yes it would, but the average person has only limited knowledge of this issue, and even that comes from the media types who know nothing but would have us believe they know something....
Reporters are repeaters, and they get it wrong a lot.
Likewise the politicians who use their ignorance to create fear in the even more ignorant.
The issue that most detractors discuss the most is waste disposal. Truth be known, a lot of nuclear waste has already been dumped in our oceans, and Godzilla hasn't happened yet. There are some really deep places in the oceans, and some are at subduction zones, even better for long term disposal.
But before we build new power plants of any kind, we need to look at what can be done easily, cheaply, and using old technology, and by that I mean efficiencies, aka conserving.
Example: Ask anybody why we don't vent our clothes dryers indoors in the winter and you will get an answer that fits the one or two instances where it shouldn't be done. That would be when using gas or propane and/or in very humid climates. If the humidity in your house is low, as it usually is in winter almost everywhere in the USA, vent indoors as long as your clothes dryer is electric. It is easy to build a baghouse type filter to contain the lint. You get free heat inside your house that otherwise would be vented outdoors, and wasted, and you get some needed humidity as well. I have heard HVAC contractors say it is a bad idea due to humidity buildup, then tell me I need to add a humidifier to my furnace....Unless you are doing laundry several times a day and every day of the week, humidity will not build up. You have to have a super sealed house before that becomes an issue, and even then there are relatively easy and cheap ways to capture the heat without the humidity. As long as you aren't getting moisture condensing on your windows, you don't have too much humidity.
That is JUST ONE thing that nearly every HVAC contractor gets wrong. Why is there so much ignorance? because the right kind of training isn't getting done.
yes, a very expensive and high tech way of controlling usage to minimize peaks that are too high....read the wiki article on it.what the smart grid be an example of conserving?
yes, a very expensive and high tech way of controlling usage to minimize peaks that are too high....read the wiki article on it.
It is the govt and high tech industry's way of making us do the right thing.
It reminds me of what Engineer Scott said about how he sabatoged the new Enterprise so it couldn't pursue the old Enterprise when the crew stole it to go rescue Spock, IIRC.
What he said...
The more you overthink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain....
in simpler terms, as soon as we become dependent on automation, we are setting ourselves up for disaster.
A culture shift is probably harder to achieve than implementing high tech and super expensive technology, even tho it should be easier. But make it costly to fight the system and they will pay attention.
Tell people that they will pay higher rates during peak hours, and if they are smart, they will do their laundry in offpeak hours....
Having worked with engineers a lot, I am pretty sure the smart grid they build will be over priced from the start, and get worse from there. I think the culture shift should be done first...so are you saying a smart grid could be a good idea? I do agree that it would be good to be not spend alot. Global warming does need to be acted on soon. I am just not sure if waiting for nuclear power plants to be built would be good.
oh and here a way nuclear waste could be dealt with
A 100-Year Plan for Nuclear Waste - Technology Review
Having worked with engineers a lot, I am pretty sure the smart grid they build will be over priced from the start, and get worse from there. I think the culture shift should be done first...
How do you think we are dealing with the wastes from coal plants? and coal cannot be burned clean....the equipment needed to make coal burn anywhere near clean would cost as much as a nuclear power plant, and you still have train loads of coal coming in everyday, along with train loads of ash going out every day....nukes store waste, coal plants dump it...Coal can be burned clean and we have lots of it. As a firm believer in Murphys Law I am anti nuke power plus we still havn't come up with any great way to deal with the waste.
Why are there no politicians attempting to replace coal with nuclear power. Coal miners and workers can be retrained and coal plant owners can just become nuclear plant owners. I think this should be done with tax breaks. This would cut a good amount of carbon.
If the plant owners start training the local workers when the plant is 3 years from completion, it can be done. First they test the applicants and see which of them are suitable for the various types of operators, like the Navy did for me in 1964. After 9 months of electronics school, and a year of nuclear power school, they deemed me ready to operate. But That was Navy training, they owned me and my time. Civilians would take twice as long. Navy primary plant operators are considered equal to those with college bachelors degrees in science, engineering, etc. Those are the 2 main sources for most of our nuclear console/control room operators.Just how naive are you?
