What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
23 Comments
- Tossrock, on 06/01/2008, -0/+7I'm all for more efficient energy, but this hardly constitutes an "article". I've sent IMs longer than that, and with more references.
- NuclearWookie, on 06/01/2008, -0/+7Thermodynamics is probably the most depressing branch of physics. However, waste heat can still have a purpose. I've heard that France uses the waste heat from its power plants to heat residences.
- axxxul, on 06/01/2008, -1/+7Coal??? You americans use THAT much coal?!
I'm not surprised when I see China using this 19th century source of energy but the US? Come on!
--
An (arrogant) frenchy whose electricity is 80% nuclear. - kero552, on 06/01/2008, -0/+6They reprocess it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COGEMA_La_Hague_site - kelmaster1, on 06/01/2008, -0/+5Coal is stupid. The only reason the US is still using coal is because no politician wants to be responsible for the switch (coal companies would make them look bad for destroying an industry). The power infrastructure contrary to what many Americans think is not run directly by the government and trying to exterminate coal use is like asking Jack Daniels to stop making their delicious whiskey. It would probably destroy the WV economy (although I can't see how it could get much worse... ) and the coal companies that have been around for centuries will not be put down.
Nuclear is superior, coal companies have set a good image that "oh, but it creates all this nuclear waste!". Even though tons of waste coal produces from mining to the tons of carbon put in the atmosphere is ridiculous whereas a single fuel rod for a nuclear power plant creates about 1 ton of waste every year for a 1 MW nuclear power plant. Everyone in the US is used to the reactors from the 80s or older and haven't even realized there are newer highly efficient reactors that produce little waste and the Japanese and Europeans have discovered new ways to reprocess the waste.
Don't fall for propaganda from power companies, Nuclear is the best shot we have a clean efficient power with the least negative effects. - kd1s, on 06/01/2008, -0/+4Part of the problem is that we allow waste to occur. We could be getting much more efficiency out of electric generation, and much more efficiency out of the transmission medium if we simply wished to do so.
I look every day at wasted heat, particularly in the winter. My dryer vents outside while hot water from the shower simply goes down the drain. Why can't I capture that heat and use it for something else, like heating the home? - msmaggie, on 06/01/2008, -1/+5A short, but sweet discussion about new technologies that may reduce energy that is lost using the current processes. Though the article is short and not very thorough, the accompanying graphic is extremely informative, interesting and just plain cool.
- NuclearWookie, on 06/01/2008, -2/+6I'm an American, I've seen it, and I probably know more about it than you do.
- inactive, on 06/01/2008, -0/+2Huh?
- bubbazanetti, on 06/01/2008, -0/+2What do the French do with their nuclear waste?
- ICSU, on 06/01/2008, -0/+2If you are interested:
Explore energy efficiency possibilities in various industries with world-class energy expert Amory Lovins in a one-of-a-kind lecture series.
http://sic.conversationsnetwork.org/series/si-ener ...
We must win the oil endgame
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/51 - spaceman84, on 06/01/2008, -0/+2You might have noticed that the problem is restricted to Britain and the plant in question may get purchased by a FRENCH nuclear power company and the location used to build a new plant.
The French have got their ***** together when it comes to nuclear power, even if the British don't. - kelmaster1, on 06/01/2008, -1/+3At least their power companies are not trying to make ridiculous profits like American power companies...
- inactive, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1Yes nuclear power has an undeserved bad reputation.
Unlike all the other alternatives nuclear can produce energy nearly as cheaply as coal now vs 20 years from now and reliably.
Solar still is very very expensive and costs several times more then nuclear power.
Wind is cheap but not reliable but can be used for a portion of the total power generation.
But keeping constant power is difficult once more then 15% of the grid is wind.
Though maybe storage systems such as huge fly wheels could help smooth out spikes and dips. - TheMachine1, on 06/01/2008, -2/+3Assuming we need electrical power is part of the problem
Most residential energy needs can be sum up as raising or lower temperature a relative small number of degrees (water heating, home heating, drying clothes and dishes, cooling food ,cooling home). Efficient electrical power generation depends on a massive temperature differentials and expensive hardware with large amount of waste heat(2/3 according to the article).
So the solution is to utilize waste heat or thermo-energy(solar) more directly at home.
For example below boiling point water could regenerate a desiccant cooling system. Thats a more efficient way to cool anyway combine that with the fact that water at around its boiling point can be made at very high efficiency (lets say 100% for practical purposes). - st00f72, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1You're right on.
If your dryer operates on electricity, check this: http://fossilfreedom.com/dryer.html
(My dryer uses gas so I'm designing a heat exchanger)
Down the drain: http://www.renewability.com/powerpipe.htm - inactive, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1We need more nuclear plants and the US Navy and the French both solved the waste problem a long time ago they reprocess it removing the plutonium which is a fuel and virtrafying the rest.
Though even the fission by products such as Tc-99 can be reused in making whats called nuclear batteries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_battery - nydwarf, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1This is nothing but filler!
- inactive, on 06/02/2008, -0/+0The navy has been reprocessing nuclear waste since the 70s and their reactors have an excellent safety record.
Also nuclear power can be cheaper if a standardized power plant is built vs redesigning the wheel every time you want to build a plant.
On radiactive waste one thing many people don't know is that when a coal plant is operated with no scrubbers as they are in places like China they release a lot more radioactive material pr gigawatt hour in the form of radon and thorium then a nuclear plant produces plus hundreds of tons of sulfur dioxide and mercury. - buywowgoldz, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0hot water from the shower simply goes down the drain
http://floridarealestatehunt.com/ - inactive, on 06/01/2008, -5/+2Yawn...sorry but i learned this is my science lab. Thank god, i am not American because this would probably be my the first time seeing this..LOL!
- nick111, on 06/01/2008, -7/+2What, nuclear like this?
http://tinyurl.com/6a6hvu
http://tinyurl.com/4phgzk
Please don't get the retards all excited.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is