Could well be true. There was a similar analysis showing that buying, keeping and running a new Ferrari was greener than buying a new hybrid every 5 to 7 years.
And safely storing nuclear waste potentially for millennia is a trivial and low cost problem... Righttttt..
Without the nuclear "waste" core of the earth we would never be here in the first place.
I am not a Nuclear proponent, but my objection is simply cost based rather than any environmental plus or minus (and there are both). I feel it is just too expensive for the life we currently get from the kind of facilities we currently know how to build.
But storage of fuel isn't one of them, they still store it as they always have, under water at the plant, which is perfectly safe at a properly selected site. No need to duplicate the mistakes of others.
Since I'm sure the plan is for us to survive a few more decades, there is time to seek a solution. If we don't survive, the problem is meaningless, and our demise won't be because of some individual power utility, even considering how dangerous one potentially can be.
Our children are not idiots ... far from it ... and just as we figured some things out that our parents could not, they will as well.
We have simple, effective wind and wave water techniques that can and should be employed to solve electric demand, which is at this point likely to rise for a while yet. If there really is a viable, properly done study that says Nuclear is cheaper than wind, well, I'd have to read it before I came to any conclusions one way or the other. It sounds like an opinion piece to me, which has zero merit beyond being thought-provoking.
I think last year electric demand actually fell slightly, but population increases and the inevitable rise in middle classes worldwide will continue relentlessly, so it's not like it's a problem we can ignore. Not even mentioning the issue surrounding replacing massive fossil fuel use with alternatives.
I am OK with LEDs properly implemented but just like we still sometimes use wood for heat, the incandescent has a place that isn't going to go away just because we wish it so.
I don't know about any of the other "studies" mentioned, I'm the kind who needs to read the peer-reviewed document from a known reliable source, preferrably a long standing scientific journal, and one not bought by one of the vanity publishers, which is what happened to the Canadian Medical Journal, sad to say, not an article in a magazine or, God forbid, a blog post. I am the kind who is likely to vet the provenance of the source before I read the article, regardless of the subject or where it appears or is cited.
Just this morning there was a Slashdot topic about a researcher who, in an attempt to illustrate the problem of vanity science publishing, was able to get his pet dog on the editorial board of one.
Call me crazy, but I suspect the Ferrari study might not make the cut.
I actually have a copy of the one I mentioned somewhere, although I would have to search half a dozen hard drives to find it.
But storage of fuel isn't one of them, they still store it as they always have, under water at the plant, which is perfectly safe at a properly selected site. No need to duplicate the mistakes of others.
Since I'm sure the plan is for us to survive a few more decades, there is time to seek a solution. If we don't survive, the problem is meaningless, and our demise won't be because of some individual power utility, even considering how dangerous one potentially can be.
Our children are not idiots ... far from it ... and just as we figured some things out that our parents could not, they will as well.
We have simple, effective wind and wave water techniques that can and should be employed to solve electric demand, which is at this point likely to rise for a while yet. If there really is a viable, properly done study that says Nuclear is cheaper than wind, well, I'd have to read it before I came to any conclusions one way or the other. It sounds like an opinion piece to me, which has zero merit beyond being thought-provoking.
I think last year electric demand actually fell slightly, but population increases and the inevitable rise in middle classes worldwide will continue relentlessly, so it's not like it's a problem we can ignore. Not even mentioning the issue surrounding replacing massive fossil fuel use with alternatives.
I am OK with LEDs properly implemented but just like we still sometimes use wood for heat, the incandescent has a place that isn't going to go away just because we wish it so.
I don't know about any of the other "studies" mentioned, I'm the kind who needs to read the peer-reviewed document from a known reliable source, preferrably a long standing scientific journal, and one not bought by one of the vanity publishers, which is what happened to the Canadian Medical Journal, sad to say, not an article in a magazine or, God forbid, a blog post. I am the kind who is likely to vet the provenance of the source before I read the article, regardless of the subject or where it appears or is cited.
Just this morning there was a Slashdot topic about a researcher who, in an attempt to illustrate the problem of vanity science publishing, was able to get his pet dog on the editorial board of one.
Call me crazy, but I suspect the Ferrari study might not make the cut.
I actually have a copy of the one I mentioned somewhere, although I would have to search half a dozen hard drives to find it.
Last edited:
Too much emotion attached to this issue. Crying defeat without even trying seems a little senseless.
Wow you are reading way too much into my comment. I'm not particularly anti-nuclear either, just another problem that needs a solution.
