NationStates Jolt Archive

Currently nuclear power costs about 1.9 cents a kilowatt-hour (including decomissioning and waste storage). Wind costs about 3 cents a kilowatt hour. Since most consumers pay at least 10 cents a kilowatt-hour, wind power will cost them about 11% more than what they pay now. Wind power's variability increases costs the more you rely on it, but currently this is not a major expense in the U.S. and many other countries. So if you were given a choice, would you be prepared to pay 15% more on your power bills for wind or other renewable sources as opposed to using nuclear power?

I voted that I wouldn't want to pay more, and would choose nuclear power. However, if I had my own house, I'd consider building a wind powered generator, to offset my electrical needs: http://www.webpal.org/b_recovery/3_alternate_energy/electricity/all_low_rpm/itpmg.pdf

The great thing is, in the state of CT, the electric company has to buy back any surplus power you feed back into the grid. It'd be nice to see the meter running backwards.

I would support cold-fusion nuclear power, but the poll didn't stipulate that. If it had, I would have voted for nuclear.

Side note: recently, a wave generator was put online off of Oregon's coast. They've also found that it does no harm to aquatic life. Just thought I'd throw that on the table for discussion.

Survey says that the vast majority of the allegedly self-proclaimed "liberal" NS is too devoid of scruples and foresight to be willing to pay a bit more for a cleaner, safer, more efficient mode of energy.

Congratulations, you're all as idiotic and worthless as the rest of the general public.

It's incomprehensible that people are willing to put a price on humanity, and though I'm speaking in tremendous hyperbole, the summation of everyone acting like greedy myopic plebeians over, say a decade, is really quite devastating.

Survey says that the vast majority of the allegedly self-proclaimed "liberal" NS is too devoid of scruples and foresight to be willing to pay a bit more for a cleaner, safer, more efficient mode of energy.

Congratulations, you're all as idiotic and worthless as the rest of the general public.

It's incomprehensible that people are willing to put a price on humanity, and though I'm speaking in tremendous hyperbole, the summation of everyone acting like greedy myopic plebeians over, say a decade, is really quite devastating.
Heck, I'm about as Conservative as they come, but I AGREE WITH YOU %100!

The important parts are reliablility and can you provide enoughof it. I like wind, but you're going to see nuclear.

To dumb it down a bit,
Only a shortsighted and selfish individual would by hundreds of packages of wood pencils over the course of his lifetime as opposed to keeping a handful of mechanical pencils and periodically getting more lead.

The former might be cheaper in the short run, but as the fiscal price compounds (and increases with the decrease in availability of usable wood) along with the moral price (as if that person really cared) of complicity with deforestation and the depletion resources, it soon becomes more "costly" than the efficient but initially more expensive mechanical pencils.

More efficient? Its more expensive...

Safer? Not really. Nuclear plants are less safe when humans do things wrong, but inherently, a nuclear plant isn't unsafe. As long as you follow protocal correctly, it should be fine.

Cleaner? Ehh, last time I checked, I didn't have any problems with nuclear or wind pollution.

Nuclear power is cheaper, its safe, its clean, and it will last us a nice amount of time until a better form of energy generation is found.

Its the best solution to the energy crisis. You can build a nuclear reactor in a lot more places than you can put up wind generators, as wind generators can be more or less efficient depending on area, while nuclear reactors basically just need a water supply nearby.

Heck, I'm about as Conservative as they come, but I AGREE WITH YOU %100!

Exactly, I mean, it's really incomprehensible. It makes sense from the logical, economic standpoint (conservative) as well as from the nagging concientious standpoint (liberal) as well.

The only problem I reason I could see people voting for nuclear power is because wind isn't as efficient as some of the other alternative fuel types.

To dumb it down a bit,
Only a shortsighted and selfish individual would by hundreds of packages of wood pencils over the course of his lifetime as opposed to keeping a handful of mechanical pencils and periodically getting more lead.

The former might be cheaper in the short run, but as the fiscal price compounds (and increases with the decrease in availability of usable wood) along with the moral price (as if that person really cared) of complicity with deforestation and the depletion resources, it soon becomes more "costly" than the efficient but initially more expensive mechanical pencils.

