|
The thing is, nuclear power is a limited resource, just like oil or coal, it won't last forever, hence my preference for solar, wind and tidal power (or other clean renewables). I am also uncomfortable with the fact that nuclear power will always be a security liability, even if the technology itself is reliable.
|
Again. go read the book I mentioned. With the ways they process and reprocess nuke fuel these days, it would be way too much effort for a terrorist to procure and refine enough fuel to make a usable weapon.
There is enough nuke waste that can be re-processed plus stuff in the ground for hundreds of years. IMO, if we utilize nuclear now so we stop the rampant poisoning by coal mining and burning, plus if we tax nuclear to the point that it is never so cheap that the free market ignores the development of alternatives, then we buy ourselves the needed window to get to the desired place of using solar, hydrogen, etc. Read the book. It covers all the points you'll be worried about. |
Don't jump on the electric bandwagon too quickly...
Electric drive is wonderful. Great torque can be produced and with today's computers, the maximum adhesion can be achieved. But it is NOT simple. And it is NOT without dangers. And it is not without maintenance woes made worse by age, salt, and water. The slightest fault in the electrical insulation and some road splash or snow blow-in will trip a protective device which must immediately make that traction device (motor) inoperable. These are called ground faults. A ground fault could be temporary or permanent, meaning that traction motor will not be used until repair can take place. This has to be so that the equipment and occupants are protected from electrical damage or injury. Imagine having a 200, 400, or 600 volt short arcing somewhere within 4 or 5 feet of you inside a metal box. Control devices and protective devices all add to the complexity and cost.
All of the electric drive systems are not time tested. We don't know how they will perform after a decade of use exposed to water, salt, sand, etc. Since no sealing and insulating material is NOT perfect, there will be problems later on. People use cars and trucks until they are 15, 20, 30 years old. As the vehicles age people tend to want to perform repairs themselves. The pool of knowledge available to perform these jobs is not there and won't be for decades. The internal combustion engine has been developed for over 100 years to what it is today. Even with our abilities now, aren't we a bit over-optimistic to believe electric drive will be able to supplant our conventional systems of today within a couple of decades? At the pace we have done so thus far, I don't think so. |
Originally Posted by e1p1
(Post 6130900)
Again. go read the book I mentioned. With the ways they process and reprocess nuke fuel these days, it would be way too much effort for a terrorist to procure and refine enough fuel to make a usable weapon.
There is enough nuke waste that can be re-processed plus stuff in the ground for hundreds of years. IMO, if we utilize nuclear now so we stop the rampant poisoning by coal mining and burning, plus if we tax nuclear to the point that it is never so cheap that the free market ignores the development of alternatives, then we buy ourselves the needed window to get to the desired place of using solar, hydrogen, etc. Read the book. It covers all the points you'll be worried about. |
Originally Posted by MuddyAxles
(Post 6134531)
Electric drive is wonderful. Great torque can be produced and with today's computers, the maximum adhesion can be achieved. But it is NOT simple. And it is NOT without dangers. And it is not without maintenance woes made worse by age, salt, and water. The slightest fault in the electrical insulation and some road splash or snow blow-in will trip a protective device which must immediately make that traction device (motor) inoperable. These are called ground faults. A ground fault could be temporary or permanent, meaning that traction motor will not be used until repair can take place. This has to be so that the equipment and occupants are protected from electrical damage or injury. Imagine having a 200, 400, or 600 volt short arcing somewhere within 4 or 5 feet of you inside a metal box. Control devices and protective devices all add to the complexity and cost.
All of the electric drive systems are not time tested. We don't know how they will perform after a decade of use exposed to water, salt, sand, etc. Since no sealing and insulating material is NOT perfect, there will be problems later on. People use cars and trucks until they are 15, 20, 30 years old. As the vehicles age people tend to want to perform repairs themselves. The pool of knowledge available to perform these jobs is not there and won't be for decades. The internal combustion engine has been developed for over 100 years to what it is today. Even with our abilities now, aren't we a bit over-optimistic to believe electric drive will be able to supplant our conventional systems of today within a couple of decades? At the pace we have done so thus far, I don't think so. In fact, a well built electric car or truck will easilly outlast a well build gas or diesel powered vehicle while having lower operating and maintenance costs. |
Originally Posted by MuddyAxles
(Post 6134875)
"Rampant poisoning"? By coal mining and burning? Whatcha got to back that up with...and don't forget to tell the name of the organization supplying you with the stats. I'm interested...I live downwind from numerous coal-burning power plants. Maybe that's why out azaleas died. And our cute little poodle puppy too.
Dr. Bill Wattenburg’s Open Line to the West Coast [PushBack] Analysis of current and important events Dr Bill Wattenburg is a highly regarded *Conservative* scientist and talk show host and very right-wing. I actually don't like his show much, or his personality, but he's been right on many things over the years, like MTBE, nuclear. I respect his knowledge enough to seriously check out his claims. You can listen to archived shows on the KGO Radio website. Newstalk 810 AM, KGO Radio, San Francisco Newstalk 810 AM, KGO Radio, San Francisco Coal mining scours the earth, and can release many more toxic particulates (including uranium naturally occurring) than controlled uranium mining. Burning of coal releases radiation, mercury, CO2, and more on a huge scale, and the slag is more radioactive than nuclear plants are allowed to release. "U.S. coal-burning power plants (51% of our energy production) emit over 2,000 tons of radioactive uranium and thorium into the atmosphere every year. This is far more per year than the total radioactivity released by all U.S. nuclear plants, ever". Oak Ridge Lab Report: Coal Combustion - ORNL Review Vol. 26, No. 3&4, 1993 A recent study of animals and fish in far-off "pristine" wilderness areas showed mercury contamination on a level considered unsafe for children and pregnant women, and coal burning around the world is highly suspected as the culprit. Study: Contaminant Levels High in US National Parks Adirondack Mountain Club 4.0 Browser Redirect Scientists find mercury threatens next generation of loons (3/10/2008) |
I may not be comfortable with nuclear, but I'm certainly not prepaired to defend coal, thats for sure.
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:27 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands