Unfortunately, given our record and nature, my vote is for "very bad" (assuming that we are still around to notice and have not lost the knowledge of how to read and write)In 3,026 years everything is either going to be really good, or really bad. It's 5050.
Some American railroads going to 100% biofuel.
- Thread starter JonMyrlennBailey
- Start date
Spent Uranium fuel can be and are recycled to extract the remaining useful Uranium but this only works up to a point. New Uranium fuel has to be added in each reprocessing cycle and the quantity of the original fuel decreases (decays) over time.
Nuclear reactors, like coal and gas power stations, need constant maintenance and, like all technology, there comes a point where the running and maintenance costs are greater that the revenue produced by the asset or its remaining value. At that point it becomes uneconomic to continue its operation. It can also become increasingly dangerous as the maintenance becomes more expensive, more difficult or even impossible as the availability of the "old nuclear technology" parts and expertise declines over time.
JonMyrlennBailey
Well-known member
When I saw my electric bill for this June for $130 with only 940 KWH consumed, I knew the whole energy situation on earth wasn't entirely peachy. The same goes for a gallon of gasoline at $3.25 a gallon even in "cheap" Iowa.
JonMyrlennBailey
Well-known member
See, back to the energy drawing board once again. If man has to go back to riding horses again, using mules to draw plows and using candlelight, then there is nothing I can say or do about it. We might have to find energy resources on the moon or some other planet through space exploration to keep modern civilization afloat for a long time. The sun will last about another 5 billion years. Plenty of natural energy to grow crops. Can we ever harness enough energy from the sun to keep a world with hundreds of millions of automobiles and home air conditioners going? Man has already lived for tens of thousands of years without electricity or fossil fuels. He had biological energy: animals and humans for labor. He had the sun to sustain life on earth. He could build fires from wood. Trees and plants regrow, livestock eats plants and the sun, that giant atomic light bulb in the sky, makes that all possible.
Without sufficient sustainable long-term energy to power cars, trains, factories, homes, planes and such, America might look like this in the year 2150:
Last edited:
International comparisons are always full of pitfalls and faulty assumptions such as differences in the cost of living but just for the exercise:-
I filled up with petrol (Gas) today at $AU1.94 per litre, and that was the cheapest by about 30c per litre that my Fuel Price App could find in my local area. Converting from litres to US gallons and at todays currency exchange rate that is $US5.20 per gallon.
Our electricity bill is quarterly not monthly and the bill covering June will not arrive until August but the monthly average for the March-May quarter (with solar power operating) was about 370kWh which cost us $AU141.75 or $US95.42 (at todays exchange rate) - but that period is mostly Autumn (Fall) here whereas June is Summer in the US.
My electric bill runs about the same as Jon's all year regardless of the season. We looked into solar power but due to our location and the number of trees it's not doable. We have our own trees but that's nothing compared to what's across the street from us and on the hill above us. Due to the trees and location, we receive about 3 to 4 hours max of sun during the summer time and an hour or two more during the winter.
We have minimal air-con, meaning I have one for the room I sit in with my computer and I use one in the room with my piano and I only use one at a time. I wouldn't have either air conditioners, but due to health issues, I can't get overheated because I can no longer regulate my body temperature due to autonomic nervous system issues. I physically become ill and have passed out from the heat.
Overall, where I live in New England, about 66% or more of the residents do not have air conditioning. We've never needed it until now. During normal circumstances, we used to get about 3 weeks total of putridly hot and humid weather during the summer with temps in the 30s C and humidity in the 70% and higher range just as we're experiencing right now.
With such a short duration, we would suck it up and deal with the few days of heat and humidity knowing full well that a cold front, referred to as a Montreal Express, will come rushing in from Quebec or the Great Lakes and break the hot and humid spell. After the front passed by, the temps would drop sometimes 10 or 20 degrees and we would be cool and dry for a week or more until the next bout of heat comes in. Most of the time too, the heat and humidity didn't show up until late August and then it all went away anyway by mid-September. Today, we see this pattern starting in late May or early to mid-June making for a very long hot summer. With temps like this and my sensitivity to the heat, I can no longer do anything in my gardens or yard.
Due to the times, we no longer see big cold fronts and instead see a weak cool air mass float in without rain which is blocked by a heat dome caused by Boston which is 55 km south of me. This drops the temps a bit over a few days but then everything warms up again without a real break from the heat.
My gasoline (petrol) prices run $3.69 USD or higher per gallon or about 98-cents a liter if my math is right, and is among the highest in the region just because.
norfolksouthern37
what's a normal map?
We are not going to "run out" of available energy. It just simply isn't how energy works. What is more likely is that some will control the use of energy for whatever stated reason gives them that authority. Your bills only highlight that. The best way to proceed? Make energy as affordable and abundant as possible. People will do the rest.
