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.

 

Electricity prices to rise by up to 64%

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2010 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by merka
 


Nuclear power is environmentally friendly! It creates NO greenhouse gasses and has minimal waste.

All that stuff you hear about 30 foot long rats near nuclear power plants is sheer nonsense! It is nothing but propaganda put out by the petrochemical industry to scare people into sticking with the status quo!



posted on Mar, 18 2010 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


incorrect.

Nuclear fission is by no means sustainable and renewable. It creates a whole bunch of toxic waste to somehow get rid of.

Nuclear cold fusion does not exist yet, and until it does, we shouldn't be messing with nuclear on anything but an experimental format.

Solar, Wind, Tidal & Wave, Geothermal and Cold-Fusion are the way to go, they're just not being invested in.

Supply and demand.



posted on Mar, 19 2010 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghostsoldier
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


incorrect.

Nuclear fission is by no means sustainable and renewable. It creates a whole bunch of toxic waste to somehow get rid of.

Nuclear cold fusion does not exist yet, and until it does, we shouldn't be messing with nuclear on anything but an experimental format.

Solar, Wind, Tidal & Wave, Geothermal and Cold-Fusion are the way to go, they're just not being invested in.

Supply and demand.



Exactly in Australia we are something like 70% desert so there is plenty of room for solar, and "our home is girt by sea" so plenty of room for Tidal & Wave power also.



posted on Mar, 19 2010 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by wycky
 


yes, tidal power going to waste. in the mackay area of queensland tides are above 6 metres in december/january. the northern parts of west ozzie have at least that amount as they load iron ore ships whilst they sit on the bottom. although the north west is probably too far from where its mainly needed.

there must come a cut-off point economically where oneself or a group of trusted neighbours could make their own with a diesel alternator. (though if it caught on they would maybe legislate against it). especially if you lived in the bush/country.
i live in the bush and have considered making my own, but dont know the mathematics of it all. i mean how many litres of diesel per hour for a 3kw unit. my neighbour makes his own in the rainy season with a 1 inch poly pipe dropping less than 150 foot into his hydro-electric system. he runs lights, tv and fridge of an evening. he charges batteries and inverts it to 240Vac.

the PTB are definitely out to screw you. privatization is a joke and its on the citizens. the PTB already support illegal wars so screwing a citizen is childs play. then they show up at church all squeaky clean. all part of the darkening kali yuga i suppose. lets hope they dont turn off the light at the end of the tunnel due to economic hardship.




posted on Mar, 19 2010 @ 04:58 AM
link   

incorrect.

Nuclear fission is by no means sustainable and renewable.

hotpinkurinalmint never said it was sustainable or renewable. Classical straw-man, misrepresent the argument then knock it down.

Also, Nuclear Fission is a very broad umbrella term, just like the term, 'chemical reaction'. It covers hundreds of different technologies, some sustainable, some unsustainable. Current generation II & III plants are not sustainable or renewable. We do, however, have large amounts of Uranium, Thorium, & Plutonium left, furthermore the price of the fuel is very stable (and low). Generation IV reactors, however, are both renewable and sustainable, and we have already mined a practically unlimited fuel supply.


Yes, Nuclear is environmentally friendly because the waste is stored in concrete casks instead of dumped into the environment.


Nuclear cold fusion does not exist yet, and until it does, we shouldn't be messing with nuclear on anything but an experimental format.

Nuclear is statistically one of the safest forms of energy. Not a single member of the public has ever been killed by nuclear energy in the United States. Nothing can match that record. Bits of ice flying from wind turbines already has tarnished its record.


Solar, Wind, Tidal & Wave, Geothermal and Cold-Fusion are the way to go, they're just not being invested in.

You're blaming their massive issues on 'lack of investors'. The real reason they are not in wide-scale use is because they DO NOT WORK. Actually, the only reason they attract any interest at all is because of government mandates. As an example, Germany has spent 50 billion dollars on solar to get a whopping 0.6% of their energy. Wind gets 10 times the subsidies Nuclear does. Tidal power is 20 times the cost of wind at this moment. Solar, wind, nor tidal can supply energy on demand, they are unpredictable, and expensive. Stop making excuses and recognize their limitations.




Understanding the Limits of Wind Power: Key Industry Terms

Two characteristics of industrial wind power crucially inform the public policy debate.

First, wind turbines have little or no “capacity value”; i.e., they are unlikely to be producing electricity at the time of peak electricity demand. Therefore, wind turbines cannot substitute for conventional generating capacity responsible for providing reliable electricity to customers.

Second, a kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity from wind has less value than a kWh of electricity from a reliable (“dispatchable”) generating unit; i.e., from a unit that can be called upon to produce electricity whenever the electricity is needed by electric customers.

www.masterresource.org...



Geothermal cannot be placed everywhere, and cold fusion is decades away if it ever works.

[edit on 19/3/2010 by C0bzz]



posted on Mar, 19 2010 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Maybe our tax dollars should go to fitting everyone house with a solar panel array, instead of buying a bunch of stupid submarines. And the energy companies can suck a fat one after that.

