PV Gap

Eileen Said:

Do you think Nuclear Power is a viable solution for future energy production?

We Answered:

>>>It could be safe, might be practical but definitely not economically viable. No power company has ever built a nuke plant without massive (billions) in loans from the government- no one else will lend them money for building a nuke plant. There is ALWAYS a couple billion $$ cost over run above what it is expected to cost. No one but the government can afford to insure a nuke plant because an accident could cost trillions of dollars. No one wants to try to insure them because the government charges nothing for their insurance. No nuke plant has ever made a profit and also paid off their debts and paid for storage of the waste they produce for the next 50,000 years that it will be dangerous. No one wants one to be built near their house, but to have any real replacement value over coal, thousands of nuke plants would have to be built.<<<

Show me one dollar that has gone to the nuclear industry. You can't and you won't. What they do have are loan guarantees, which are completely different from loans. If you can't tell the difference, then stop talking economics.

>>>There is ALWAYS a couple billion $$ cost over run above what it is expected to cost.<<<
This is because of radical anti-nuclear loons filing frivolous lawsuits against any proposed nuclear sites. These lawsuits never win, but they do cause lots of trouble, which is exactly what Big Green wants. If we were to adapt a system like France's, where you can't file frivolous lawsuits and reactors must fit a specific design, we could greatly lower initial costs.

>>>No one wants to try to insure them because the government charges nothing for their insurance. No one but the government can afford to insure a nuke plant because an accident could cost trillions of dollars. No one wants to try to insure them because the government charges nothing for their insurance. <<<
Wrong again. Every nuclear power plant is privately insured. The group insurance is for when the private insurance runs out - just like every other major industry in the US.

>>>No nuke plant has ever made a profit and also paid off their debts and paid for storage of the waste...<<<
Huh? Where'd you find that? If nuclear plants never produce profit, then why are they being built all over the world?

>>>...they produce for the next 50,000 years that it will be dangerous.<<<
1) Arsenic and fluoride last forever. Should we stop producing aluminum and fertilizer too?
2) That's an exaggeration. Anything that comes from a fission reactor and has a half-life of 50,000 years is about as radioactive as concrete.
3) Any problem that nuclear waste may cause could be prevented by building a fleet if Integral Fast Reactors. These reactors consume much of what you call “waste” and use it as fuel; the miniscule amount that remains is radioactive for, at most, 400 years.

>>>No one wants one to be built near their house,<<<
Nor do I want a dam or coal plant built right by my house.

>>>but to have any real replacement value over coal, thousands of nuke plants would have to be built.<<<
That's simply not true. One kilogram provides over 20,000 times the amount of energy as the same amount of coal. Not to mention the overall damages to the environment fossil fuels use, and the expenses of transporting it.

EDIT@ J.:

>>>It is not viable due to the up front cost,<<<
See above reply involving loan guarantees. It is up to the investor, not you, whether nuclear is worth spending their money on.

>>>the permanent hazardous waste with no place to put it.<<<
1) The very definition of "radioactive" means that it can't be permanent. A simple high school chemistry course would have cleared that right up.
2) Actually, we were supposed to have a place to put it several years ago, but it was never completed. Such a facility wouldn't have to be very big, either; a hole about 300 yards long and three yards deep could easily hold the next few decades' worth of waste, plus all current waste (in the US).
3) Any problem involving waste could be cleared up with the construction of a fleet of Integral Fast Reactors. As stated earlier, their waste lasts about 400 years.



>>>Funny how the social engineers are trying to reshape the nuclear power issue globally to make it seem accpetable again<<<
No, scientists who actually know what they're talking about are reshaping the nuclear power issue globally. Did you know that by 2020, China alone will have built over 120 new nuclear plants. If you count in the proposed plants, this number rises to well above 200 new plants.

>>>it isn't.<<<
By who's account? Oh, right, yours. To bad you don't know anything about the issue.

Bonnie Said:

Will we use solar energy in the near future?

We Answered:

The problem with solar energy is that it's so dilute. To power a typical U.S. city exclusively with solar power, the area you'd need to cover with solar panels would be much bigger than the city itself - even given 100% efficient solar panels (and needless to say, 100% efficiency is not possible).

The only way to bypass this problem is by placing solar power satellites in orbit and then beaming the energy down to earth. While theoretically possible, the technology to do that is still in the realms of science fiction.

Earth-based solar power can be a useful contributor to our energy needs in certain situations, but it won't ever be able to provide a large fraction of our power needs.

Terry Said:

why does solar energy have brighter future in India?

We Answered:

Theres a lot of sun there.

Allison Said:

how can solar energy be converted to electrical energy?

We Answered:

Solar energy can be converted into Electrical Energy by using Photo-volatic cells/Solar panels. Till now solar energy is stored in batteries. But if u can generate enough heatfrom the solar energy u can store them using the property Latent Heat of Fusion.

Johnny Said:

future energy source for humans?

We Answered:

The best reliable will be solar energy