 |
| |
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
After that heat which decimated parts of western Europe some kalothelites (do good ers in the bad sense) from some american newspapers claim that it is time for Europe to build new nuclear reactors.
westner Europe has had a ban on building new nuclear reactos after chernobyl. eastern Europe OTOh has gone to a nuclear reactor building extravaganza much to the dismay of western Europe.
Now that ol' scurvy sea dawg Hanx Blix has been designated to lead the first World Nuclear University (sic) to raise awarness for the cause.
Basically the black crows of the nuclear industry want to use that summer heat to their own advantage and try to get some business back.
They claim, that western Europe has usewd up all its hydroelectric options, that aeolic (wind?) energy doesn't work etc. So the option is more nuclear plants.
Tell that to the Greens of Germany. Also Austria tries to conveince the Chezs (I always **** up that word) to not build a new one in Tamalin?. But seems to have failed.
There's also Koslodui in Bulgaria that gives Greece (and all caring neighboor countries) the goosebumps because it is very old. OTOH our neighboor gets 70% of its energy from it. I think it's going to be upgraded and made safe but not closed. Greece also managed to conveince Turkey not to build one.
However countries like Slovakia go at it at full throttle. Italy has a ban. Germany has vowed to phase it out, France has fobid new nuclear plants etc.
So electricity from Nuclear Plants. Your opinion?
Pros and Cons.
What to do with the radioactive waste? There was an american plan to send them to space but was scrambled because there was the fear the watse would fall to the head of some alien and he'd be pissed and coming back asking for explanations.
The US has also not gone forth for new Nuclear Plants but they say it's thinking about it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zulu Elephant
|
|
Nuclear power would be a good idea it wasn't for nuclear power stations.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
modern nuclear power, well done, is the safest, most economic, and environmentally freindly power source in existence
old power plants are bad, and power plants not up to code are also
also if waste is not taken care of properly, it is bad
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by BeBro
What´s with new energy sources. I mean sure, currently they are expensive and not very efficient. But wouldn´t more research in that field improve it? |
I almost fell out my chair when I read this. awesome post.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
which should be predominantly nuclear power
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:30
|
|
there are too many nuclear powers nowadays
just my €.02
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DanS
You're incorrect. Nuclear power is one of the most expensive of the major electric power sources available now. |
that is in the US because of the fact that all of our reactors are old and inefficient
I saw numbers which put the expense on the level of coal
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ecthelion
there are too many nuclear powers nowadays
just my €.02 |
we have built one in the US since the 60s, there are almost none here (and those that are are being (rightfully) closed down)
what we need is the newer more modern ones (which are about as cost effective (baring the costs of making a new plant) as coal)
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
centrifuge
|
|
From http://www.nmcco.com/education/fact...ss/benefits.htm
Benefits of Nuclear Energy: Impact on Utility Fuel Use
(July 2000)
Between 1973 and 1999, nuclear energy met 40 percent of the increase in demand for electricity in the United States. Over this same period, U.S. nuclear power plants displaced (avoided the need to burn) a total of 2.4 billion barrels of oil, 4.1 billion tons of coal, and 15.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The oil alone would have cost $81 billion (in constant 1999 dollars).
Worldwide, nuclear energy displaced 11.3 billion barrels of oil between 1973 and 1997, valued at over $290 billion. During the same period, nuclear energy displaced 10.3 billion tons of coal and 67.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
Nuclear Energy’s Impact on U.S. Electric Utility Fuel Use
The methodology for determining the type and amount of fuel displaced by nuclear energy is based on a model that uses annual generating data from 1973 to the present, by state for the United States and by country for the world. The model assumes that no nuclear power plants were built, and that all electricity was supplied by other types of generating plants that would have been the most appropriate replacements for nuclear power plants.
Coal. Using nuclear energy saved the United States a total of 4.1 billion tons of coal between 1973 and 1999. In 1999, nuclear energy displaced 265 million tons of domestic coal.
Oil. Between 1973 and 1999, oil's share of U.S. electricity generation dropped from 17 percent to 3 percent, while nuclear's share rose from 4 percent to about 20 percent. By eliminating the need for 2.4 billion barrels of oil over this period, nuclear energy saved the United States $81 billion in foreign oil purchases (in constant 1999 dollars). In 1999, nuclear energy displaced 66.3 million barrels of oil, helping utilities avoid $1 billion in oil purchases.
Natural Gas. Nuclear energy displaced 15.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the United States between 1973 and 1999. In 1999, nuclear energy saved 1.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
Impact on Worldwide Utility Fuel Use
In the absence of nuclear energy, the use of oil to generate electricity would have been greatest in East Asia and some Western European countries. Natural gas would have been the primary fuel in much of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Coal would have been the major fuel used in most other parts of the world.
Since the 1973 oil embargo, many countries have used nuclear energy to reduce their dependence on oil. Countries like Sweden, France and Japan have been successful in this respect. Between 1973 and 1997, nuclear energy displaced 11.3 billion barrels of oil worldwide. And in 1997 alone, nuclear energy displaced 580 million barrels of oil, 710 million tons of coal and 6.3 trillion cubic feet of gas worldwide.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
DanS it is percentage, not totals that matter
also I was apparently wrong, we have not built any since the first couple years of the 70s
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
france for example almost entirely uses nuklear power
while we are still using early models from the 60s
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
I apparently do not remember many things right
(I still think that my points stand though)
here is a site
http://www.uic.com.au/nip58.htm
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-09-2003 00:03
|