It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nuclear energy - "Electricity so cheap it won't need to be metered!" procliamed in the 1960's

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 10:45 AM
link   
I was reading through some of the old advertisements and watching video's from the 1960's about power companies wanting to add nuclear power to their generating base. They wanted gov $$ to help build the plants and they had a very large lobby which told congress that electricity would be so inexpensive that it would cost more to meter it, and bill customers, than it would to produce the electricity! This was the common theme throughout the lobbying action.

Fastforward 30 years and prices were through the roof in some areas with nuclear plants and now they say that it is more expensive than other sources, even using existing plants that don't need to be upgraded or modified for existing codes!

For those who don't know how nuclear power generates electricity, it is basically the same as coal, oil and gas once the steam is generated at the closed cycle heat exchange. The steam then turns turbines and those turn generators. The steam has never been in contact with nuclear rods and is clean to be vented. The heat is generated within the reaction chamber and a liquid is used to circulate (in a closed loop) to a heat exchanger which then heats the water (in the outside loop) that is turned into steam, turning the turbines. The heating liquid (in the closed loop) can be a number of things, it is often water, and this is the stuff that is radio active and is also the stuff used in cooling tanks to allow rods to cool down after use.

While there is some expense to make the plant, the amounts of money the power companies suggest is needed for a 2Gwh or up to 7Gwh plant is absolutely ridiculous! I heard a price of $6.5 billion US dollars (with exchange rate) for a 2Gwh plant. The main construction components of the plant are concrete and steel and the turbines and generators are actually of minimal cost, in comparison, because they are used industry wide in electricity generation as they need be nothing special to handle the steam (same ones used in coal, oil, gas electricity generation). Graphite control rods are not exactly major cost items either and the control systems are not going to add billions to the price tag.

I'm sure there are going to be people (largely totally unaware of the actual process or much of anything related to the process) who are going to say "but but, storage of the waste, or shipping of the waste" or "the cost of the uranium" or "those plants are big, think how much it costs to build that!". Well take a look at the amount of steel and concrete to build a plant and compare that to other projects such as roads, bridges, buildings, many of which are much more complex (in the intricacies of construction) and they cost a small fraction of the price in comparison to the nuclear plant, maybe 1/20th to 1/30th for equal amounts of concrete and steel ton wise. Also the designs for the normally used process has changed VERY little since the first plants were built almost 50 years ago (in the planned new plants).

I want to know what happened to the "electricity so cheap it doesn't need metered" or at least electricity cheap enough that everyone can afford "liberal" use if need be. I'm wondering if they are using this as the limiting factor in the usage of electricity, meaning, it is cheap enough that it doesn't need to be metered but if that were the case, there would be a lot of waste and people not conserving the electricity. It would also mean that coal, oil, gas would suffer bigly and probably put them out of business. If this were the case, then more nuclear plants would have been built, better safety measures would have been developed and the storage problem would have been solved a long time ago (because with larger demand an industry would have grown around this issue to specifically solve it and make very good $$ doing so). It also allows the green energy movement and a possible carbon tax b/c of the fossil fuel industry and they can add more regulation because of this. I think it is all a means of extreme control and is a major limiting factor to the development of the country and human race. This is the reason I posted in the conspiracy forum.

Nuclear power may have been implemented by the weapons/arms industry to give them a source of enriched uranium and or depleted uranium - it depends upon the method used in the reactor. So the process of building bombs and certain munitions grew from this industry and they are the most devastating weapons on the battle field. So in a way, every person using nuclear energy is in a way subsidizing the manufacture of uranium/plutonium related weapons.

Basically what we have is a very expensive way to boil water and when you actually look at the process step by step, it is incredibly simple (Homer Simpson simple).

If anyone knows of some components of the nuclear plants that is incredibly expensive, PLEASE post what these are, how many are needed and what makes them unique to this application. The fact that fuel wastes are used in munitions which generate a very large revenue for some company, I see the waste issue somewhat as a null issue, but the water issue does have a valid point and I suspect that there is a known solution for this and it is being withheld to create more strangulation of the industry, forcing the green energy movement, and getting massive funding for cleanup. If the funding disappeared as well as the green industry, I suspect the problem would be fixed in short order as I remember watching some videos of a British scientist and possibly a German/Austrian/Dutch (had a similar accent) finding a way to neutralize the waste back in the 80's. The reporter was so excited because the issues was huge in the US at the time and was saying how many problems this would solve and mentions it should be worth a Nobel prize. I'm not sure I ever say anything in the news about it, though I was young, so IDK what happened with that - I wouldn't doubt that they may have met an untimely end..?

Thoughts or ideas on this issue?




posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Locally they replace a turbine last year. I weighed 400,000 lbs and took 3 years to make. All specialized transport from the dock to the plant. 12 Hours to do 10 miles or something there about. Special train cars special barges special trucks and special cranes and that' just the last 10 miles. Right now 3500 extra people in town for a fuel change and maintenance. Every motel and campground full. people working 6 days 10 hours for 14 weeks.

