Your stance on nuclear power

[Wezil]

I'd post pics but Poly doesn't like me doing that anymore.

[Asher]

If they were like a power plant I would have little disagreement with the "look" of them. Tightly packed into a small area is a whole lot better than scattered for miles. They remind me of the old power poles for lines that we have been trying to bury for the last 30 years. A huge step backward.

It was kind of a shock for me how many power lines were above ground in Ontario. Don't see that much out here in the modern west.

[Wezil]

Yeah, older infrastructure. Newer cities in Ontario don't have the problem as bad as the older ones.




I asked Yahoo "How many square miles of Windmills equal 1 Nuclear power plant?"

Answer:

A typical nuclear power plant produces 1,000 megwatts of electricity per hour.

At 25 megawatts to 1500 acres for a nice wind farm of 60 to 70 turbines, you would need 60,000 acres and 2400 to 2800 wind turbines to equal 1,000 megawatts. Of course, these wind turbines only produce that much power when the wind is blowing just right. That only happens about 25% of the time, so you really need four times as many wind turbines and four times as much space to produce, on average, 1,000 megawatts of electricity per hour. So that's, 240,000 acres and 9,600 to 11,200 turbines. 240,000 acres is 375 square miles.

At 5 acres of solar panels per megawatt, you need 5,000 acres of solar panels to equal 1,000 megawatts of electricity. Those solar panels only work at peak power levels during the sunny times, so, on average, they only put out about 25% of their rated capacity. That means you really need 20,000 acres of solar panels to generate 1,000 megwatts of electricity per hour, on average. 20,000 acres is 31.25 square miles.

We aren't going to put them anywhere. They are way too expensive and they don't provide a stable enough power supply to rely on. Anyplace with enough open spaces, enough wind or sun shine to be a good candidate is too far away from the east and west coasts where that power is needed most.

By comparison, the Fermi nuclear power plant near Monroe, Michigan sits on a site of about 2 square miles and produces 1,150 megawatts of electricity 24 hours a day for 18 months straight. Then it needs to be shut down for a month for maintenance and refueling and it can go right back to making power 24 hours a day, rain or shine. They are even thinking about adding another reactor that will double the output of the plant on the same amount of land.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080520021116AAM0ZEM

There's the problem.

[Asher]

Nuclear isn't long-term anyway. As people have already said, 80-100 years more of fuel.

And while it's statistically "very safe", they're not completely safe. When a nuclear plant has a problem (and they do have problems, make no mistake), the ramifications can be massive. When a natural gas plant, coal plant, hydro plant, solar farm, wind farm, etc have problems, the ramifications are pretty confined.

So cheering how statistically safe Nuclear Power Plants are, they're still a tremendous risk compared to the others.

[BeBMan]

Nuclear powers will rule the world until some space aliens equipped with rayguns come around.

[Wezil]

Nuclear isn't long-term anyway. As people have already said, 80-100 years more of fuel.

Good enough for me.

And while it's statistically "very safe", they're not completely safe. When a nuclear plant has a problem (and they do have problems, make no mistake), the ramifications can be massive. When a natural gas plant, coal plant, hydro plant, solar farm, wind farm, etc have problems, the ramifications are pretty confined.

You omit the ongoing enviro/health costs of "dirty" fuels.

So cheering how statistically safe Nuclear Power Plants are, they're still a tremendous risk compared to the others.

More risky if there is a failure but much better over their lifespans. How many early deaths does the typical coal plant cause?

[Asher]

I don't know -- how many?

I don't like coal much, but I've no problem with natural gas. How many deaths do natural gas plants cause?

[Wezil]

I don't know -- how many?

Hint: Far more every year than total deaths from nuclear plant accidents.

I don't like coal much, but I've no problem with natural gas. How many deaths do natural gas plants cause?

Also emits air pollution (but better than coal).

[Asher]

I'd still like to know the number.

They need not emit air pollution with carbon capture.

[Asher]

TransAlta installed CCS at one of their coal plants with much success, IIRC.

[Wezil]

You could never get an accurate number as there are a number of contributors to air pollution.

[Asher]

I thought so.

Give me air pollution over radiation any day.

If you were really concerned about air pollution, why do you live in the parts of Canada with the dirtiest air?

[Wezil]

I thought so.

Give me air pollution over radiation any day.

I was approaching the math from the other way round. How many people have died from nuke plant radiation? It would be an easier number to come up with (disputes over Chernobyl perhaps) and would certainly be lower than the dirty fuels contribution to bad air.

If you were really concerned about air pollution, why do you live in the parts of Canada with the dirtiest air?

Same reason you were here - This is where it's at baby!

[Asher]

I was approaching the math from the other way round. How many people have died from nuke plant radiation? It would be an easier number to come up with (disputes over Chernobyl perhaps) and would certainly be lower than the dirty fuels contribution to bad air.

Dirty fuels from power plants?

Highly doubtful...

It's not fair to attribute all air pollution to electricity generation.

[Wezil]

Surely you aren't arguing coal plants don't emit harmful **** into the air?

And no, you can't attribute all air pollution to power generation (as I said earlier there are lots of contributors) but the estimated deaths from bad air overall are huge. Dirty fuel plays a part in this, nuclear does not.