<p>There is a lot of paranoia over nuclear energy. Yes, there are risks. But more people are injured in the coal mining industry and other energy methods than any nuclear accidents or such.</p>
<p>For a good Q&A about nuclear power plants, I recommend this article:</p>
<p>I am sure that some people will believe that it is motivated by special interests, but then so is everything written. Every writer is trying to present information from a particular point of view. But if you just look at the facts and historical data concerning nuclear power plants, the fuel, and the wast, you will realize that it’s very safe and a very feasible method of producing energy. We had 109 power plants producing 20% of our country’s electricity. We know have 104 power plants producing about 17% of the country’s electricity. The navy has been running Nuclear power for over 50 years without an accident. </p>
<p>Approximately 60% of our CO2 and other pollutants from Fossil fuels come from our production of power and industrial use. (Not automobiles and transportation). Hydroelectric power is only providing about 7% of the nation’s electricity. With wind accounting for about 1%. So, the reality is; fossil fuel provides about 70% of our nation’s electricity with nuclear in 2nd place at 20%. Water is 7%, wind and solar make up the last 3%. So, more nuclear power is used now than most people realize. In a 5 year period, we could build enough nuclear power plants to reduce our fossil fuel usage for power by almost 40%. That, along with developments in motor vehicle efficiency could reduce USA contribution ofCO2 and other aerial pollutants by at least half. A 50% reduction in 5 years. Sounds pretty good to me. Now, whether or not mankind is a major contributor to the global warming / climate change because of CO2, is still debatable; but this is a method of addressing the “JUST IN CASE” mentality without screwing up our economy. The production of these nuclear power plants will stimulate the economy, reduce the price of oil and gas, and help us to become more energy independent.</p>
<p>Anyway, I hope some of you check out the link. It’s one of hundreds. I found it useful because of the Q&A and simplicity of it.</p>
<p>^ You are the one that needs to get their facts straight. Yucca Mountain was never opened because Nevada politicians have opposed it. Underfunding means it won’t open till 2021 .</p>
<p>Better to have the nuclear waste stored in one, containable site than all over.</p>
<p>Angelica; review the link I provided. It will answer many of your questions in detail. There are 2 things you have to realize. 1st; nuclear power and waste today is NOT like it was 30 years ago. 2nd; The ability to reuse and recharge nuclear power plants significantly reduces the waste bi-products and makes it more manageable. </p>
<p>With current technology; if not nuclear, then what? No, solar, wind, and hydro is not enough to satisfy our energy needs. You would have to populate almost 3 entire states with wind turbines and 2 other states wall to wall with solar to come up with the same amount of electricity required. We can’t afford to do that and the people of those states wouldn’t allow wall to wall turbines and panels. Then there’s the environmentalists who will complain about the fish, birds, and animals affected by all that production. And again, our economy can’t afford it.</p>
<p>Now, if you’re willing to wait 10 or more years for technology to catch up to make such energy solutions economical and physically feasible, then that’s OK by me. However, you can’t turn around and complain about CO2 emissions, pollution, and our dependency on foreign oil. Or, do you suggest drilling more in Alaska. Again, I don’t mind, but the environmentalists do. I don’t believe that mankind’s CO2 contribution is that significant to climate change and global warming. I have however suggested the one and only practical and environmentally safe means of producing the amount of electrical energy we need. I want us off of fossil fuel use also, but for technological, economical, and environmental (non-global warming) related reasons. I read the previous posts about hydro, wind, solar, and geothermal solutions. Unfortunately, the technology isn’t there yet to make a major impact on our energy needs without a major affect on the environment.</p>
Not to mention the visual pollution that would contribute. </p>
<p>Another thing is that a lot of these alternatives like wind, hydroelectric, and biofuels are weather/climate affected. The wind’s not blowing on your windmill? Sorry, no power. Same with hydroelectric dependency on drought/snowpack. Same with biofuels…people talk about corn/sugar etc. providing enough energy resources for our needs…well, all of these solutions take up another vital resource - water. There is no free lunch. There are drawbacks to all of our options.</p>
<p>And try generating solar power in places like Seattle in winter, LOL!</p>
<p>Yes, at the current state of the art, nuclear energy is the only reasonable solution. And today’s “nuclear” is not your grandfather’s “nuclear”.</p>
<p>UCBChemEGrad - you didn’t read the entire thread. There was no “drop” in temperatures - Barrons just got conned/confused by some misleading headlines. The “drop” was just that January '08 wasn’t as far above normal as January '07. Overall, global temperatures continue to rise.</p>
