expensive and inefficient compared to centralised generation.
    References :

15. Roy S Said,

    Wind turbines are uncertain in the production of electricity - do you fancy being told there is 'no dinner today' because the wind is not blowing?
    Both turbines and solar electric panels are very costly.
    Coal fired power stations are not clean. In fact they emit MORE radiation than nuclear ones - bound up in the coal.
    Nuclear electricity should not be judged on what happened 25 years ago. Control systems are much better now and over-ride idiots trying their own experiments on them - Chernobyl.
    The future is nuclear fusion not fission but that requires money which governments will not spend.
    Anybody who only wants electricity from renewable sources should be prepared to bear the consequences and get very little power - only their share of the windmills output. This also applies to those who sign up to 'green' electricity which merely means they get it but other have to use more from other sources.
    We use electricity from French nuclear stations - do you strust them to be more careful than us or to supply us if there is a shortage?
    I should cocoa!
    RoyS
    References :

16. jamin_surfer Said,

    Roy clearly doesn't understand the various methods available for harnessing renewable energy. There is more than just wind, and more than enough energy in DAILY processes that will occur no matter what. Wind generation is just one of many, and even if the wind is not blowing one day, that's what batteries are for - storage.
    Ignorance is a large barrier. Nuclear power should be left to blueprints and no more, we do not need it, and it is HIGHLY unsafe if a castatrophe occurs, e.g. Chernobyl. Our safety measures are safer, but in science we cannot operate on 100% certainty, 99.9% at best. There is no suite of safety measures that will ensure safe nuclear power indefinitely.
    Nuclear power MAY be cheaper today than implementing solar/wind/tide/geothermal/wave/ocean thermal gradiant etc. because of the structure of the economy. The nuclear power facilities and technology are implemented at a larger scale than green sources, and thus may be cheaper. If we shift from non renewable to renewable, the economic structure/process will shift to make renewable energy infrastructure much cheaper than a rarely used nuclear plant.
    It's totally in the hands of our leaders, and our own purchasing habits. Unfortuantely, not enough people are willing to make a change, but it may occur.
    References :

17. Gwenilynd Said,

    One of the biggest expenses for a nuclear power plant is cutting through all the red tape to get one built.
    Everyone wants clean, cheap energy but no one wants the power plant in their back yard.
    Nuclear power is our best chance. I wish people would stop refrencing Chernobyl as an example. Yes it was a catastrophe. However, it was in a country that has very very different standards. they didn't even build a proper conatinment structure. They had it in a building that was the equivalent on a tin can.
    If you want a more accurate comparison look at the 3 Mile Island "disaster". Which really wasn't a disaster because the containment building, that was properly designed, contained the radiation.
    Wind and solar work well on a small scale but they actually become very expensive when you think about how many wind mills or solar panels are needed to power a city.
    References :

18. Don K Said,

    What happened to hydrogen power? Why can't we make a hydrogen fuelcell to make power for night time? Hydrogen runs just like gas but many times hoter so why can't it make hot water just like a nuke plant? I just had a thought.. Did you know that burning hydrogen makes clean water. So clean it is cleaner then what we filter. Why not use hydrogen to power our power plants then drink the water. Or we could turn it back in to hydrogen using a fuelcell and make more power and more water and more power and on and on. I don't see a need for a nuke plant at all.

    I guess I don't understand how billions of dollars to build a nuke plant and then billions of dollars a year to keep it running and secure and then billions of dollars for the next 10,000 years is cheaper then solar, wind and hydro. Sure solar don't work when it is night and the wind don't always blow. But it don't need to. Water is always running in the rivers to give us power at night, Even a coal plant could take care of that with no need what so ever for a nuke plant.

    Just by using solar, wind and hydro to it's full exent we would start shutting down the other plants.

    The sun comes up 4 hours earler in NY then it goes down in cally. My guess is it don't rain every where in the USA at the same time. That would mean one city would help the others. That is what a power grid does. It moves electric power from one area to where it is needed. At night we would be able to get by on hydro and windmills or even fuel cells. Then we could make hydrogen to run our old coal power plants to cover any extra needs.

    And no one dies because of the nuke plant getting out of control. And who pays for the clean up? Could it be the Tax payer? Ever thought who pays for the storage of the spent rods? Who is going to pay for them to be trucked across the USA to be stored in the cave we paid to be dug for for the next 10,000 years?
    References :

Add A Comment