And the bottom line is, @JonMyrlennBailey, radiation kills. Science in this century hasn’t changed that. Until we can overcome the dangers of nuclear power (however many years it takes) we shouldn’t make it too big of a presence in our world. Like @norfolksouthern37 said, if we have nuclear energy in this world, people will do the rest. But if that means it takes a century to make that power safe, I’d rather be patient than go as fast as I can to, say, electrify my railroad.
Cheers
Cheers
norfolksouthern37
what's a normal map?
We use nuclear power here where I live.
You wouldn’t necessarily prefer having the power plant near you though?
Like Seabrook being about 20 miles north of me. The people on Hampton, Rye, Salisbury, and Plum Island beaches have nowhere to go should there be an emergency. They're basically trapped like flies in a bottle with two-lane roads and lots of additional traffic as I mentioned in my post before.
One of the major political parties here in the national elections due by next May (the exact date is not fixed, it is decided by the government) has promised to build 7 nuclear power stations if elected. They have picked out 7 sites across the country but can provide no clear timetable, technology nor any details of the costs, not even a rough estimate. The policy came completely out of the blue with no consultation with the residents of those areas nor even with, it seems, members of their own party. We have absolutely no expertise at building nuclear power plants in this country and while we mine and supply Uranium ore to several other countries we do not refine or process it ourselves.
All the independent expert opinions on this policy since it was announced have been very negative. The only positive ones are coming from the Murdoch controlled media.
In my opinion it is more of a political headline grabber than an actual policy.
All the independent expert opinions on this policy since it was announced have been very negative. The only positive ones are coming from the Murdoch controlled media.
In my opinion it is more of a political headline grabber than an actual policy.
That’s exactly my point from my earlier post. The state didn’t bother to incorporate the safeguards (better traffic infrastructure), it just threw the plant in “against the will of the people”. We need to be putting every effort we have into reducing carbon footprint, but that is not the way to do it.
norfolksouthern37
what's a normal map?
I just checked on maps its 10 miles, there is also one 29 miles away. here they are:
Sequoyah nuclear plant
Watts Bar nuclear plant
Aside from that there are also many others here in the south and they are very safe. There are protocols for emergencies but there really isn't any serious threat that something will go catastrophically wrong. I think the reason they are not more widespread is the misplaced fear from the one disaster everyone knows about. In any case it is a power we can greatly use if we do it responsibly.
Oregon's' Trojan nuke plant was decommissioned due to many unfixable issues > The Controversy Surrounding the Trojan Nuclear Power Plant. So, not every plant is going to be able to stay in continued use, with fuel rod changeouts.
The Hanford nuke waste site is still (and will be for a very long time) a massive FUBAR situation >
Contaminated Sites List
Damage Assessment, Remediation, and Restoration Program
Hanford Overview
Rico
The Hanford nuke waste site is still (and will be for a very long time) a massive FUBAR situation >
Contaminated Sites List
Damage Assessment, Remediation, and Restoration Program
Hanford Overview
Rico
As I heard one commentator on the debate over nuclear power that we are having here in Australia "Nuclear power is safe until there is an accident".
Technology, not just in nuclear power plants, is full of "protocols for emergencies" and a belief that there "isn't any serious threat that something will go catastrophically wrong", until of course it does. Where were the emergency protocols that safely dealt with the freight rail derailment at East Palestine Ohio, the recent Boeing 737 Max incidents or the earthquake and tsunami at Fukushima Japan?
norfolksouthern37
what's a normal map?
Sure one could just be afraid of everything due to the potential risks including human error.
Emergency preparation is expensive and is unfortunately one of the areas that doesn't remain updated as time moves on and technology changes.
The East Palestine, OH incident, just like the recent Boeing 737 Max incidents are corporate negligence. Norfolk Southern management was more interested in moving freight than actually ensuring that trackwork and freight operations were working properly, and has been pushing for longer and longer freights with small crews using the so-called Precision Scheduling where freight trains up to 15,000 feet. (4.57 km or 2.84 miles).
Boeings issue is 100% Quality Assurance and Quality Control. Again, an area that costs money. QA was pointing out software problems with the product but the product was shipped anyway.
That sounds all too familiar. I worked for a small electronics manufacturer for years. At one point, they were more interested in shipping products than testing, or barely testing. The product would go out the door inoperable with a technician following behind to repair the equipment.
And both of these incidents scare me. If corporations look out to maximize profit over safety and proper operation. What does it mean when a nuclear power plant is built with similar quality issues built into it? When Seabrook was being built, it came to light that the concrete being used was compromised, meaning it looked like concrete but wasn't of the proper strength. Prior to opening the plant, whole sections had to be rebuilt, pushing the opening many years behind schedule. Now, this was found out during construction. Imagine if the concrete issue when unnoticed.
I may sound paranoid, but perhaps I'm a lot wiser now than before, besides living downwind from the plant makes me a bit on edge.