Discussion Forums > Technology
End of Nuclear Power Generation
tomoya-kun:
--- Quote from: Burkingam on June 13, 2011, 03:50:24 AM ---
--- Quote from: tomoya-kun on June 13, 2011, 03:14:25 AM ---Nuclear power is probably the most efficient way to generate power at the moment.
--- End quote ---
No, If you look at costs only, hydro, coal and natural gas are almost always the less expensive. If you only consider energy that can be developed everywhere, Nuclear still gets a very bad score. Here is a chart comparing Nuke, Coal and natural gas.
(click to show/hide)
I really don't see otherwise what criteria makes you thinks it's more efficient. Please explain.
--- End quote ---
I was under the impression that it was the most sustainable compared to burning gases or coal in terms of resources used. At least, that's what I've been taught.
Burkingam:
--- Quote from: tomoya-kun on June 13, 2011, 04:49:36 AM ---
--- Quote from: Burkingam on June 13, 2011, 03:50:24 AM ---
--- Quote from: tomoya-kun on June 13, 2011, 03:14:25 AM ---Nuclear power is probably the most efficient way to generate power at the moment.
--- End quote ---
No, If you look at costs only, hydro, coal and natural gas are almost always the less expensive. If you only consider energy that can be developed everywhere, Nuclear still gets a very bad score. Here is a chart comparing Nuke, Coal and natural gas.
(click to show/hide)
I really don't see otherwise what criteria makes you thinks it's more efficient. Please explain.
--- End quote ---
I was under the impression that it was the most sustainable compared to burning gases or coal in terms of resources used. At least, that's what I've been taught.
--- End quote ---
1. It's more expensive.
2. Uranium, since it's a militarily strategic resource is harder to obtain for several countries. Can also pose a diplomatic risk.
3. Probably the hardest plant type to dismantle.
4. For almost every designs, the energy output and fuel input most be constant with no regard to demand. In other words, no flexibility.
5. While uranium and coal aren't renewable energy, natural gas has both limited and renewable sources. The cheapest renewable energy is hydro.
tomoya-kun:
--- Quote from: Burkingam on June 13, 2011, 05:05:37 AM ---
--- Quote from: tomoya-kun on June 13, 2011, 04:49:36 AM ---
--- Quote from: Burkingam on June 13, 2011, 03:50:24 AM ---
--- Quote from: tomoya-kun on June 13, 2011, 03:14:25 AM ---Nuclear power is probably the most efficient way to generate power at the moment.
--- End quote ---
No, If you look at costs only, hydro, coal and natural gas are almost always the less expensive. If you only consider energy that can be developed everywhere, Nuclear still gets a very bad score. Here is a chart comparing Nuke, Coal and natural gas.
(click to show/hide)
I really don't see otherwise what criteria makes you thinks it's more efficient. Please explain.
--- End quote ---
I was under the impression that it was the most sustainable compared to burning gases or coal in terms of resources used. At least, that's what I've been taught.
--- End quote ---
1. It's more expensive.
2. Uranium, since it's a militarily strategic resource is harder to obtain for several countries. Can also pose a diplomatic risk.
3. Probably the hardest plant type to dismantle.
4. For almost every designs, the energy output and fuel input most be constant with no regard to demand. In other words, no flexibility.
5. While uranium and coal aren't renewable energy, natural gas has both limited and renewable sources. The cheapest renewable energy is hydro.
--- End quote ---
While it is expensive, it's not that hard to obtain uranium I think. I'm sure those Americans have lots of it.
Hydro is inflexible in where it can be used, and the amount it generates is rather small. The demand for power is enough that it can likely be used elsewhere.
Burkingam:
--- Quote from: tomoya-kun on June 13, 2011, 05:09:45 AM ---While it is expensive, it's not that hard to obtain uranium I think. I'm sure those Americans have lots of it.
Hydro is inflexible in where it can be used, and the amount it generates is rather small. The demand for power is enough that it can likely be used elsewhere.
--- End quote ---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_power_stations_in_the_world
7 of the 10 most powerful power stations in the world are hydro (rank 4,6 and 9 are nuclear). World wide, Hydro accounts for 20% of all energy produced. This is not small.
I agree that is less flexible as of where we can build it but nuclear doesn't beat any fuel plants in this regard. And when it comes to producing only when needed, nothing beats hydro. This has already be stated, read the last few pages for more details.
mgz:
--- Quote from: tomoya-kun on June 13, 2011, 05:09:45 AM ---
--- Quote from: Burkingam on June 13, 2011, 05:05:37 AM ---
--- Quote from: tomoya-kun on June 13, 2011, 04:49:36 AM ---
--- Quote from: Burkingam on June 13, 2011, 03:50:24 AM ---
--- Quote from: tomoya-kun on June 13, 2011, 03:14:25 AM ---Nuclear power is probably the most efficient way to generate power at the moment.
--- End quote ---
No, If you look at costs only, hydro, coal and natural gas are almost always the less expensive. If you only consider energy that can be developed everywhere, Nuclear still gets a very bad score. Here is a chart comparing Nuke, Coal and natural gas.
(click to show/hide)
I really don't see otherwise what criteria makes you thinks it's more efficient. Please explain.
--- End quote ---
I was under the impression that it was the most sustainable compared to burning gases or coal in terms of resources used. At least, that's what I've been taught.
--- End quote ---
1. It's more expensive.
2. Uranium, since it's a militarily strategic resource is harder to obtain for several countries. Can also pose a diplomatic risk.
3. Probably the hardest plant type to dismantle.
4. For almost every designs, the energy output and fuel input most be constant with no regard to demand. In other words, no flexibility.
5. While uranium and coal aren't renewable energy, natural gas has both limited and renewable sources. The cheapest renewable energy is hydro.
--- End quote ---
While it is expensive, it's not that hard to obtain uranium I think. I'm sure those Americans have lots of it.
Hydro is inflexible in where it can be used, and the amount it generates is rather small. The demand for power is enough that it can likely be used elsewhere.
--- End quote ---
it is inflexible but it does generate assloads of power things like the hover dam produce silly amounts of energy
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version