Quote:
Originally Posted by red-beard
I agree. In certain regions, it makes a lot of sense, and the fact that it is becoming electricty instead of going into my house as heat is also a plus. But it is still no where near enough energy for our needs. We need NUCLEAR POWER.
|
I agree we need nuclear power. This made sense to me since the day I visited the steam plant at my university while I was a freshmen. The steam plant is how the majority of the campus buildings get heat in the winter. They burn coal (!) to boil water and pipe the steam throughout campus.
I recall the manager or one of the plant operators making the comment that it was a terrible way to make heat, burning coal, and that nuclear was the best alternative given a well designed plant and trained operators. Obviously he wasn't just talking about a nuke palnt for the university.
That was my first time at a coal burning plant, and it made an impact. I'd like to think I'm a little more knowledgeable than I was when I was a freshmen in college...and I still believe nuclear energy makes the most sense. With >50% of our electricity being generated by burning coal, when was the last time someone attacked coal burning electricity generation while attacking nuke plants? Clean burning coal is technically expensive...and we aren't there yet! It's easier for our politicians to attack nuclear energy and evil foreign energy...and not upset the coal industry in our backyard.
It would solve a lot of problems with demand if we just started putting up nuke plants, but that's not going to happen any time soon. Home solar panels and wind turbines have a better chance at acceptance. They won't provide enough to power a home without the grid, but they will do wonders to cut back on grid draw. Imagine if every home in every suburban development had solar panels on the roof and a wind turbine at the end of the roof ridge. Add a bank of batteries and blackouts and brownouts will no longer be a concern....elimination any urgent need to upgrade the grid.