Ah yes, more typical rants about electricity companies. FYI, photovoltaic panels, unsubsidized, typically take well over a decade to save as much money as their original price. If we added a 1000 watt solar panel to every home in Australia, it would displace grid generated electricity by about 5% at a cost of 51 billion dollars. (assumptions: $6 per watt, 17% capacity factor, current electrical usage 220 billion kilowatt hours per year, all prices USD).


I'm all for alternative energy, but I (and I'm sure lots of other peeps) cant afford it, or a rise in electricity bills.

So you want my taxes to pay for your solar panels because YOU cannot afford them?

[edit on 19/3/2010 by C0bzz]



posted on Mar, 19 2010 @ 05:53 AM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 





Yes, Nuclear is environmentally friendly because the waste is stored in concrete casks instead of dumped into the environment.

Okay, I don't know anything about nuclear power...but that sounds somewhat retarded.

My question is- How long can it be stored this way & what does one eventually do with this waste when the amount of it becomes too great?

I mean, surely, it doesn't just disappear, right?

Edit-





I'm all for alternative energy, but I (and I'm sure lots of other peeps) cant afford it, or a rise in electricity bills.
So you want my taxes to pay for your solar panels because YOU cannot afford them?


That's a bit harsh don't you think?
He could say the same thing, his tax dollars, would be going to 'YOUR nuclear plant' because YOU can't afford it...


Solar power might be expensive regarding start up costs, but it's a great option in the long run. It's completely clean. & Once installed and payed for. You are home free- no more paying overpriced electricity bills. And no damage to the environment.

Everyone wins.
People just need to stop being greedy, use only the power you absolutely need to survive.

[edit on 23/01/2010 by jinx880101]



posted on Mar, 19 2010 @ 11:14 PM
link   
Have you heard of the 'fusion-constant'?

In 2030 it will still be 15 years to fusion…
in 2050 it will still be 15 years to fusion…

Also, what is the price of electricity in NSW rising to, and what did it start at?


If i want to increase my companies infrastructure I have to invest money in it or get a loan, not increase rates by 64%, if i did i would loose business and go broke.

Where would they get that money from? How would they repay the loan? They would increase their revenue, they would do that by raising the cost of electricity. Loans are often worse because then interest has to be payed off.


He could say the same thing, his tax dollars, would be going to 'YOUR nuclear plant' because YOU can't afford it...

Uh... I never asked for any tax-payers money to build reactors. It would be nice though, especially because nuclear actually works, while solar doesn't at this moment. Rooftop solar generally has a 15% capacity factor, costs $6 per watt. Nuclear has a 90% capacity factor, and is usually around $4 per watt. i.e. 1 billion dollars of Nuclear will generate 8 times as much electricity as 1 billion dollars of rooftop solar. And what happens when the sunshine isn't hitting the surface?


Solar power might be expensive regarding start up costs, but it's a great option in the long run. It's completely clean. & Once installed and payed for. You are home free- no more paying overpriced electricity bills. And no damage to the environment.

Over-priced electricity bills? Given the average cost of electricity in the United States of around 12 cents per kilowatt hour to residential customers, it would take well over a decade for a solar panel to even pay back its capital cost. Assuming $6 a watt, 15% capacity factor, 15c/kwh cost of electricity, all fair assumptions, it would take 30 years for the solar panel to pay back its own worth in energy savings. I don't think solar panels even last that long, therefore the overall trend is that they cost more money than they save. Essentially what you have said, is that if you exclude all costs to do with solar then they are cheap. That's like saying Gold is very cheap if you get past the initial capital investment. Completely clean? Last I checked plenty of wastes were dumped into the environment from their production..

Also, for 50 billion dollars Australia could get 5% of its electricity from rooftop solar. For 50 billion dollars Australia could get 50% of its electricity from Nuclear. If solar diverts resources from other, more effective, sources of electricity, then that means we can get less done for the same amount of money. Does that constitute being environmentally unfriendly? You can not get any significant percentage of our electricity from solar at this moment, and it will only marginally reduce our dependence on grid electricity.


People just need to stop being greedy, use only the power you absolutely need to survive

This statement is baffling. Why are you on ATS then? Wanting to have a high living standard with computers, lighting, television (etc...) doesn't make one greedy. Why would you want to reduce the energy available for people to use for what they want? I am not going to do that simply because it's not necessary.


Okay, I don't know anything about nuclear power...but that sounds somewhat retarded.

You call what I said 'somewhat retarded' then call me harsh for not wanting to pay money for his solar cells? 51 billion dollars to get 5% of our electricity....
(bear in mind, Australian electricity use goes up 3.3% a year on average)


My question is- How long can it be stored this way

Can store Nuclear waste at the reactor site in concrete casks for the entire life of the plant (60 years).


& what does one eventually do with this waste when the amount of it becomes too great?

Nice circular argument in your question.

There is always enough room at the plant to store all the waste it has ever generated in its entire lifetime. The picture in my previous post was 32 years worth of waste. The concrete casks can last for many decades, by which time something will need to be done with it. Most common approach is burying it in geologically stable parts of the planet (e.g. salt caverns) - these repositories can be payed for by a small tax on all energy created by nuclear power (



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join