A friends a contract coordinator $75 per hour. Time and a half after 40 double on Sunday he gets Fridays off




posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: DigginFoTroof


I am just about at the age where I have heard enough BS and why it is fed to us either by companies or Governments and the long and short is that the public are there to be ripped off and that just about sums it up...

Energy bills in the UK are absurd!!!!, I believe almost to the point that the fat cats will be asking each other just how are they getting away with it..

If it can save the public money then it will be hidden or made illegal..

My only hope for the future really at this point is that Elon Musk gets way bigger than many Government departments and his speed at which he can take a idea from drawing board to functional example is faster than than it can be banned. It is also fitting that it may be under the "Tesla" brand who many will know
stated "free" energy all those years ago..




RA



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: mikell
I weighed 400,000 lbs and took 3 years to make.



Brother have a look at the Vegan diet that will help big time, I hate to think what your custom clothing bill must be...



RA



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 11:06 AM
link   
The same old people looking after the same old interests, which never seem to be yours or mine.



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

The problem is that nuclear power and coal power sources have a finite source-the former comes from supernovae so unless Proxima Centauri blows we will have to wait at least 4.5 light years which is stretch. The latter comes from decomposing animals and foliage and will take even longer.

Our best bet is to improve Solar and Geothermic energy harnessing, after all the sun and earth will be around for billions of years, finite resources wont.



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Before oil prices skyrocketed. Gas was 50¢ a gallon too.



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

My thoughts?
Nuclear is reliable always averaging 90% output.

Wind and solar bounce around 30% to 40%.


But free or extremely cheap electricity, pipe dream.



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 11:19 AM
link   
I can totally see $6.5 billion for a site being about accurate. I've seen control systems upgrades, not including controllers or any operations hardware, just the boxes to run the software and the software itself going for $5 million plus. This is only for turbine control and nothing else, no security software, no bells and whistles, literally 2 PC's and the software that runs on them along with the guys to come out and install and test it.

If you ever get the chance to visit a site like this and can look around, you can easily see where the money would go. Even without needing special turbines and boilers etc. these things are insanely complex and really awe inspiring when you think about what actually goes into them.



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

The thing is, that when the companies in question were saying these things, they were lying. There was NO reason, either during the beginning of the Nuclear Age, or when it became a commercial, rather than a military research issue, for any person involved with that industry, to turn to a government official and declare "Why, in a few short years, it will be more hassle than it is worth to even record how much energy a household uses!".

That was NEVER on the cards in a realistic fashion, but it may well have been a timely ploy on the part of energy companies to con their way into a new way to screw the people they supply. Realistically, there ARE specific issues with operating a nuclear plant, which mean that costs will necessarily be high. It simply is NOT accurate to suggest that the infrastructural elements of a nuclear power plant, and a coal fired plant, are "the same" after a certain point, because they simply are not.

Furthermore, there ARE very significant differences, when it comes to the threat posed by the waste created by nuclear fuel use. Sure, no one wants to choke down a hole heap of toxic gas from a coal fired station, but nuclear materials getting into the wrong places, or the wrong hands, or both, is a potentially nation ending threat, and not by way of some soft, slow event like climate change. No, if nuclear material gets into the water in some places, or into the food chain in others, or worse, gets dispersed into the atmosphere by underground fires which burn the place it has been dumped in, then people will start dying of radiation exposure, horrific, rapid growing tumours, skin lesions, and the like. Crops will be contaminated, livestock damaged or killed by the same radiation, entire ecosystems going the way of the dodo, purely because some gormless halfwit thought nuclear power was a good idea.

This planet is already under significant threat from nuclear fuel use, as the frankly pathetic disposal strategies of yesteryear, and the utterly inadequate methods of disposal used today, only really amount to burying the waste in one form or another. There are no methods currently in commercial use, which accelerate the decomposition of decayed fuels, into harmless materials. There are no methods currently in commercial use, which render the threat of decades of buried fuel anything less than still utterly terrifying.

This SHOULD cost money to oversee, and it does.

However, its not sustainable, and frankly, no power production method which requires any use of fuel at all, is legitimate in this era. If you cannot get power from the sun, the geothermal vents in the Earth, from the tide or by way of other hydro electric methods, or by way of wind power then you should not damned well be using it at all, because all the other options are just cutting the viability of life as we know it on the surface of Earth, by years, decades or centuries, and this must stop.



