JamesNoBrakes

Who told you this? Based on what evidence?

The reason Nuclear isn't bigger is that it's hugely cost and energy inefficient, it doesn't produce the "cheap energy" that was claimed in the 50s. The massive infrastructure required, design, maintenance, security, contaminated parts, etc., requires massive amounts of money and energy to keep going. Even for the "fast breeder" reactors, there are significant technological challenges that have yet to be totally overcome. In some locations, it works ok due to several factors, but it's far from some windfall that solves everything. It's more energy efficient to use gas-turbines in cities. Even if you are powering an electrical car, it's more efficient to use the gas-turbine to make electricity and send it to the grid. They passed the 50% efficiency barrier years ago and are around 65% total efficiency, which is pretty amazing. If you need more power, installing another gas-turbine unit is relatively quick and easy. It's fossil fuel, but a far better way to use it, not to mention other options of renewable sources. If you really do the research on nuclear you'll see it's not practical in many/most places, it ends up sucking way too much energy and resources.

rickair7777

The US nuclear industry is stuck using 1950's technology for the most part. Modern designs and technologies exist which enhance safety and significantly enhance economics. It's just hard to get a permit to build a new one in the US.

Kind of like if airlines still operated 727's and DC-8's.

One of the issues is that all of the early generation US plants were one-off designs... basically every build is a prototype, and every operator a test pilot.

Other countries have done far better in that regard (ie France). I think the NRC's intent is to license standardized designs in the future (I think the economics would be better, and the safety certainly would).

Modern technology nuclear would compete in the ballpark with current fossil fuel prices and have zero net carbon footprint compared to fossil fuels (assuming carbon footprint to actually build the plant, manufacturing and construction, is similar to a conventional fuel plant). Also would not be subject to any catastrophic fuel price spikes.

Building anything has a carbon footprint, what the car manufacturers don't want you to realize is that the net carbon impact of building a new hybrid is probably higher than just driving your 2006 camry for another ten years. But hey when you're cool and hip, details like that don't matter as much as making a statement. When the camry actually wears out, then you can do the planet a favor by getting a LEV/ZEV.

But if carbon is the main concern, nuclear is the best way to get lots of juice to the grid. This is going to be even more important going forward, as vehicles transition to electric... large power plants will be the PRIMARY source of net carbon at some point, vice vehicles. Wind and solar can make a dent, but can't cover it all by a long stretch.

Mesabah

The technology was not allowed to mature, thus you wound up with what we have today. In the near future we will have modular nuclear reactors, built on an assembly line. Non-pressurized reactor's waste heat can be used to extract green houses gases right out of the air, completely reversing climate change.

Mesabah

No, not water vapor, the main contributor is fluorine type gases. CO2 warming is caused by secondary factors, e.g. water vapor has extended suspension in a higher CO2 concentrated gas. This relationship is poorly understood by scientists. When they say there is a consensus on CC, they are ONLY referring to:
1. it is happening at a historically fast rate.
2. it is caused by man made activity.
The rest is environmental modeling to determine the causes, and solutions. Models with a CO2 bias are off by 10+ standard deviations, models factoring the other gases are dead on.

Flytolive

LOL. Thankfully they and we have you to explain it to us. Gotta love pilots.

Mesabah

I don't understand it either, does it lag temperatures or is it leader, we don't know, no one does. Scientists have explicitly stated that, as the models don't match drawn conclusions. You are the one putting words into the mouth of scientists, or rather you are parroting political positions.

Pilot is not my primary profession, engineering and experimental statistics is what I went to college for.

Adlerdriver

This consensus to which your refer just means that one side of the argument has decided their OPINION holds the majority.

Consensus does not equal scientifically supported conclusions. Why don't you show us all the factual data (not provided by some liberal website that makes the data support their preconceived conclusion) that proves CC is a man-made consequence of our existence on the earth.

Even better, show us the factual data that shows we have the capability to alter the course of CC.

Mesabah

No data like that exists, you couldn't design an experiment to test that either. We would have to setup some sort of widespread carbon extraction system, and then take actual data as it comes in. That said, there is no doubt, pumping something like Sulfur Hexafluoride into the atmosphere causes warming.

There are some papers by well known climate scientists that state CO2 levels lag temperature, in other words, the rise in temperature happens first, then the CO2 level builds. However, more study is required. http://tech-know-group.com/papers/Ca...mlum_et_al.pdf

Adlerdriver

I rest my case. The Al Gore hand-wringing crowd wants us to jump through hoops of their design and take measures to "save the planet" that have no scientific basis. Just the assumption that anything labeled "green" is going to reverse what no one has been able to prove is under human control in the first place.

JamesNoBrakes

Well, it would be helpful to know what would change your mind. What would you consider to be factual data or evidence that would "prove" it? Can you give an example? What is the burden of proof that you are seeking here? I have talked to climatologists one on one, met with many of them as they have traveled through this state, been to many of the places studied. I've seen much of their data, but I have to ask, what would it take for you? If you haven't "made up your mind" to the point where you don't consider evidence and science, just what evidence and science are you willing to listen to?