Advertisement

Previous poll Next poll

If you had to choose, would you expand coal or nuclear energy to meet demand for electricity?

Response Percent Votes
Nuclear
 
78% 865
Coal
 
21% 231
Total 1096
Note: This is not a scientific poll. Vote in this poll

Comments

budwhysir 3 years, 7 months ago

I see more future in production of more industrial fans to increase wind. This would create a great enviroment for wind energy windmills that could be used. Burning coal causes heat. This is providing a problem with global warming. Years ago we didnt have as many power plants and there was alot more ice in the icebergs.

0

justoneperson 3 years, 7 months ago

Have you seen Gasland? I don't know much about utility of Natural Gas, but seems like polluting the water to do so may not be such a good plan...

Hempseed Oil! HAHAHA

0

blindrabbit 3 years, 7 months ago

Cattle are big methane contributors (from the front end, not the rear) but how do you put a capture collector on them? Need long hoses!

0

blindrabbit 3 years, 7 months ago

Hipper - Think your right on about using natural gas in electricity production; too valuable a commodity for that..

Independent: Tell me how natural gas is renewable; it is a fossil fuel just like coal and petroleum. Moving water is a good idea if you you don't dam too many free flowing streams; pumped storage has worked where the terrain is suitable. Extra electrical generation during off-peak demand is used to pump water to up-hill storage and released to turbines during peak demand. Really works well with nuclear, as these plants work best when a continual demand is placed on them.

Mac": Fusion solution, best idea yet, but this scares the crap out of the monied electric generation industry.

Nuclear fission for now!

Olde King Cole is not a Merry Olde Solution.

0

independant1 3 years, 7 months ago

Natural gas is clean and renewable.

Natural gas needs to be on table for internal combustion machine fuel.

We must conserve and exploit our natural resources for energy plus nuclear option. It sure would be nice to use moving water more, it almost always runs downhill.

There's no leap forward on the horizon for battery/storage technology.

0

MacHeath 3 years, 7 months ago

We do need fusion.
I say lock up all the nuclear scientists up in a concentration camp until they come up with an answer!

0

hipper_than_hip 3 years, 8 months ago

A gas fired combustion turbine plant can be up and running in 36 months, a coal fired unit is more like 72 months, and a nuc plant is 120 months to complete. Personally I think gas is too precious to use for electricity production and we need to reserve it for heating homes and for cooking with.

0

bobberboy 3 years, 8 months ago

what happened to wind, solar and geothermal ?

0

tbaker 3 years, 8 months ago

If the need was dire and time was a factor - coal would be the fastest and easiest way to produce electricity, but natural gas would be my first choice (cleaner, can be cheaper) in this scenario.

If we are talking long term expansion of US power generation, nuclear is the only real choice right now. I think the government should offer a $1 billion dollar prize and zero income taxes for 10 years to whoever comes up with the first commercially viable battery that can store 3 days of electricity made from a wind farm. That would make wind-generated electricty actually viable. As it is, the cost p/kwh out of a wind farm is nearly double that of traditional means, plus wind farms actually generate more polution becuase they have to be slaved to a traditional power plant. A battery that could store production on site, and reliably discharge the plant's rated production for three days (average length of time wind doesn't blow) would / could replace nuke and fossil fuel electricity production entirely.

0

LJ Whirled 3 years, 8 months ago

Nuclear = clean, safe, efficient, reliable, domestic ... Nuclear

0

thuja 3 years, 8 months ago

I would choose neither, and consider dealing with our energy addiction instead.

0

blindrabbit 3 years, 8 months ago

Spent nuclear fuel reprocessing is a viable solution to the fuel/waste issue. If properly done, you can close the cycle, eventually (in theory) utilizing all of the energy output of the fuel. This is done in Europe (especially France) and was operated in the US at one time. The process is a "hot potato" because part of the waste fuel is uranium 235 and plutonium 239. These materials can be enriched to weapons grade materials either in centrifuges or breeder reactors. Plutonium is also highly toxic. Because of the security issues, these processes are very costly, but they do help reduce the waste issue.

Fusion is a viable long term addition to energy generation if plasma containment can be worked out.

0

wdl 3 years, 8 months ago

Tuff question. I believe we could eventually have the kind of technology to allow us to clean up the coal emissions. This would of course cost some bucks, but then again so will a nuke plant if you can get it certified. The problem I have with nuclear is what do you do with the spent fuel? It remains a problem for hundreds of years, no one wants it in their backyard, and I can't blame them. To be totally green about it you have to reuse, or recycle it. If you could answer that question then nuclear would have my vote. Coal has it's dirty problems but it is cheap and very very plentiful. One of our largest resources in the US. To just say ban coal because we think it may contribute to global warming, or what ever, will not keep your butt warm in January.

