If France can, why can't we? : Eco Answers

Well I am non stop on the
watch for interesting info on
Alternative Energy Sources. This evening, I
come across a very
amazing piece of content that talks
about Eco Energy Sources from a new
perspective. Today’s fun article is titled If France can, why can’t we? .
Question by : If France can, why can’t we?
According to the available data, France currently generates 70% + of its electricity using nuclear power. Yet here in the United States we haven’t broken ground for a new nuclear generating station in decades. We’re still using coal, oil and natural gas to generate electricity.

I can hear all the referneces to Chernobyl and Three Mile Island (TMI). Comparing the Russian reactors at Chernobyl to a then-current U.S. reactor is akin to comparing a skate board to a Ferrari. Our nuclear generating stations are immensely superior in every way to what the Russians built. As regards TMI, “Hanoi” Jane Fonda used it to promote her fantasy movie “The China Syndrome”. To the best of my knowledge there were no deaths as a result of the release at TMI and only minor injuries. The entire event at TMI was blown way out of proportion.

The environmental zealots are constantly attacking using coal, oil and natural gas and the mere mention of nuclear power causes them to hyperventilate and become hysterical.

Their mantra is “Solar power! Wind power! Clean energy! Renewable energy!” While I’ve no argument with using clean energy sources I do doubt the feasibility of their supposed “solutions”. Solar power is great – when the sun is shining. Wind power is wonderful – when the wind is blowing and if you don’t mind killing migratory birds. But what happens with solar power during a period of overcast skies or heavy snow? What if a wind farm has to be shut down due to icing or high winds?

Electricity is not easily stored for future use. Sure, we have batteries but they have their own set of problems. Batteries have to be manufactured and this requires energy, not to mention the environmental impact. Once their service life has expired batteries must be disposed of. Done improperly the result is environmental damage. Wet-cell batteries, like the one in your car, produce harmful fumes and can, under the right conditions, explode. Just think about having your basement full of lead acid batteries to store the electricity from your solar cells or wind turbine – knowing that the fumes being emitted are dangerous and the batteries could explode. Of course you could just do without electricity from dusk to dawn but I doubt we’ll see too many opting for that hardship.

So, in my opinion, we really have little choice except nuclear power generation. Oh, I can hear the howls of the environmentalists now as they babble about “How do we get rid of the spent fuel rods? They will be dangerous for hundreds or even thousands of years.” Obviously France has figured out what to do with their spent fuel rods. Perhaps we should ak them.

I believe that we have the technology to safely store spend fuel rods from nuclear generating stations. Lets look back in time to 1962 when JFK challenged the country to land a man on the moon and return him safely to earth. Engineering and design back then was done with a slide rule and a pencil. (The average 1996 car had more computing power under its hood than was available to the engineers and designers of the Apollo Project). Just look at bridges and highways built in the 1950′s and ’60′s – and still in use today. I simply refuse to believe that with our technological advances the safe storage of spent fuel rods is beyond our abilities.

As someone who has seen the ravages of strip mining and mountaintop removal I’ve no love for coal-fired generating stations. I’d rather see oil used to produce fuel for vehicles. Natural gas should be used for cooking and home heating.

I spent 3 1/2 years working in the pipe support group at a nuclear generating station construction site back in the ’80′s. Unfortunately, the owner simply ran out of money and the project was abandoned. During construction, the plan was to close 3 dirty coal-fired plants once the nuke went on line. Just think of what that would have done to improve air quality. I saw first-hand the numerous safety measures designed into the plant as well as the near-unbelievable redundancy. One feed water pump (used to supply cooling water to the reactor) was capable of being used to cool both reactors – and each reactor had a primary and reserve feed water pump. That is redundancy.

I believe we need a renewed dedication to nuclear power.

Best answer:

Answer by Illume
I’m personally not all that keen on nuclear power. Though I don’t know much on the subject:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_sherwood_070108_nuclear_power_not_cl.htm

There are other sources too, though I don’t know how effective just wanted to show incase: http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/05/22/biomimetic-sharktail-wave-action-harvester/

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

You may view the latest post at
If France can, why can't we?

Best regards,
JamesGallo
ekonenargi@gmail.com