cheaper to operate than an electric car?

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by rmay635703

No matter how much of a republican you think you are, if you participate in this forum, you would be considered extremely liberal by the average Joe. Saving energy is considered communist by my uncle)

Yeah. Not to degenerate this into a political discussion, but just for instance (from today's headlines) what sort of "conservative" opposes free trade? Isn't it supposed to be the liberals who want to protect unionized jobs from foreign competition? And so on down the platform, it seems.

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by Daox

To be fair, that isn't showing production for the sources. Thats only showing the percent of total generation. We use a lot more power now than in 1950, so it makes sense that hydro (which I assume would be flat to declining as you say) reduces in % of power generated. This is a better representation, although its not super up to date.

Energy sources have changed throughout the history of the United States - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

And then you also need to watch out when they talk about energy vs electricity. Before there was an electric transmission grid you had to get and then use energy at the source. So windmills were common to power water pumps, hydro common to power a mill. Wind was the only way to move across the ocean. As it pertains to cars, if you count the fossil fuels being used to make propulsion energy I think it would throw all those charts again for a loop. That said what if 100% of cars, trucks, trains, ships, aircraft etc. were battery powered, what if natural gas wasn't available for heating, how much more power would have to be in the grid?
By any calculation I'd say the biggest thing reducing air pollution has been the switch from coal to natural gas. The natural gas is sort of a byproduct of getting oil though. I also wonder what we would do with the leftover unleaded gasoline if we didn't use it in cars, or would we also have to find replacements for lubricants, rubbers, plastics, and all the other things derived from oil? Isn't already 100% of those products also used from the refining process? It's not like there is some big stockpile of any level of the refining process stockpiling up somewhere.
Even if tomorrow there was a new super powerful cold fusion energy supply along with 1000% better batteries do we still have to get just as much oil for the other things? Maybe the continued Japanese whaling "research" will pay off. Probably better to open up free liposuction clinics and use the excess human blubber out there.

[NeilBlanchard]

Safer than coal? Talk about damn with faint praise! We have only just begun to deal with the long term safety issues of nuclear. And the long term costs, of both decommissioning the plants and the long term storage of nuclear waste.

We will be paying the price for nuclear for millenniums to come.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

And the long term costs, of both decommissioning the plants and the long term storage of nuclear waste.

Why on Earth would you want to decomission a perfectly good nuclear plant? Nuclear "waste" can be reprocessed into more fuel, or other useful things, and it doesn't cost anything (beyond initial cost) to store it in a nice, deep hole, like for instance the mines the uranium ore came from in the first place.

[NeilBlanchard]

Nuclear plants are worn out - many are way past their "use by" date. Yankee Rowe, Vermont Yankee, Indian Point, and very soon Pilgrim; and others, too.

Where is the plan to reuse nuclear waste - let alone doing it? How much does it cost? Who pays for that? Where is this done?

[sendler]

Future starving hoards will need to wisely use every resource on the planet. To think they will turn their back on ANY one particular energy source is folly. NY state has approved the refueling of Fitzpatrick.
.
Gov. Cuomo says Fitzpatrick nuclear plant saved: Whole state should be smiling | syracuse.com
.
If it works, keep it running.

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Nuclear plants are worn out - many are way past their "use by" date. Yankee Rowe, Vermont Yankee, Indian Point, and very soon Pilgrim; and others, too.

Where is the plan to reuse nuclear waste - let alone doing it? How much does it cost? Who pays for that? Where is this done?

There are only a handful of old "gen i " broad spectrum nuclear plants and 100% of our medical isotopes come from these 50's era relics.

Decommission them all and big cancer looses its primary treatment protocol.
(For better or for worse)

Reuse is easy, but we need the will to learn what we already knew in 1950 and start building MSR Thorium plants again. (Msr will consume 99% of spent rods)

[Hersbird]

The US Navy is sort of a small player in the big picture but they don't even come close to using up their fuel rods. You could take "spent" rods from the Navy and immediately use them in shore based reactors for more power. The Navy has different requirements about being able to quickly recover from a shutdown.
All of civilian plants use only 4% of the overall uranium in the fuel, and of that 1% is actually converted to fissionable Plutonium. They do use the majority of fissionable U-235 but recycling makes much less waste disposal necessary, and much less new mining necessary. Pretty much the same as recycling anything else out there. Also like anything else the more it is done, the better the process will become.
Nuclear Fuel Cycle Overview - World Nuclear Association