0

blindrabbit 3 years, 8 months ago

camper: Agreed, but what energy do you consider Green? All have some pros/cons!

0

camper 3 years, 8 months ago

We really do need to begin looking at green energy. Problem is, oil is so darn efficient. If we have reached peak oil, the supply line is going to be trending down. It may be 100 years from now, but many predict when/if we need to change our major source(s) of fuel, it may take 25-50 years to convert our infrastructure.

This just might be a bad problem we leave for those coming after us.

0

beatrice 3 years, 8 months ago

Deep sea nuclear.

What could possibly go wrong?

0

SouthWestKs 3 years, 8 months ago

Use a Pebble reactor no water required!! As blindrabbit says build small untis & add more if you need more power..

0

TrooGrit 3 years, 8 months ago

Speaking of wind energy, I think we could power the whole city with the hot air that comes off of these blogs and threads.

0

blindrabbit 3 years, 8 months ago

Small nuclear plants would work; the technology is there having been developed and deployed by the Navy for all the nuclear powered submarines and aircraft carriers. They could be developed to be like package units, inexpensive by not requiring redesign of each facility.Those reactors are designed to produce steam which could be routed to turbine/generators for power production. The big issues, cooling water, security and spent fuel disposal. I am not aware of any major nuclear mishaps from those units in some 50 years of operation. The problems that have occurred with the Russian reactor mishaps are due to the type of reactor they have deployed. The two nuclear powered submarine the US Navy lost in the 1960's (Thresher and Scorpion) were not due to nuclear issues but to unrelated mishaps.

These reactors do not use highly enriched (weapons grade) Uranium 235 or Plutonium and therefore would be of little valuable for weapons production.

0

MacHeath 3 years, 8 months ago

I have a buddy that was a nuclear start-up engineer. Several years ago, he told be that he thought the future was with smaller nuc plants. He may have changed his mind on that since, i dunno.

0

newmedia 3 years, 8 months ago

How far will the Chevy Volt run on solar and wind power?

0

DyerKiev 3 years, 8 months ago

Solar and natural gas might be worthy options to consider.

0

labmonkey 3 years, 8 months ago

Where's both?

All you that talk up wind.....read this http://www.slate.com/id/2264111/ .....and this from a left leaning site even. Pay special attention to the recent problem in Texas with wind.

0

blindrabbit 3 years, 8 months ago

Solar and wind are good supplements; but neither can be considered a major contributor; both rely on the fickleness of Mother Nature.

0

Flap Doodle 3 years, 8 months ago

Unicorn whizz & troll dung. Don't forget that brownouts are supposed to be a good way to enforce energy conservation, according to a poster right on this very board.

0

grammaddy 3 years, 8 months ago

Neither.Let's do solar and wind instead.

0

camper 3 years, 8 months ago

I'm going with nuclear. Nuclear can be virtually pollution free if safety procedures are followed and there are no accidents. Disposal of nuclear waste is the negative.

Coal, on the other hand, pollutes the air, water, and soil. Not to mention worker safety. Coal is the worst option. It would be better to burn our garbage. Atleast then you are saving land-fill space.

0

blindrabbit 3 years, 8 months ago

mr_right: At least he can pronounce nuclear and not nucular as Dubya did. Nothing like reducing this important issue to some dittoheaded conservative political drivel.

0

blindrabbit 3 years, 8 months ago

Nuclear yes; with some standardization of construction as in France and Japan. Both countries have very efficient and safe nuclear power generation. Problem with US nuclear industry, every plant was a "new" design, running up cost and safety concerns. This was due in-part to so many major players Westinghouse, GE, Bechtel trying to maximize profit. Also, need a US plan to recycle spent fuel from fuels.

Coal based is doomed to States like Kansas (Holcomb) who do not understand the eventual bypassing of this energy source. There is not a "clean Coal" technology, coal is dirty from mine, to ecology, to transportation, to pollution. EPA will eventually regulate air emissions SOX, NOX and CO2 and airborne Mercury. We, Kansas is included in the "transport zone" for air pollution issues in 30 some states. Regulations will eventually follow, when States to our East realize what is happening with their air quality and our contribution.

0

mr_right_wing 3 years, 8 months ago

Under the Obama administration the Deepwater Horizon got an award for safety. (Even though required monthly inspections did not take place.)

No NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) at all would probably be safer than an Obama run NRC.

Let's stick to coal until we can get a President responsible enough to regulate nuclear.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.