Nuclear Energy - is it really that bad?
Even the Natural Gas Suppliers say that using Natural Gas to produce Electricity is not wise!
Council Policy StatementThe Council recognizes that there are applications in which it is more energy efficient to use natural gas directly than to generate electricity from natural gas and then use the electricity in the end-use application. The Council also recognizes that in many cases the direct use of natural gas can be more economically efficient. These potentially cost-effective reductions in electricity use, while not defined as conservation in the sense the Council uses the term, are nevertheless alternatives to be considered in planning for future electricity requirements.The changing nature of energy markets, the substantial benefits that can accrue from healthy competition among natural gas, electricity and other fuels, and the desire to preserve individual energy source choices all support the Council taking a market-oriented approach to encouraging efficient fuel decisions in the region. Read The Entire Piece: http://www.nwcouncil.org/Library/2001/2001-17.htm
Let's see now, nuclear energy has gone modular and is much safer, more predictable and just as powerful as liquefied natural gas.
It is lodged in one spot with service on-site.
A unit goes wrong, unplug it and replace with a new one just like it, and remove or repair the old one.
With an LNG transfer/storage terminal 20-plus miles up a river, there would be 2.5 LNG tankers a week making round trips full of liquefied natural gas, roiling at -260 degrees, looking for the least opportunity to get out and vaporize.
All communities' life quality and infrastructure along the route would be geared to this one private corporation, and would need expensive security and fire protection measures to protect themselves from it.
There is no liability on the private corporation's part that we know of.
And now the corporation's getting all squirrelly that someone may get upset on their running a 36-inch diameter, high pressure natural gas pipeline through property intended for public use and recreation, as well - at the expense of other landowners who will simply lose their property if they don't agree to sell it to these energy speculators, abetted by government to take it if necessary.
Let's see - nuclear power and a possible meltdown, or LNG in our lives 24/7/365 for 65 years for a product we find we may not really need?
Hmm. How tough a decision is that to make?
3 comments:
Try telling everyone who heats their home with natural gas ... or has natural gas appliances ... that they don't need it.
But say you're right. Say that the proposed LNG terminal would ONLY supply gas for producing electrical power. Say everybody agrees a nuclear plant would be better. Now, the question is: Where you gonna put it?
People said Trojan would ruin their "quality of life". It would be a "security concern". Having a nuclear plant for a neighbor would lower the value of property. The power lines would go over people's property. The power lines would cause cancer and brain tumors. The waste water would kill fish. The radiation would kill/mutate wildlife. On and on and on. Immediately after it was built and online, the same people argued it should immediately be closed for the same reasons.
Of course, it was a target for the USSR's nuclear missiles - just like every other power plant.
The point is ... everybody knows we need more energy, but nobody wants it near them. Perhaps when the NIMBYs stop using electricity, natural gas, oil, or whatever "fuel" they speak against - I'll start to listen to them.
Just as I'll take "global warming" seriously, when the gov't changes ITS habits instead of mandating ours.
Good points.
We know we need Natural Gas but do we need LNG import and transfer/storage terminals and their high siting and infrastructure costs when those LNG suppliers go for the highest bid no matter where it is with no loyalty?
What about Natural Gas Hydrate Technology which makes the likes of what NSNG/Bradwood and the others are about to do, archaic and extrememly dangerous in comparison.
How long did Trojan sit at its site near Rainier and serve this region?
Global Warming with the name Al "Foghorn Leghorn" Gore attached?
The inventor of the Internet?
How seriously are we to take that concept?
Natural gas is 98% efficient when it comes to energy output per volume.
Electrically powered devices rarely is 98% efficient and wasted energy is emitted as heat. So electronics and electric appliance wastes the energy.
Basically, it be the same as using natural gas to heat a water boiler to heat the house. It is more efficient to use natural gas to heat the house then to use it to heat a boiler.
It is also unwise to use natural gas to generate power just to power an electric stove but it is better to supplement electricity through solar power, hydrogenerator units (if you are located next to a body of water with current) or wind generators then to use natural gas to generate electricity to supplement electricity from hydroelectric generation.
However, natural gas is used to generate electricity by power plants and is about 90% or so efficient. Better then coal, gasoline or even the efficiency of electric generation by the large damns for the volume of river water/current.
Due to limited volume and ideal to move to sustainable living and limit use of fossil fuels to occassional use or simply cooking and general heat where "passive solar heating" isn't enough. Simply call it supplemental heating by natural gas.
Enough said for now.
Post a Comment