Err, except that the nuclear fuel is periodically put into the reactor. I don't think anyone is going to argue that uranium is a natural resource that we must preserve, so why not use it up and reap the benefits?

I wouldn't pay more for wind. I just don't see what's wrong with nuclear. Sure, it makes waste, but can't we just launch that into space?

Actually I pay 7 or 8 cents, not 10. But it does not matter - I'll go with nuclear power anyway. And perhaps we should consider switching railroads (and all those long freight trains) to electrical power - no need to burn oil based fuel in engines that only move on preset trajectories and thus can be easily supplied with external power.

More efficient? Its more expensive...

Safer? Not really. Nuclear plants are less safe when humans do things wrong, but inherently, a nuclear plant isn't unsafe. As long as you follow protocal correctly, it should be fine.

Cleaner? Ehh, last time I checked, I didn't have any problems with nuclear or wind pollution.

Nuclear power is cheaper, its safe, its clean, and it will last us a nice amount of time until a better form of energy generation is found.

Its the best solution to the energy crisis. You can build a nuclear reactor in a lot more places than you can put up wind generators, as wind generators can be more or less efficient depending on area, while nuclear reactors basically just need a water supply nearby.

You completely overlooked the concrete idea of efficiency for the abstract concept of price. You wouldn't happen to know anything about economics, would you?

As for safe, I'd rather have a couple windmills killing stupid pidgeons than a couple Chernobyls killing stupid Russians. Note that I use "stupid" facetiously: as time goes on, accidents are bound to happen. Depending on what you're working with, the damage varies.

As for clean, you seem to think that as long as you can't see it, there isn't a problem. This amazing concept for domestic policy brought to you by playing too many years of peekabo.

And by the way, other forms of energy have been found. You're just another idiot in that overwhelming large group of laymen who think that scientist will manage to get you out of anything without a price for you. That isn't realistic. The bottom line, we've had alternative energy sources for decades; everyone's just been as pigheaded as you to actually suck it up, pay the price, and use them.

As for your last point... that reminds me: water. Another issue with the environment is the rapid rate at which usable water sources are disappearing. Your so called "clean" nuclear energy renders the water source untappable and unusable, unless you'd like more minerals in your waterfowl.

Quick fixes for energy crisis? Solar panels (oh god, the prices! the prices! how will I pay for the gas in my SUV when I have to by solar panels?!), hydroelectric, and I believe Japan is working on some sort of organic/ceramic power.

I wouldn't pay more for wind. I just don't see what's wrong with nuclear. Sure, it makes waste, but can't we just launch that into space?

Er, considering launch accidents, that would be a really dumb idea. But there are plenty of spaces where it can be safely buried. The only problem is political - just like with landfills (nobody wants to live next to them).

Survey says that the vast majority of the allegedly self-proclaimed "liberal" NS is too devoid of scruples and foresight to be willing to pay a bit more for a cleaner, safer, more efficient mode of energy.

Congratulations, you're all as idiotic and worthless as the rest of the general public.


You're not going to convince us plebes by insulting anyone who dares not buy your nuclear-power-is-teh-evil viewpoint.

Stupid hippie.

Err, except that the nuclear fuel is periodically put into the reactor. I don't think anyone is going to argue that uranium is a natural resource that we must preserve, so why not use it up and reap the benefits?

That's right! Fuck preserving resources! Fuck billion year half lives of radioactive materials! Fuck adverse affects on the atmosphere and seas! We want power and we want it now!

I suddenly understand... you're just as completely shortsighted and selfish as I had half-seriously claimed.

As for safe, I'd rather have a couple windmills killing stupid pidgeons than a couple Chernobyls killing stupid Russians. Note that I use "stupid" facetiously: as time goes on, accidents are bound to happen.

As a former Russian who at the time was actually studying Physics at Moscow University, I can confirm that those were indeed stupid Russians without any quotation marks. To begin with, that was a very bad design which is not used anywhere in the West. And what was the number of accidents involving any release of radioactivity in the West over the past half century?! Zero!

