Coal or Nuclear: which do you prefer

[Thue]

With supply of oil and gas struggling to meet demand, it seems that coal or nuclear have the best potential to meet the energy needs of the relatively near future. (Of course renewable energy such as solar may become more attractive if there is a research breakthrough.)

So here is the question: Assuming that coal and nuclear power cost the same per kilowatt-hour, and we need the energy from a new plant, which would you prefer?

Coal is dirtier to extract, and dirtier when burned, but with nuclear there is the possibility of a meltdown, and the problem of what to do with the radioactive waste created.

So, go vote .

[Heresson]

Well, I come from a coal-mining area You know...

[DRoseDARs]

As much as I loathe to, I'd choose nuclear over coal any day of the week.

[SlowwHand]

Solar.

[Sava]

IIRC, wind power has become competitive with other forms of power. The problem is not really the cost anymore, it's finding suitable locations to put the wind farms.

As for solar, I think the best solutions would be for individual communities to form co-ops with local power providers. Photovoltaics offer a very cost-efficient means of providing businesses and home owners a means to be self-sufficient when it comes to energy production. In many programs that have been started in some communities, you can get tax credits for setting up solar power cells on your roof and then you not only generate power for yourself, but your meter runs backwards during peak sunlight hours (which is also peak power usage) when you will sell power to the power company.

I think as better photovoltaic designs come out, you'll see more and more of these programs.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
As much as I loathe to, I'd choose nuclear over coal any day of the week.

It's because You don't like me and don't want my coal-mining heimat to be prosperous

[Flubber]

The problem is that I need more assumptions or facts. When you say it costs the same, is the coal plant a state of the art facility (they make them now that have very limited emissions compared to those built in the past). With the nuclear stuff what form of disposal is built into the cost of the waste products

etc etc---

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Sava
IIRC, wind power has become competitive with other forms of power. The problem is not really the cost anymore, it's finding suitable locations to put the wind farms.

Only in a relatively small scale, and only in comparison with retail rates or with some form of green power subsidy/premium. If you're looking at utility scale base load generation (roughly 200MW+ combined cycle), wind doesn't even come close on a cost basis over a 20 year lifetime, and the number of potential sites remaining for commercial or utility scale generation is real limited.

[Will9]

One thing most Americans con't relize is that nuclear power plants are much safer than they were 30 years ago. Also, solar and wind power are proven methods of energy. Half of America's power needs could come from renewable energy. We shouldn't build anymore coal plants.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Sava
I think as better photovoltaic designs come out, you'll see more and more of these programs.

There are three big problems with photovoltaics, but they're still real useful in a smaller commercial/specialty/ag pumping/residential application.

The biggest problem is low-voltage DC generation. Inversion and step-up losses to get into primary distribution or any transmissions systems are horrible (up to 28%).

Secondary is the relative rarity/toxicity of photovoltaic contituents - Lanthanide metals, phosporus, arsenic and such aren't real fun to mine, transport, mix and dispose of after their useful life.

Third is lifetime - photovoltaic substrates are damaged over time by UV rays, exposure to oxygen and corrosives in the air and internal heat, so efficiency and output drop over time after about 10 years.

Technology developments will improve these problems somewhat, especially the third area, but not a whole lot overall.

[Heresson]

Everybody hates Upper Silesia

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Will9
One thing most Americans con't relize is that nuclear power plants are much safer than they were 30 years ago.

Yeah, those that have been decommissioned. How do you figure the rest of the plants have improved substantially, since the industry has been all but dead for close on 30 years?

[Lorizael]

Yeah. I figure he might be referring to the technology for nuclear plants, since we haven't actually built any since that small island did that thing.

[Thue]

Originally posted by Flubber
The problem is that I need more assumptions or facts. When you say it costs the same, is the coal plant a state of the art facility (they make them now that have very limited emissions compared to those built in the past). With the nuclear stuff what form of disposal is built into the cost of the waste products

etc etc---

So lets assume state of the art coal plant, without CO2 sequestation (which as I understand it has not been tried in practice yet).

And assume state of the art nuclear plant, with disposal of the higher-level waste in a cave in Yucca Mountain (or similar national repository) included in the price.

[Will9]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Yeah, those that have been decommissioned. How do you figure the rest of the plants have improved substantially, since the industry has been all but dead for close on 30 years?

They dead in the US, but in Europe and Canada there have been plenty built.