quote:

ORIGINAL: stef

quote:

ORIGINAL: windchymes

I guess I'm just weird, but when I see those big, white, windmills turning off in the distance, I think they're kinda pretty, compared with cell phone towers, power plants, telephone/power poles, and the like.

You're not weird.  Well, not because you like windmills anyway.  I like the look of them too.  I used to love riding my motorcycle down through the Tehachapi wind farm when I lived in California.

quote:

ORIGINAL: stef

quote:

ORIGINAL: windchymes

I guess I'm just weird, but when I see those big, white, windmills turning off in the distance, I think they're kinda pretty, compared with cell phone towers, power plants, telephone/power poles, and the like.

You're not weird.  Well, not because you like windmills anyway.  I like the look of them too.  I used to love riding my motorcycle down through the Tehachapi wind farm when I lived in California.

quote:

And the sight of a bi-concave concrete nuclear reactor smoking away in the distance is just eerie-looking to me.

That's not a reactor, that's a draft cooling tower.  Reactor buildings are generally fairly innocuous. 

~stef

quote:

ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA

quote:

ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl

Wind, solar, and water are the answer...

Unfortunately, the technology just isn't there yet.  Great strides have certainly been made... but still a long ways to go.

So we should keep using non nuclear fuel generated plants while working on safe power sources until the technology is there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: stef

quote:

ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl

Wind, solar, and water are the answer along with anything else that doesn't remain toxic for years.

That's not an answer, that's a dream.  It's a nice dream, but a dream nonetheless.

quote:

Safe energy will create jobs that can't be outsourced and prevent more toxic radiation.

"Safe energy" can't provide anything more than a miniscule fraction of the power our country needs, and that's not likely to change in our lifetimes.  Have you even taken a cursory look at the numbers involved here?  I'm guessing not.

Callifornia currently has about 15,000 wind turbines producing electricity.  They account for between 1-1.5% of the state's total energy.  You can't just put wind turbines anywhere and there isn't appropriate transmission infrastructure to get power from where the wind is to where it's needed.  That's just ONE of the many issues involved.

quote:

So are you for or against windmills or are you for both windmills and nuclear power?

It's not that simple.  I'm "for" a lot of things.  I'm for increasing the use of alternative sources of energy that make sense.  I'm for phasing out obsolete reactors.  I'm for the NRC approving new, safer, more efficient reactor designs. 

There is no easy solution here and simply saying that those icky nuclear plants need to go away is just plain ignorant.

~stef

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA



Yes, of course... but I wouldn't look for them being "the answer" anytime soon.  I don't have an issue with Nuclear... if I recall correctly, France, for example, gets some 80% of its power from Nuclear energy.  I wouldn't, however, put a nuclear plant in California, for example, where earthquakes are so frequent -- that's just asking to be nuclear bitch-slapped!!! [:)] lol

quote:

ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl

Isn't ignoring the fact that natural disasters will cause nuclear disasters in the US ignorant?

quote:

The solution should be using the same types of plants we used before nuclear power plants were built until we have the technology to use solar, wind, and water for all of our power needs.

quote:

New reactor designs mean more nuclear and more radioactive waste.

quote:

We survived without nuclear before so we can survive without it now until solar, wind, and water power technology improves.

quote:

ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA

Yes, of course... but I wouldn't look for them being "the answer" anytime soon.  I don't have an issue with Nuclear... if I recall correctly, France, for example, gets some 80% of its power from Nuclear energy.  I wouldn't, however, put a nuclear plant in California, for example, where earthquakes are so frequent -- that's just asking to be nuclear bitch-slapped!!! [:)] lol

Doesn't France ever have natural disasters?

quote:

I find that windmills are not a feasible answer to all of our energy problems

quote:

ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA

quote:

ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl

Wind, solar, and water are the answer...

Unfortunately, the technology just isn't there yet.  Great strides have certainly been made... but still a long ways to go.

So we should keep using non nuclear fuel generated plants while working on safe power sources until the technology is there. Anything is better than a Cherenobyl or Fukshima level disaster in the US. As I said before, with nuclear power plants it's not a question of what if, but WHEN.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven
DBG, I get the feeling that you think that wind just needs more time and it will magically become more feasible, and that at some point it will become as feasible as fossil fuel plants. Unfortunately, there are limits to how much wind is available, and how efficient the machines are at making electricity from it.

Wind is a wonderful energy source for isolated places in the prairies, such as pumping water for livestock in the windy Dakotas. But it won't be feasible on a massive scale.

quote:

The lucky sunny state of Arizona is about to become home to the world’s largest Solar Plant! Thanks to a just-announced contract between Abengoa Solar and Arizona Public Service Company (APS), the enormous solar plant called Solana will power up to 70,000 homes, and will be the first example in the country of a major utility getting the majority of its energy from solar. The 1900 acre plant will be completed by 2011

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

For one thing, the nuclear power plant was shut down to refuel in April and has not been reactivated, so the plant would be safe even if the flood got any higher, as it stands the power plant is on dry ground even if it is surrounded by flood waters, so Nebraska is a moot point at best.

quote:

ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl

Unfortunately, the Cooper Nuclear Power Plant is refusing to shut down.

quote:

I don't know what you've heard or where you heard it, but I'm not seeing any stories about refusing to shut down.  Their plan calls for shutdown if the flood surge reaches 902 feet above sea level.  The last update I've seen is this:

Flood waters along the Missouri River came within 18 inches to forcing a nuclear power plant in Nebraska to shutdown.
The river has to hit 902 feet above sea level at Brownville before officials will shut down the Cooper Nuclear Plant.
Nebraska Public Power district says the river rose to 900.56 before dropping slightly this morning.
The plant is currently operating at full capacity.

The sky is not yet falling.

quote:

I think people give short shrift to wind and solar because they simply don't understand the possibilities.

quote:

ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl

Will they have enough time to shut the plant down if a levee breaks?

quote:

ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

For one thing, the nuclear power plant was shut down to refuel in April and has not been reactivated, so the plant would be safe even if the flood got any higher, as it stands the power plant is on dry ground even if it is surrounded by flood waters, so Nebraska is a moot point at best.

Unfortunately, the Cooper Nuclear Power Plant is refusing to shut down.

quote:

River level prompts nuclear plant warning
Published: June 20, 2011 at 7:26 AM

BROWNVILLE, Neb., June 20 (UPI) -- The rising Missouri River prompted the Cooper Nuclear Station near Brownville, Neb., to declare a "notification of unusual event," plant officials said.

The designation, anticipated by plant operator Nebraska Public Power District, was made Sunday when the river there reached a height of 42.5 feet, or 899 feet above sea level, the Omaha World-Herald reported. The notification is the lowest and least serious of four emergency classifications developed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for nuclear power plants.

The Nebraska Public Power District said in a statement the plant is operating safely and there is no threat to plant employees, who are monitoring the water levels. If the river level increases to 45.5 feet, or 902 feet above sea level, the station would be taken offline as a safety measure.


River level prompts nuclear plant warning