Considering the gravity of global warming caused by fossil fuels, and the impracticality (at least in terms of today's technology, not saying the future couldn't be different) of renewables, I say nuclear is the best thing since sliced bread. We should be encouraging its development. Hell, I'd pay 15% more for nuclear over wind if it meant encouraging nuclear power.

I'm holding out hope for nuclear fusion. We're getting awfully close and nobody seems to be excited but me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

That's right! Fuck preserving resources! Fuck billion year half lives of radioactive materials! Fuck adverse affects on the atmosphere and seas! We want power and we want it now!

I suddenly understand... you're just as completely shortsighted and selfish as I had half-seriously claimed.

Oh noes, look at all the three armed children running around France and America!

Oh wait, I've yet to see any deaths attributed to nuclear waste, and neither have I seen anything showing a signifigant danger to the atmosphere and sea. Please, in your infinite wisdom, provide some links so I can change my evil, greedy ways.

You're not going to convince us plebes by insulting anyone who dares not buy your nuclear-power-is-teh-evil viewpoint.

Stupid hippie.

I'm not a hippy. This isn't a partisan issue.
If you weren't so completely entrenched in your wholly unChristian idea of entitlement at the expense of every other living thing on the planet, maybe you'd be able to comprehend that.

You'll only be convinced when you want to listen. Until then, you'll continue giving the finger to future generations and everyone else, simply because you're an unnecessarily selfish individual.

Because evidently, the evolutionary godsend concept of selfishness seems to have become warped in some individuals: selfishness for a species always trumps selfishness for self.

As a former Russian who at the time was actually studying Physics at Moscow University, I can confirm that those were indeed stupid Russians without any quotation marks. To begin with, that was a very bad design which is not used anywhere in the West. And what was the number of accidents involving any release of radioactivity in the West over the past half century?! Zero!

You're right. There wasn't much point in that. Nuclear accidents are for the most part flukes, but Chernobyl wasn't the only one. And as I said, the longer you work with something, the more people working on that something, the more likely that someone/something is going to mess up. In order to mitigate the negative effects of that mistake, it's best to use something less damaging.

I'm not a hippy. This isn't a partisan issue.

Hippies aren't necessarily partisan. But hey I was "half-serious" with that comment anyway. Nyah!


If you weren't so completely entrenched in your wholly unChristian idea of entitlement at the expense of every other living thing on the planet, maybe you'd be able to comprehend that.

You really gotta tone down the self-righteous alarmist BS, man. "..at the expense of every other living thing on the planet?" Uh? Maybe you can explain how nuclear power has killed every other living thing on the planet.

You'll only be convinced when you want to listen. Until then, you'll continue giving the finger to future generations and everyone else, simply because you're an unnecessarily selfish individual.

I do believe that's a ... yes, yes, here it is... a COMPUTER you're typing on. It's using electricity. Electricity which mostly comes from coal, gas or nuclear power. So even as you type, sir, YOU are giving the finger to future generations, no?

Because evidently, the evolutionary godsend concept of selfishness seems to have become warped in some individuals: selfishness for a species always trumps selfishness for self.

Never has, never will. There is no species which shows any kind of love for "species" over self. Even ants, the great communists, war with members of their own species and compete with their own colonies for resources in favor of their own genetic reproduction.

I too hold myself to be of more important than "species." Not because I would kill everyone else just to save me - but because there is never going to be a situation in which I have a choice to Save Humanity by being selfless.

Except in the pipe dreams of stupid hippies.

:fluffle:

You completely overlooked the concrete idea of efficiency for the abstract concept of price. You wouldn't happen to know anything about economics, would you?

As for safe, I'd rather have a couple windmills killing stupid pidgeons than a couple Chernobyls killing stupid Russians. Note that I use "stupid" facetiously: as time goes on, accidents are bound to happen. Depending on what you're working with, the damage varies.

As for clean, you seem to think that as long as you can't see it, there isn't a problem. This amazing concept for domestic policy brought to you by playing too many years of peekabo.

