The reason we don't have nuclear power in the US

[redguru]

What are you talking about? There are a number of nuclear reactors supplying power throughout the US.

Actually, the US gets about 20% of it's power from the Nuclear Power industry and, in actually megawatts, the US produces more electricity from nuclear power than any other nation. this includes the French, who base the entire grid around it.

 

[lartinos]

19%, I was totally wrong

 

[samoth]

the point still holds true in that we would be better off actually using this power source.

You realize we get power from a number of different sources, right? There's no reason to rely on just one.

So if France has 80% from nuclear, we must have 5% if that. I'll look for an actual number.

Wiki shows our production to be around around 100GW.

 

[redguru]

i grew up only 10 miles from this guy ^^^^ and he got all the damn brains

I'll take your abs and fiscal sense over my vessel for trivia... Went to the Pensacola Fair yesterday. I ate two turkey legs and a funnel cake and washed it down with three beers. Needless to say, my abs are now covered by confectioner's sugar and vegetable oil.

 

[lartinos]

You realize we get power from a number of different sources, right? There's no reason to rely on just one.




Wiki show our production to be around around 100GW.

Anything to get us away from Oil dependency in any way I am for.

 

[redguru]

You realize we get power from a number of different sources, right? There's no reason to rely on just one.




Wiki shows our production to be around around 100GW.

I agree. Solar can relieve power from the grid by being incorporated into residential and commercial construction. Wind and geothermal power can be used in the areas where it is feasible. Clean Coal should keep us on the grid while we get our nuclear plant ratio up. Nuclear power, while it's start-up costs are high, is actually cheaper per kilowatt-hour than any other technology once the plant is established.

 

[samoth]

Anything to get us away from Oil dependency in any way I am for.

I don't know politics in the least, but it seems that this would involve sacrifices now in order to make a better future -- which no one is willing to do.

We'll be dependent on oil up until the end, or until it becomes immediately profitable to not rely on oil.

Sigh.

 

[samoth]

Nuclear power, while it's start-up costs are high, is actually cheaper per kilowatt-hour than any other technology once the plant is established.

Personally, I think it'd be cool to have a nuclear power plant in my back yard. I'd totally ask for tours and stuff.

 

[lartinos]

I don't know politics in the least, but it seems that this would involve sacrifices now in order to make a better future -- which no one is willing to do.

We'll be dependent on oil up until the end, or until it becomes immediately profitable to not rely on oil.

Sigh.

That I know, the less the better though. But too many people in this country make money off of it so it will never happen. Politics were the reason the plant in NY never opened for example. Somebody made money from stopping the plant from opening. Those were the same people who were making money from the other power source. IE. my local politicians taking kick backs.

 

[mrplunkey]

If just 104 plants can supply 20% of our energy needs, it makes sense for us make at least 400 more. Then if we were just hell-bent on running our cars from liquid fossil fuels, we could run with coal liquifaction. Personally I'd rather us prime the pump with ethanol from sugars and starch until we crack the nut on cellulose -- that's the most plentiful organic substance on the planet.