Interesting and balanced article from LA Weekly. After reading most of the article it seems to me that to ensure economic feasibility the govt has to promise some lucky player(s) a monopoly in exchange for strict regulation of safety issues. The govt also can't interfere with pricing, or the numbers won't crunch. A best guess would be a merger of a few major players like Duke Energy and a couple more, united under thecommon umbrella of crisis management, and national security, with an assured monopoly. It's going to be REAAAAAALLLY expensive, for the customer. .
Matt may be incorrect in some of the details but a world where energy is only accessible to those who can afford it, is a stark reality. So peak cheap energy is the issue, and the future could be very dark, indeed.
A vision of the future shouldn't necessarily
"Lochbaum describes himself, and UCS, as “neither for nor against nuclear power — we’re just safety advocates, and we’re concerned about global warming, too.” But he is clearly not optimistic about nuclear energy’s future. It’s not so much the technology itself; Lochbaum believes it can be made to work, and made to work safely. But as the electricity market around the country becomes increasingly deregulated and competitive, plant owners have more cause to put profit above reliability and safety. And the NRC is not working the way it’s supposed to: According to a 2003 report by the NRC’s inspector general and the Government Accountability Office, 47 percent of NRC employees don’t feel comfortable raising safety issues. “We get more calls from NRC employees than from employees of all the plants combined,” says Lochbaum."
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/05/51/features-lewis.php
PeakOil is You
Nuclear or Renewables?
Re: Nuclear or renewables?
by threadbear » Wed 14 Dec 2005, 20:40:57
-
threadbear - Expert
- Posts: 7577
- Joined: Sat 22 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Re: Nuclear or renewables?
by Tanada » Wed 14 Dec 2005, 21:01:06
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'I') calculated to replace our fossil fuel plants in Texas with nukes, we'd need to build 21 new reactors, at least.
Where the heck would we build these, I wonder?
I don't see this happening.
Where the heck would we build these, I wonder?
I don't see this happening.
No offense Ludi, but i would like to reveiw the math you used to reach that conclusion, you might be too low, or too high.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Alfred Tennyson', 'W')e are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
- Tanada
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17094
- Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA
Re: Nuclear or renewables?
by Daryl » Wed 14 Dec 2005, 21:07:29
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('orz', ' ')
What you need to understand is that Earth is a ball of chemicals that is temporarily hospitable to our species and that one day it will kick us out no matter how "eco friendly" or "sustainable" we are.
What you need to understand is that Earth is a ball of chemicals that is temporarily hospitable to our species and that one day it will kick us out no matter how "eco friendly" or "sustainable" we are.
Good point. Don't geologists theorize that humans have only expanded their population at all because we are in a very brief warming period between ice ages? Even without manmade global warming, it won't be long before a natural climate change crushes humanity. It's important in the meantime that we don't eat ourselves to death like goldfish and try as hard as possible not to create our own demise. At the same time, we should understand that there is nothing permanent or sustainable long term about human existence on this planet. Ecology makes a real bad religion in that sense. Yet secularists continue to anthropomorphize heaven here on Earth. Not going to to happen. Even an ideally sustainable eco-topia will pass away before long.
-
Daryl - Tar Sands
- Posts: 927
- Joined: Mon 10 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
Re: Nuclear or renewables?
by MonteQuest » Wed 14 Dec 2005, 21:27:12
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Devil', 'Y')our poll is silly. You have 2 options, one OR the other.
Silly? It is a poll that reflects this from another thread:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') would rather powerdown, conserve, lower my standard of living, and switch to renewables than engage any more nuclear plants, whatever that choice might entail.
I wonder how many would agree with me?
I'll do a poll in the Energy Forum.
It was only suppose to have the two options.
Maybe I should have couch it like this:
Under any circumstances would you embrace building more nuclear power plants?
My answer: no.
I would rather cope and adapt, whatever that might entail.
I bet the 75% of people who voted yes so far would agree.
We don't have to have more pwer, we just want it.
What is silly, is thinking about building another unsustainable energy system fraught with uncertainties.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-
MonteQuest - Expert
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
