Rational planning for energy

  • Thread starter Thread starter TRGLDTE
  • Start date Start date
T

TRGLDTE

Guest
One of the things we need to do is to couple nuclear electrical generation facilities with coal gasification plants. The waste steam from the nuke plant can be used as part of the process steam in the coal process.

Not to worry, I'm sure Congress is way ahead of me on this. </sarcasm>
 
Congress is going to put a nuke plant on Pennsylvania Avenue and use the waste heat to heat the capitol.
 
uscitizen said:
Congress is going to put a nuke plant on Pennsylvania Avenue and use the waste heat to heat the capitol.
Click to expand...
All they have to do is capture all the hot air that comes from Congress and our energy problems would be solved for the next two centuries.
 
Coal gassification is a terrible idea. Even if you don't believe in global warming the smog from having everything in the nation powered by coal would make America unlivable.
 
Wind farms and solar power could meet all of our needs if it was done properly.

But somehow I doubt it will be.



Has anyone ever seen anything that harnessed the waves or tides in the oceans? It seems to me that there is a lot of energy there that could be exploited.
 
h2o/sol

coal gasification need proper pollution control and while wind and solar can do much, depending on the government to do it right staggers the imagination

ca is doing it partly correctly by providing subsidies, but subsidies belie the true cost

how about this, require all new construction, add-on construction and re-models of 15% or more include solar/wind power to meet the needs of the afore-mentioned housing (total needs)
 
Watermark said:
Coal gassification is a terrible idea. Even if you don't believe in global warming the smog from having everything in the nation powered by coal would make America unlivable.
Click to expand...

That's not true Water. Coal gassification is a fluidized bed technology. It entrains the SOx, NOx, CO and particulates and prevents them going up the stack. You still have large CO2 emmisions with coal gassification but combined with deep well injection technology for the CO2 emmisions that problem can be easily managed too.
 
Well, with a plug-in hybrid that has a battery big enough to carry you to and from work you would only need to use the liquid coal fuel whenever you were going on a long trip. Such a design would cut CO2 emissions tremendously, especially since the power would be coming from clean nuclear power plants.

I know a lot of Greens oppose nuclear power, but these days, with the right safety regulations, a meltdown isn't going to happen.
 
Watermark said:
Well, with a plug-in hybrid that has a battery big enough to carry you to and from work you would only need to use the liquid coal fuel whenever you were going on a long trip. Such a design would cut CO2 emissions tremendously, especially since the power would be coming from clean nuclear power plants.

I know a lot of Greens oppose nuclear power, but these days, with the right safety regulations, a meltdown isn't going to happen.
Click to expand...
Three Mile Island showed that even back then our safeguards were significant. Sure, there was a release of radioactivity, but in reality no employees or civilians died from it. Very much unlike Chernobyl.

We have not done anything but make it more safe since then.
 
yes we need to be sure our nuke plants are in big population centers as well so as to maximize our distribution grid.

Safer yes, but no one wants them in their backyard.
 
It's safer in the way that the chance of a meltdown is non-existent. Anyone who opposes them today is just being a sensationalist trying to win votes from ignorant people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top