This isn't some business simulation game where you can retrain a person every few hours or so. It's hardly likely that coal miners can function well as nuclear plant workers.
Coal can be burned clean and we have lots of it. As a firm believer in Murphys Law I am anti nuke power plus we still havn't come up with any great way to deal with the waste.
If the plant owners start training the local workers when the plant is 3 years from completion, it can be done. First they test the applicants and see which of them are suitable for the various types of operators, like the Navy did for me in 1964. After 9 months of electronics school, and a year of nuclear power school, they deemed me ready to operate. But That was Navy training, they owned me and my time. Civilians would take twice as long. Navy primary plant operators are considered equal to those with college bachelors degrees in science, engineering, etc. Those are the 2 main sources for most of our nuclear console/control room operators.
Some of the coal miners might end up being low skill laborers, some would be middle level tech, some would be high tech.
One thing for sure, it would be essential to keep the unions out of the training process. Not saying they can't be there later on, but only qualified workers should be hired. If the trainiees can't handle the training offered, let them step down to a lower level job, or go home and let the next generation train for those jobs.
Coal can be burned clean and we have lots of it. As a firm believer in Murphys Law I am anti nuke power plus we still havn't come up with any great way to deal with the waste.
we aren't going to build an entirely new infrastructure for Th, it is just too expensive...
there are different kinds of Uranium reactors, tho, newer designs.
I remain committed to the concept of a culture shift that mandates reduced use of power FIRST....
Debate: Thorium based nuclear energy - Debatepedia
I don't think that people will change their energy habits. Nuclear would allow them to continue their energy habits.
not if they have to pay extra for it.....we need a sliding scale on home energy usage, the more you use, the higher the rate.I don't think that people will change their energy habits. Nuclear would allow them to continue their energy habits.
Some things we can change. Like lightbulbs. While people will grumble about the change, after LED's become the main source of lighting people will realize how awesome it is to have them, and this will provide a substantial reduction in electrical needs. The other thing we need to do is move away from internal combustion engines as much as possible. They're horribly inefficient, only able to use ~20-25% of the energy in the gasoline they burn. An electric motor can use nearly 100% of the energy delivered to it. (although you still have inefficiencies built into the electric production and distribution. On the other hand you have to distribute gasoline too)
Problem is that lifestyle change issue. You're right that people don't want to change their habits. Not necessarily the energy habit, but rather the lifestyle habits. My car goes hundreds of miles before needing to be refueled, and refueling only takes a few minutes. People like that, people are used to that. New technologies need to be at least comparable to that or people aren't going to want to switch even if it is cheaper. Right now, the technology just isn't there to replace our fleet of cars with electric. The batteries take too long to charge and don't store enough energy. Hopefully this improves in the near future - we really should be funneling tax dollars into this sort of research.
not if they have to pay extra for it.....we need a sliding scale on home energy usage, the more you use, the higher the rate.
one of my AZ neighbors was telling me his summer bills are $700 per month becuase his wife likes the house cold....
she should have to pay a higher rate. Same house as ours, we rarely get close to $200 per month in the summer...
They are free to use less electricity.....I don't think people would like that
They are free to use less electricity.....
WASHINGTON — More than 32 mostly coal-fired power plants in a dozen states will be forced to shut down and an additional 36 might have to close because of new federal air pollution regulations, according to an Associated Press survey.
Together, those plants – some of the oldest and dirtiest in the country – produce enough electricity for more than 22 million households, the AP survey found. But their demise probably won't cause homes to go dark.
The fallout will be most acute for the towns where power plant smokestacks long have cast a shadow. Tax revenues and jobs will be lost, and investments in new power plants and pollution controls probably will raise electric bills.
nothing is free, nothing....I just think a cheap technological approach would be better. People don't like the idea of being charged more to use a service. I mean look at netflix.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?