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: DigginFoTroof
I think the original midea of cheap electricity was a catch all to get them off the ground and eventually get a monopoly of electric generation therefore control the price per customer as no other viable alternative exists.
As for electric conservation, that is the big con going on right there. To maximise their profits they build just enough generation capacity plus or minus a small margin. This is a double edged sword. On the one hand they don't have to update their generation on existing stations and they don't want to build more reactors/ generation plant because of reason 2.
The second reason is to keep electricity "scarce" thereby justifying higher prices and that is also the reason behind their call for "electricity conservation".
It is not to conserve it, it is because they are working on a very tight maximum generation cycle. That is if everybody were to use electricity more freely they would not be able to generate the amount required and would show up their shortfall in not producing more plants to accommodate this.
As for updating plants, why would they do that? The old plants are giving them the profits they want and to upgrade would mean them spending from their profits for little return.



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: DigginFoTroof


I was reading through some of the old advertisements and watching video's from the 1960's about power companies wanting to add nuclear power to their generating base. They wanted gov $$ to help build the plants and they had a very large lobby which told congress that electricity would be so inexpensive that it would cost more to meter it, and bill customers, than it would to produce the electricity! This was the common theme throughout the lobbying action.

If you can link that video, Too cheap to meter', I'd appreciate it.

I remember too, they held up a glass of water in Senate hearings, declaring there was enough power in this glass to power a City or some such.

'Clear' water, 'New' technology, New and Clear, 'Nuclear' power. Then they proceeded to sell us the reactors , kids being indoctrinated by tours of BWR plants. The same ones that blew up in Japan...




posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 02:03 PM
link   
It's laughable at the stalemate we have seen in advancement in the ones that make money. Greed is what will ultimately kill us off. Someone who can change the world would rather make a dime.



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 02:05 PM
link   
9 cents a kilowatt hour here

Thoughts: Electricity IS so cheap it wouldn't have to be metered...

Problem? Home energy usage since the 1960's is at least 3 times higher than expectations.

Expectations: Not everyone would own a tv, or everyone who does own a tv, would leave it off most of the time.

No idea at all! That everyone would have 1, 2, or even multiple home computing devices in usage! The home computer would have sounded completely insane in the 60's.

HVAC (No idea on the state of HVAC in the 60's vs power.)

Fridge? No idea. Ice boxes in some places still, maybe?

Electrical stove? Electrical washer/dryer? Electrical hot water heater? Electrical dishwasher?

Think they saw all of that coming in the 60's?

I know if I didn't own all that stuff, my home power usage would be like 100-200w hours? Maybe? So like, pennies a day in raw costs, all those amenities aside.

Your 1960 man was likely correct, for his time.



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 02:18 PM
link   
France gets over 70% of its power from nuclear and the cost is only about 9 cents a KW-HR.
In plant safety for the French plants is on par with other power generation methods with less hazardous pollution generated.
There probably is special interest keeping nuclear power off the table till the rest of our resources have been milked for maximum profits.

edit on 19-2-2018 by Cauliflower because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 03:28 PM
link   
With the USA, the profits from power stations are based on the cost of the fuel; coal power stations are the cheapest, oil, gas and nuclear. When supply exceeds demand, the price is set by the cheapest generator. When demand exceeds supply, it's the most expensive provider that set's the price. That happens because there is no way of storing excessive capacity during periods of low demand. It costs time to warm up power station as everything has to be done gradually.

The nuclear industry wanted to decommission the old power plants and build new ones. The environmentalists wanted to decommission the old plants and not build new ones. The compromise is to keep the old plants running and not build new ones.



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: stormcell

The Russian economy is extremely dependent on oil exports.
If that were not the case I wonder if the Russian aquisitors would have done more to build safe nuclear plants instead of Chernobyl style plants?
New nuclear plant designs should be safer but it might require nationalizing the industry with the right type of oversight to keep the plants affordable.



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Thorium reactors are very safe but the MIC wants to make Plutonium to use in weapons and have chosen 'breeder' reactors that are very tricky compared to other designs. We need Thorium.

I also think we need to build desalinization plants on the West Coast of the US and for the places like Australia. It makes no sense to not just build the damn things and worry about recouping expenses later. Should do it if it is for the common good such as life giving properties.



edit on 19-2-2018 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cauliflower
a reply to: stormcell

The Russian economy is extremely dependent on oil exports.
If that were not the case I wonder if the Russian aquisitors would have done more to build safe nuclear plants instead of Chernobyl style plants?
New nuclear plant designs should be safer but it might require nationalizing the industry with the right type of oversight to keep the plants affordable.


They also export gas/oil to Europe. After Western Europe agreed to reduce pollution aka acid rain back in the 1980's, coal mines were closed down and we imported gas/oil from Russia instead.



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Price is off the roof because of maintenance, repair and upgraded for safety. A lot of US plants need upgrading because they are built long time ago without the actual safety measures discovered back then. Google Three mile island disaster. Even Canadian nuclear plants are more up to date. Nuclear is being phased out soon. Hopefully its true.

Until the people and Government combined decide it is time to get rid of nuclear power plants. Nothing is going to change. US is a hotbed for a nuclear wasteland.
edit on 19-2-2018 by makemap because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join