Nuclear Power

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by DanS


You're incorrect. Nuclear power is one of the most expensive of the major electric power sources available now.

that is in the US because of the fact that all of our reactors are old and inefficient

I saw numbers which put the expense on the level of coal

Jon Miller

[DanS]

that is in the US because of the fact that all of our reactors are old and inefficient

Nope. These are OECD numbers, which take into account all first world countries.

I'm skeptical of the coal claim and will have to see your backup.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
there are too many nuclear powers nowadays

just my €.02

we have built one in the US since the 60s, there are almost none here (and those that are are being (rightfully) closed down)

what we need is the newer more modern ones (which are about as cost effective (baring the costs of making a new plant) as coal)

Jon Miller

[Ecthy]

powers, not power plants

[DanS]

we have built one in the US since the 60s, there are almost none here (and those that are are being (rightfully) closed down)

Wrong again. The US produces the most nuke electric power in the world and has the most reactors.

[centrifuge]

From http://www.nmcco.com/education/facts...s/benefits.htm



Benefits of Nuclear Energy: Impact on Utility Fuel Use
(July 2000)




Between 1973 and 1999, nuclear energy met 40 percent of the increase in demand for electricity in the United States. Over this same period, U.S. nuclear power plants displaced (avoided the need to burn) a total of 2.4 billion barrels of oil, 4.1 billion tons of coal, and 15.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The oil alone would have cost $81 billion (in constant 1999 dollars).


Worldwide, nuclear energy displaced 11.3 billion barrels of oil between 1973 and 1997, valued at over $290 billion. During the same period, nuclear energy displaced 10.3 billion tons of coal and 67.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Nuclear Energy’s Impact on U.S. Electric Utility Fuel Use

The methodology for determining the type and amount of fuel displaced by nuclear energy is based on a model that uses annual generating data from 1973 to the present, by state for the United States and by country for the world. The model assumes that no nuclear power plants were built, and that all electricity was supplied by other types of generating plants that would have been the most appropriate replacements for nuclear power plants.

Coal. Using nuclear energy saved the United States a total of 4.1 billion tons of coal between 1973 and 1999. In 1999, nuclear energy displaced 265 million tons of domestic coal.

Oil. Between 1973 and 1999, oil's share of U.S. electricity generation dropped from 17 percent to 3 percent, while nuclear's share rose from 4 percent to about 20 percent. By eliminating the need for 2.4 billion barrels of oil over this period, nuclear energy saved the United States $81 billion in foreign oil purchases (in constant 1999 dollars). In 1999, nuclear energy displaced 66.3 million barrels of oil, helping utilities avoid $1 billion in oil purchases.

Natural Gas. Nuclear energy displaced 15.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the United States between 1973 and 1999. In 1999, nuclear energy saved 1.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Impact on Worldwide Utility Fuel Use

In the absence of nuclear energy, the use of oil to generate electricity would have been greatest in East Asia and some Western European countries. Natural gas would have been the primary fuel in much of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Coal would have been the major fuel used in most other parts of the world.

Since the 1973 oil embargo, many countries have used nuclear energy to reduce their dependence on oil. Countries like Sweden, France and Japan have been successful in this respect. Between 1973 and 1997, nuclear energy displaced 11.3 billion barrels of oil worldwide. And in 1997 alone, nuclear energy displaced 580 million barrels of oil, 710 million tons of coal and 6.3 trillion cubic feet of gas worldwide.

[Jon Miller]

DanS it is percentage, not totals that matter

also I was apparently wrong, we have not built any since the first couple years of the 70s

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

france for example almost entirely uses nuklear power

while we are still using early models from the 60s

Jon Miller

[Chemical Ollie]

In Sweden, nuclear power is the preferred power source of us right-wingers. It's cheap, clean and safe. Let the n*ggers do the uranium diggin' and send the waste to the French so thay could make more bombs to protect us from the evil non-euros.

It sounds kinda ridiculous when GW Bush goes: Hey Iran, why do you need nuclear power when you have all that oil? As if he had never heard of Kyoto...

[Jon Miller]

I apparently do not remember many things right

(I still think that my points stand though)

here is a site

http://www.uic.com.au/nip58.htm

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

here is a link that agrees with my basic position

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/nuclear_power.html

Jon Miller

[DanS]

DanS it is percentage, not totals that matter

Why so?

france for example almost entirely uses nuklear power

Good for them. We produce about 2x more nuclear power than does France. We use nuclear power extensively and have a lot of reactors. We aren't retiring all of our reactors, but rather going to be increasing our generation from the existing reactors.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
In Sweden, nuclear power is the preferred power source of us right-wingers. It's cheap, clean and safe. Let the n*ggers do the uranium diggin' and send the waste to the French so thay could make more bombs to protect us from the evil non-euros.

It sounds kinda ridiculous when GW Bush goes: Hey Iran, why do you need nuclear power when you have all that oil? As if he had never heard of Kyoto...

unstable places (like Russia or Iran) shuold not have access to nuclear power because it can be very bad if it is not done properly (as Chernobyl and 3 Mile showed)

Jon Miller

[DanS]

FYI: That's a bull**** article.

The claim is made that nuclear is inherently just too expensive to use, but, in fact, it was a coordinated assault by Wall Street and its foot soldiers in the environmentalist movement that drove the costs up.

Case in point. I also love the favorable references to Lyndon LaRouche.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by DanS


Why so?



Good for them. We produce about 2x more nuclear power than does France. We use nuclear power extensively and have a lot of reactors. We aren't retiring all of our reactors, but rather going to be increasing our generation from the existing reactors.

I know the reactor in Oregon was retired recently, and that we use far more than 2x the nuclear power than France. We should use Nuclear power for most of our electricity needs (and we should use newer reactors to do it).

And I think that what they are doing is updating our current reactors, just not building new plants.

(and it is that no new plants have been licensed since the early 70s, not that none have been completed since than)

percentage matters because that is what is comparable with nations

Jon Miller