So, what do you think of nuclear power?

[Dead_Parrot]

Poll question: So, what do you think of nuclear power?

I think I can guess a few reponses (NNot mentioning any NNames) but I thought it would be interesting to get a few other peoples thoughts on this...

...So, should the US switch to nuclear power? or will renewable sources do the job?

By "renewable sources" I'm referring to hydro/wave/tidal, geothermal, wind, PV, McFat power, the usual tree-hugger stuff. :)

[acmejack]

1. NNo NNames?

NNow come on!

[bullimiami]

2. it would probably be a viable technology if not for greed and corruption

but the consequences of accidents are too serious to let political whims and corporate cronyism control the industry.

[Dead_Parrot]

3. I did consider...

...another option for "nuclear power if we can stop accountants, politicians and lawyers from being involved and stick to what the engineers say is the right way to run the damn thing", but A) it didn't fit and B) I decided the ear-wax candle option was actually more probable.
Sad but true.

[Syncronaut Seven]

4. You missed an option! Currently I DO make candles

from my own earwax. Natural scent of course. :rofl:

[NNadir]

5. I guess I'm not eligible to vote, and therefore won't.

I suppose if I were allowed to vote, I suppose I wouldn't be allowed to vote for my obvious choice.

In that case I would be forced to decide whether the earwax or the total dependence on renewables is the best approach. Both have a similar probability of success, and therefore the choice would not be all that easy.

I would point out that they're not mutually exclusive, as earwax is renewable. If all the world's earwax were recovered and made into biodiesel, over a billion milligrams of carbon dioxide could be avoided. If all the earwax from all the species were recovered, 100% of the US's dependence on foreign oil could be eliminated.

I am sure that public attitudes would favor the earwax with the right PR.

On amusing note connected with international suicide through appeals to ignorance, lately I hear that Bush is "radioactive." I very much doubt that the public mentality - the same mentality that put him in office - will start referring to him as "earwax."

[Dead_Parrot]

7. Hah! I was going to ask...

...how you've managed to vote 6 times, already. :P Guess you're not the great pariah after all...

And I wouldn't go around comparing Bush to earwax. Earwax is way smarter, and might get offended.

[NNadir]

8. Even a great pariah can apologize for insulting earwax.

Earwax afficinados will hopefully accept my apology.

[Massacure]

6. Renewables are preferable, but nuclear needs to span the gap.

[hunter]

9. It doesn't matter.

The fungi that rule this planet will decide humans are more of a nuisance than an amusement and turn us all into compost. Our only hope is to drink more beer.

:beer:

[Kolesar]

15. Oh, yeah?

:spray:

[philb]

10. Big category missing here: energy efficiency is the bridge-much cost effec

tive energy efficiency and conservation measures cost effective in all sectors at the current and future high energy prices- yet aren't being pursued.
Huge amounts of energy efficiency technology and conservation measures are currently more cost effective than other options- given the current natural gas prices well above $10 per million BTUs, along with high oil prices and record trade deficits due to the oil imports.

[Dead_Parrot]

11. Yes, but only in dreamland...

If the government decrees it shall be done, and pays for it, then fine:
Otherwise, I suspect most sheeple would rather blow $10,000 on really big TV.
Pessimist? me?

[IrateCitizen]

12. Personally, I'm a big proponent of diversification and decentralization

And nuclear power doesn't fit in all that well with the second part of that equation.

However, our current power system is so overly centralized, that to immediately jump to a decentralized one would only be a viable step in the event of a major catastrophe. Grudgingly then, I would submit to the idea of nuclear power as a viable stopgap measure -- so long as it were taken out of private hands and administered under a government-directed monopoly in order to avoid cost-cutting measures that would unnecessarily threaten public health.

However, nuclear energy is not a renewable resource, and it requires significant carbon inputs to build the plants, mine the resources, and ship them to the power generation facilities. Then there's the issue of nuclear waste to deal with.

In an ideal world, I'd like to see our power usages vastly reduced, with a symbiotic grid of solar, wind and small-scale hydroelectric energy -- with power generation integrated as a part of every building. However, I think that we've got a long way to go to get to the mindset of such a project, if we ever will actually get there....

[dcfirefighter]

13. There are needs for diversification

but huge wind turbines are inherently more efficient than small ones.

Using otherwise wasted space for energy generation is fine, but dedicating valuable urban space for energy generation causes the city to sprawl, and any benefit from localized energy generation is lost to increased energy used for transport.

[IrateCitizen]

14. There are already viable methods for urban renewable generation

One of the major ones is the use of PV panels on large buildings. William McDonough has been pushing this on the architectural side for a while now, and there was an article in Civil Engineering magazine describing how the renovation of the largest office building in Manchester, England is using this -- and it will provide enough power for 50 homes.

I certainly won't dispute that large wind generators are more efficient than small ones. However, there is also a good deal of electricity that is lost in transmission over long distances. Furthermore, the centralization of power production -- as with anything else -- takes decisions out of the hands of those people who will actually be affected by them.

[Coastie for Truth]

16. Nuke - with the safeguards and "right" technology

I picked:

Yes, renewable sources would be preferable, but won't be developed in time.

As a working professional I have worked on

-Synthane/syngas (hydrocarbons from coal) - and remember when Consol, USSteel, and various metallurgical coal companies had viable syngas/synthane programs. It is chemically, economically, thermodynamically doable - but have you ever been to the country where I-79 crosses I-70 (my part o the world) -- or where I-80 crosses I-81. I don't want to go back to open pit mining.

-Fuel cells. Neat technology - but where the hydrogen going to come from? Electrolysis of water - and where's the electricity going to come from? Gets you back to nuclear. (I worked at Bettis National Lab)

-Electric cars. Neat technology. Worked for a Prime Vendor on General Motors Electric Vehicle and my non-sedated colonoscopy from GM. And, where's the electricity going to come from the charge the batteries. Once again, gets you back to nuclear.

-Solar - limited by the band gap in the semiconductors that form the photodiodes. Basically PV only converts the incident UV.

And I have attended my share of AIChE and IEEE and ACS seminars on the above plus:

-Wind. Good, but not unlimited.

-Bio (from cooking oil to fermented feedstocks to digested feedstocks). I haven't seen the "material balances" - but I think it is as viable as anything else. And, it is resources cheap if we let the yeast and bugs "do their thing" natures way at 27 degrees C and 1 atmosphere with a long residence time.

By the process of elimination you get back to nuclear.

We also have to "think smart" and "design smart" and "architect/city plan smart" and "transit plan smart." (I'm a Lovins and Ovshinsky guy, not a Kunstler guy)

The alternative is more "Resource Wars" in farther way places with stranger sounding names where the hate us even more.