<p>All I said was, in Los Angeles for January 2008, it was the coldest average January since 1979.</p>
<p>Yes, global temperatures may continue to rise until polar ice sheets melt and decrease the salinity of the world’s oceans, causing a change in currents and plunging the northern hemisphere into a new ice age.</p>
<p>That is incorrect. Several measuring sources found a drop in the average temp for the year–not from the long term mean but from the recent averages. There are many theories about exactly how to measure temps around the earth–it’s not that simple.</p>
<p>It hasn’t been opened because of all the studies needed and approvals to get the repository built. There have been grumblings, especially from Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid about the impact to his state.</p>
<p>Don’ start speculating on Arizona beachfront property yet–seas falling–not rising over the longrun.<br>
PS from Science–is that good enough? Again, we have very little knowledge of the larger weather forces in this world and beyond that impact weather on earth.</p>
<p>Barrons, do you ever read the stuff you link to? Because your comments frequently don’t correspond to what is stated in the articles. This one is talking about the ocean floors subsiding due to shifting tectonic plates, and has no significance over the next few thousand years (talk about your “long run”!):
There’s more to science than just headlines, you know. There’s also data.
Well, “we” won’t get any more knowledge if “we” don’t bother to actually read the information provided to us, will “we”?</p>
<p>There currently are more Heating days than Cooling days. With the price of energy the way it is, I’d bet that people are hoping for cooling days.</p>
<p>I wonder if people know what the price of electricity is in Washington’s Public Utilties?</p>
<p>Yes, and that is really my point. We know next to nothing about longterm weather/climate. As Rummy said, there are the things we know we know, the things we know we don’t know, and the things we don’t know we don’t know. When it comes to climate I think we are heavily in the last area. A question-=-what percent of the climate change is the current climate model able to predict and how well does it work on the past 300,000 or so years? 20%, 50%, 75%? Is increases CO2 a cause or a result or both and how do they know? For many years it was pretty much believed that heart problems were related to cholesterol. Now they think more than half of the problem is due to infections and that the cholesterol is a relatively secondary contributing factor. And this is an area we have far more data and knowledge about and it is much easier to conduct experiments and tests. I still think they are just seeing the elephants tail and there are much bigger things going on. I think the current theories are so popular because they dovetail nicely with the political agenda of many folks, including academics.</p>
<p>Well, Barrons, you’re entitled to your tinfoil hat conspiracy theory about why hundreds of scientists would misrepresent their findings, and I appreciate that there’s a lot you don’t understand, but how do you come to the conclusion that your ignorance is because “we” don’t know the answers instead of your own personal disinclination to (a) read and (b) accept the widely-published explanations of what scientists have studied and have concluded from those studies, with the result that “you” don’t know those things?</p>
<p>I have read the UN report. I did not say they misrepresent anything except that they don’t know as much as you think they do. It’s not that convincing. You did not answer my question.</p>
<p>Kluge, it is true that scientists don’t know future impacts. They can look at past trends and make forecasts. In terms of the environment, tons of factors go into the effects that may not be entirely understood, etc.</p>
<p>Damn Kluge; you’ve got to chill out. Every time I read your posts; I find some good in them; I start to “respect” your opinion; and then you go ahead and blow it by insulting people you don’t agree with. Why is it when it’s something that you, or the experts you respect, don’t agree with, you call them “Tin Foil Hat” conspiracy type believers. You continue to tell people that they don’t know what they’re talking about and they are basically stupid for being “duped” by a bunch of quacks and con artists. Yet whenever you make a statement, based on your research, you expect it to be respected and never argued with. </p>
<p>Sorry dude, but debates and arguments are won out of respect for the other position. In a true debate, you don’t win by proving your side right. You win by getting the other person to reaccess their position and admit that they may be wrong. I think you mentioned being a lawyer. So is my wife. More cases are won by convincing the court and jury that the other side is wrong or that there is doubt, than proving your side is right. Unfortunately, with your disrespect for other people’s opinions; even though you continue to admit that you don’t know any more than they do; you lose the respect edge which takes away credibility from your arguments.</p>