Until we have a way to get rid of the waste, Id still say nuclear is the worst way to go.

 

Do you realize how little waste nuclear creates? An aircraft carrier can go 20 years on one golf ball sized piece of nuclear fuel.

We just pick a mountain, dig a big tunnel, and burry it all in there. I think Yucca mtn is already that very thing.

 

interesting fact- in france they actually encase spent nuclear fuel rods in huge glass blocks and it actually emmits no radiation. they even had the guy from the news station walking on top of the blocks. im not sure what type of glass it was. the only bad thing is sabatoge, i dont care what type of glass it is c4 charge in the right spot could be a disaster. hope they keep the storage place well guarded from the radical jihadist lol

 

Wind energy will die soon.

We have filtration units and particle sensors on a Joint venture with GE on their Wind Turbines in Europe.

Without Govt subsidies they would die. These generators are expenssiiiiiiive. Wind may be free, but these things aren't and the maintenance is high. (Think millions-billions).

Also, what they are finding in Europe is that everybody thought it was cool until the countryside starts getting littered with them. Another HUGE PROBLEM. The same people that were pushing for them are now revolting because they destroy scenery.

 

I agree once the world is rid of idiot muslem extremests and we can be at least halfway safe Nucluear is the only way to go. Send the radioactive material to Mars or something. heh

 

They said in the artical that it takes more energy to produce ethanol. My question is does this energy increase equal the amount of energy demad we are at with oil if all cars ran on ehtanol? I would think that not even a 50% increase in energy required would produce the same kind of demand we have right now for oil if all cars switched over to ethenal. That is something the artical never asked.

 

Nah, we might have use for Mars someday. Drop it on Venus. A planet that's almost molten and has an atmosphere that has more in common with the inside of a pressure cooker filled with battery acid would be a fitting place to stash nuclear waste!

 

Ahh, skip shooting to another planet, send it back where it came from, the heart of a star!! And I just so happen to know where there is one realativly nearby

As far as using Ethenol, it sucks, some gas stations in MI use 10% ethenol, geuss what, you get 10% lower mpg when using it. Unfortunatly thanks to Miss Granholm they no longer have to have a sticker on the pump that says they put the 10% farmer subsi... I mean corn derived alcohol in their gas.

 

For you guys' information, we have been replenishing spent fuel rods for several years now. The only radioactive waste coming from the Nuclear process is handling and manipuation equipment.

Old Nuke plants were designed with all the fuel rods they would ever use being embedded into the reactor... when the fuel was gone, so was the plant. We disposed of everything and shut it down.

But "new" technology (that is now over a decade old) has allowed us to replenish and reuse the fuel rods, and keep plants open until erosion and wear inside the reactor forces a rebuild or demolision.

http://www.geology.ufl.edu/Labs/Term...lear%20Reactor
"These fuel assemblies can be lifted into and out of the reactor mechanically, allowing fuel replenishment while the reactor is in operation."

One of the engineering firms I work with also designs and makes the fuel rod holders and mechanical manipulators that is a part of the replenishment process. Their mechanisms are pretty cool to see.

So dispell any thoughts of hauling truckloads of radioactive material from a nuke plant every day... doesn't happen any more. In fact, there is very little waste removed from a nuclear site on a routine basis anymore.

 

Have you guys ever studied the manufacturing process for a common dry cell battery? Do you know how much energy goes into making an alkaline "AA" battery? Just in the steel case alone, much less the man-made magnetic core inside?
Yet it typically gives off 1.5 Volts for less than 1 hour of continuous use at maximum current.

Your case for economics based solely on the "conservation of energy" is blown to smitherines with the common dry cell.
NOBODY buys dry cell batteries...

Fact is, the end cost of the energy source, and the package it comes in are what will determine it's viability. WERM was spot-on with his comment about the battery-powered jetliner. Likewise, could you imagine a nuclear-powered weedeater?

IMO, the situation that will drive the alternative fuel issue for cars is more likely to be environmental and convenience driven rather than purely cost driven (i.e. price of oil and gas at the pump). However, the prices may be the catalyst that makes alternative fuels more appealing to investors and ultimately drives costs down through improved manufacturing processes and the like.

 

This guy is spot-on too.
Having spent much time in Europe in recent years, I can tell you first hand that these things are LOUD!!! People living within 500 yards of these things are complaining about the "whoof" every 3-4 seconds. It is VERY loud. There are even lawsuits being brought over it in Germany.

Also, 1 or two of these things looks pretty cool on the landscape when you first see them, but when you stack one after another after another it begins to look "busy" and cluttering on the horizon. At 350+ feet across, it's not like you are going to hide one either.

I'm all for the technology, but people need to realize that even wind-power has it's down side too.

 

Or, send it to stay with the "jihadists" and get rid of two problems at once.

 

I'll agree that the windmills are an eyesore, especially for all those people who live in densly populated Europe. But we have the Great Plains. Perpetually windy, millions of square miles with a sparse population. Perhaps the only downside is all the severe weather, but the odds of a tornado striking a single spot is remote.

 

Dry cell batteries are an energy carrier. We're talking about energy sources. Two very different things. Although one could make a convincing argument that ethanol (and hydrogen, BTW) are indeed energy carriers and not sources.

People buy dry cells for portability, not for a permanent, sustainable energy source.

 

Exactly. Why burn fossil fuels to store energy in ethanol when you can just burn the fossil fuels directly instead.

That'd be akin to carrying a generator on a camping trip to power a hot plate to cook on. Doesn't make as much sense as carrying a white gas stove that burns the gas directly.