And by the way, other forms of energy have been found. You're just another idiot in that overwhelming large group of laymen who think that scientist will manage to get you out of anything without a price for you. That isn't realistic. The bottom line, we've had alternative energy sources for decades; everyone's just been as pigheaded as you to actually suck it up, pay the price, and use them.

As for your last point... that reminds me: water. Another issue with the environment is the rapid rate at which usable water sources are disappearing. Your so called "clean" nuclear energy renders the water source untappable and unusable, unless you'd like more minerals in your waterfowl.

Quick fixes for energy crisis? Solar panels (oh god, the prices! the prices! how will I pay for the gas in my SUV when I have to by solar panels?!), hydroelectric, and I believe Japan is working on some sort of organic/ceramic power.

No, I simply look at efficiency in total. Electricity is electricity, the consumer doesn't care how he gets it. Seeing as suppliers are making it cheaper with nuclear, there's obviously some things in the process that make nuclear energy more efficient in the long run(unpredictable weather, not-ideal spots for windmills, etc). At peak, it may be more efficient; but nuclear is more reliable, and that means more to me, personally.

So, some people have died in the relative infancy of nuclear power, because a nuclear plant wasn't operated correctly. Its not like nuclear power plants are prone to these events every once in a while, its based on the operators. The plants will only get safer, the operators more intelligent.

Clean? Again, I've yet to see what the enviornmental problems with nuclear waste, when properly stored, are.

Calling me an idiot repetedly won't get your point across any better, and will just make people think you don't really know what you're talking about. You might want to tone it down.

Yes, alternative energy has been around. It hasn't been economically viable, and still isn't, for the most part. Nuclear power is the closest thing to an economically viable substitute for oil that we have. Its supposed downsides do not signifigantly detract from this.

The world is 69% water, last time I heard. You don't need drinking water for nuclear plants, just water for coolant.

Its funny. You always seem to hear people uneducated people on a subject claim "I heard X country has developed Y, which changes everything!". If it was such a big development, you would here experts in the field commenting on it, etc. Solar panels aren't efficient, requiring more energy to create than they yield through their lifetime. Hydroelectric is all good and fine, but you can't build them just anywhere, and they can't supply enough energy for an increasingly energy hungry world.

Nuclear energy is the most economically viable substitute we have for oil at te moment. Its as simple as that.

"And on that lone night, Santa Barbara and Chellis joined forces to create a super being, more powerful than genghis khan riding godzilla on crack!"

Even myself, a hardcore pinko liberal, couldn't stomach a 15% rise in energy cost.

Oh noes, look at all the three armed children running around France and America!

Oh wait, I've yet to see any deaths attributed to nuclear waste, and neither have I seen anything showing a signifigant danger to the atmosphere and sea. Please, in your infinite wisdom, provide some links so I can change my evil, greedy ways.

Cancer children. Not mutants. Not that you care.
http://www.ieer.org/ensec/no-4/lahague.html

You've already tempered your words. You know that it has negative effects. You know that alternative energy is better. But you're selfish enough to be willing to argue over the logistics of "how bad" adverse affects are.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4778344.stm
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/nuc.htm

Some things I couldn't find links to:
Radiation half life and its affects on soil and living things.
Not uncommon leaks from nuclear plants into water sources.

<SNIP>
Radiation half life and its affects on soil and living things.
Not uncommon leaks from nuclear plants into water sources.
Not uncommon enough for there to be no available news links...?

"And on that lone night, Santa Barbara and Chellis joined forces to create a super being, more powerful than genghis khan riding godzilla on crack!"

You're scaring me.
And the children.

ATOMIC SUPER-ORGANISM TERROR!

...
nuclear is more reliable
...
Clean? Again, I've yet to see what the enviornmental problems with nuclear waste, when properly stored, are.

Calling me an idiot repetedly won't get your point across any better, and will just make people think you don't really know what you're talking about. You might want to tone it down.
...

The world is 69% water, last time I heard. You don't need drinking water for nuclear plants, just water for coolant.
,,,
Solar panels aren't efficient, requiring more energy to create than they yield through their lifetime. Hydroelectric is all good and fine, but you can't build them just anywhere, and they can't supply enough energy for an increasingly energy hungry world.
,,,
Nuclear energy is the most economically viable substitute we have for oil at te moment. Its as simple as that.

Nuclear energy is most reliable: from what I've heard, that is true.
But as we've both acknowledged, it won't be around for much longer.

Nuclear energy is certainly cleaner than coal, oil, etc., but not as clean as the "alternatives."

I shouldn't have called you an idiot; you're clearly not a moron, I'm sorry. But I won't apologize for saying you lack moral rectitude or foresight in this area.

The world is 69%? It was 72% when I was little. Damn that global warming. Well, either way, only about 5%-15% is usable for consumption.

I'd like to see your source on the solar power statement. If that were true, it wouldn't be used anymore.

As for the energy hungry world, it's going to have to be tempered.
First we're going to have to stop having so many children, next we're going to have to start reusing water, etc. etc. That's not a random doomsday threat, it's an obvious visible fact, based simply on the amount of resources industrialized people consume.

I looked at the BBC article especially hard, as the BBC is the most trustworthy one to me. I looked at the five reasons; the last four were political or economic, yet don't pose a problem in my mind. The only real problem I see it storate atm; In the future, launching them into space, via ships or elevator, is possible. For now, I think its dumb that they store the waste at the site; they should send them into places like siberia, alaska, antarctica, and the sahara. Pay whichever government owns the land(obviously, antarctica excluded) to let you put your waste there, until a more viable way of disposal comes along.

After reviewing the facts and clearing my head, I suppose I might have been wrong. It's really too late for me to be rambling about this crap.

But either way, I still strongly believe in making short-term "sacrifices" to prevent much harsher long-term ramifications.

Nuclear energy is most reliable: from what I've heard, that is true.
But as we've both acknowledged, it won't be around for much longer.

Nuclear energy is certainly cleaner than coal, oil, etc., but not as clean as the "alternatives."

I shouldn't have called you an idiot; you're clearly not a moron, I'm sorry. But I won't apologize for saying you lack moral rectitude or foresight in this area.

The world is 69%? It was 72% when I was little. Damn that global warming. Well, either way, only about 5%-15% is usable for consumption.

I'd like to see your source on the solar power statement. If that were true, it wouldn't be used anymore.

As for the energy hungry world, it's going to have to be tempered.
First we're going to have to stop having so many children, next we're going to have to start reusing water, etc. etc. That's not a random doomsday threat, it's an obvious visible fact, based simply on the amount of resources industrialized people consume.

Not for much longer; only 50 or so years, assuming the world makes a huge turn for it. Thats plenty of time to work on more efficient alternative energy sources.

Nuclear energy is clean enough, at least in my opinion. I don't see a problem with "the alternative is only a little cleaner", when we aren't replacing it for its cleanliness.

I didn't ask you to apologize for anything, its just a nice idea to be civil on the forums.

Its a long perpetuated myth, I admit. Its said so much its commonplace. I'll do some research on it for my next post(about to sleep), and post what I find out. Regardless, it only works certain parts of the day, certain areas, and isn't especially efficient.

Be realistic. People won't stop being energy hungry until they are forced to, economically or otherwise. Companies won't stop providing as much energy as they can, until it stops making them a profit. Tempering our energy use will cost us even more. We want to keep this train going as long as we can, which is why I completely support the search for alternative fuels. I just believe at the moment, nuclear is the only one viable for such an energy hungry world. I hope that changes.

Factor in all proven (not hippie-induced) costs and pick the cheapest. When non-renewable nuclear fuel gets scarce enough so that nuclear power becomes 16% more expensive than it is now, then use wind power.

Wind power remains 15 cents forever, so its is a "ceiling" price.

I looked at the BBC article especially hard, as the BBC is the most trustworthy one to me. I looked at the five reasons; the last four were political or economic, yet don't pose a problem in my mind. The only real problem I see it storate atm; In the future, launching them into space, via ships or elevator, is possible. For now, I think its dumb that they store the waste at the site; they should send them into places like siberia, alaska, antarctica, and the sahara. Pay whichever government owns the land(obviously, antarctica excluded) to let you put your waste there, until a more viable way of disposal comes along.

I agree with most of your post, though I cringe at the idea of burying away radioactive particles, even in a remote tundra (and not near the cute little penguins of antarctica!) But the idea of shooting our garbage into space... come on. That's the epitome of "science will solve all our current/future problems in the future!"

I voted nuclear, not because of the cost, but because of the reliability of nuclear power (the weather can't effect the production), and the far lower space usage (and if we want to feed every human being, without using dangreous chemicals in agriculture, we need most of our space to grow food).

So, IMHO, 100% wind (or solar) power is just impossible, or would have very bad consequences. I'm for a mix between solar/wind and nuclear, depending of the country, situation, and possibilities.

I would support cold-fusion nuclear power, but the poll didn't stipulate that. If it had, I would have voted for nuclear.

Side note: recently, a wave generator was put online off of Oregon's coast. They've also found that it does no harm to aquatic life. Just thought I'd throw that on the table for discussion.

I'd use magical fairy power from happyland if the poll allowed it...

Two things about nuclear waste (that I learned from Isaac Asimov):

1. Any concievable amount of nuclear waste, when dispersed in the Atlantic ocean, would be less than 1/1000 of the amount that is in there naturally.

2. Dumping waste into downward-moving fissures in the earth would soon bury it and release it into the earth's mantle---the center of which might be highly radioactive itself---dispersing it so deep that this is technically safer than leaving our uranium mines untapped.

For now, I think its dumb that they store the waste at the site; they should send them into places like siberia, alaska, antarctica, and the sahara.

Um, no thank you. Quite a friendly offer, but you can keep your nuclear waste, thankyouverymuch.

Yes, I would pay 15% more for clean, renewable sources such as wind & solar power.

I am ambivilent towards nuclear. On the one hand, it could be a good replacement for fossil fuels.

However, people are too short sighted & selfish to really grasp the concept of nuclear waste. It's going to be around for tens or hundreds of thousands of years. How will we store it safely until it's no longer a hazard? We certainly can't trust private companies/corporations to do so, their main concern is making money. Launching it into space is just ludicrous. It just shows how self centred we are. Don't want it here? Lets make it someone else's problem.

So, according to the results of the poll we should be aiming to get 37.5% of our power from wind and 62.5% of our power from nuclear.

However, if we include the desires of alien beasts, we should get 32.7% of our power from wind, 54.6% from nuclear and 12.7% from coal.

No one thinks we should take the Amish option and live at a pre industrial level.

Heck, I'm about as Conservative as they come, but I AGREE WITH YOU %100!
*modifies Final Solution Program somewhat*

Two things about nuclear waste (that I learned from Isaac Asimov):
Is this from his general writings or the ones where he writes about robot servants?

I looked at the BBC article especially hard, as the BBC is the most trustworthy one to me. I looked at the five reasons; the last four were political or economic, yet don't pose a problem in my mind. The only real problem I see it storate atm; In the future, launching them into space, via ships or elevator, is possible. For now, I think its dumb that they store the waste at the site; they should send them into places like siberia, alaska, antarctica, and the sahara. Pay whichever government owns the land(obviously, antarctica excluded) to let you put your waste there, until a more viable way of disposal comes along.
Why is it dumb and how much is an acceptable price for the storage?

Is this from his general writings or the ones where he writes about robot servants?

In defense of Issac Asimov, he was a chemistry professor at university so I think he knew his science. He also wrote many more science books than fiction. He also said he was amazed at how quickly we advanced in robotics and that he never thought we'd actually progress as quickly as we did.

In some early science fiction he wrote about the earth becoming intensely radioactive for hundreds of years due to a nuclear war. After he realised this isn't what would happen he wrote in an alternative explanation for the radioactivity in a later book. He cared about getting things right.