One problem the nuclear industry has is that it is required to store vast quantities of 'low level waste' which is less radioactive than stuff which every other industry just dumps in landfill or incinerates. This is partly because it can measure incredibly low levels of radiation, so politicians require it to do so. During normal operation a coal-fired power station distributes more radioactive stuff over the surrounding area then a nuke, but you don't need a nuclear licence to burn coal and ash is not counted as 'low level waste'.
A company here in Ohio patented and developed a shroud for wind turbines -- looks like a jet engine nacelle -- the fluid dynamics are well beyond my understanding, but it is supposed to raise output my 30%
For now, dung and wood are the most common renewable fuels!
I tend to prefer incandescents over others, but if I have to choose between LED and CFL I go CFL simply because the light output seems to be lot better and they don't usually flicker. Nearly all LED bulbs I see produce strong 50Hz flicker, only the super expensive ones don't, and their lifetime seems to be very much hit and miss, dictated by how soon the driver goes boom (it seems they are usually very intolerant of any power fluctuations and temperature increase).
Most LED lightbulbs seem to produce poor light output too, in particular red colored things look much darker, even with the "warm" bulbs. CFLs I have used don't normally have that problem, and incandescents never do unless they're low wattage and just don't produce enough light. I like the halogen inside regular bulb things, more light from given wattage but they do seem to have worse lifetime but given the cost I don't really see it being a problem to me.
I get almost no savings in electricity cost by using other bulbs and if I considered in buying LED or CFL and their lifetime I waste lot of money. Most of the electricity bill is made up of the electric oven/stove I use for cooking and computers that run all day long.
ESP has a pretty good article here :
Ban Incandescent Lamps?
Most LED lightbulbs seem to produce poor light output too, in particular red colored things look much darker, even with the "warm" bulbs. CFLs I have used don't normally have that problem, and incandescents never do unless they're low wattage and just don't produce enough light. I like the halogen inside regular bulb things, more light from given wattage but they do seem to have worse lifetime but given the cost I don't really see it being a problem to me.
I get almost no savings in electricity cost by using other bulbs and if I considered in buying LED or CFL and their lifetime I waste lot of money. Most of the electricity bill is made up of the electric oven/stove I use for cooking and computers that run all day long.
ESP has a pretty good article here :
Ban Incandescent Lamps?
I started installing (actually building my own fixtures) 10 years ago, for indirect lighting in our kitchen, dining room and hallways. I've re-lamped and replaced with current LED tape, but still use my original transformers. I don't seem to notice 120Hz flicker, so no capacitors. Replaced many of the 50W halogen flood R30 reflectors with LED, but not in the bedroom, due to the limits on dimming. I did replace the fluorescent lamps in the living room with double-bright LED tape a couple years ago, because the dimmable ballasts were failing, and at $125 each (would have needed 15 of them), it was far less expensive to go for the LEDs, and I get a similar amount of fully dimmable light.
The reason CFLs fail for many people is that the electrodes in them burn away just a bit every time you turn them on. If you leave them on all the time, they last a very long time. Turn them off and on several times a day, you get a short lifetime... LEDs don't care about that, but cheap drivers can fail anytime.
The reason CFLs fail for many people is that the electrodes in them burn away just a bit every time you turn them on. If you leave them on all the time, they last a very long time. Turn them off and on several times a day, you get a short lifetime... LEDs don't care about that, but cheap drivers can fail anytime.
> I still have a couple of incandescents, one in my oven and two in the refrigerator.
Ah, yes.
Our range-hood light has hi/lo switch. Lo is a series diode. I do not want to find out how an LED likes that.
Our microwave oven, self-cleaning oven, and refrigerator are incandescents; as you say, LEDs may not thrive at hundreds of degrees, and the ice-box lamp rarely fails.
And my garage. I wired it some years ago. Neither CFL or LED was attractive simply because of the number of "60W equiv" bulbs needed for *good* light over that area. Electric bill run-up is *not* an issue because we turn-on rarely and usually for just a few minutes. Also cold-start is a real issue here in Maine. So it is several 150W-200W dumb old hot-wire incandescents. I have a several year supply on hand. Maybe by then I can buy larger LEDs.
I do have a LARGE output LED. 100 actual Watts, 10,000 lumen. Made for high-bay use (tall ceiling spaces). Really too bright for me. I may aim it down the driveway.
Ah, yes.
Our range-hood light has hi/lo switch. Lo is a series diode. I do not want to find out how an LED likes that.
Our microwave oven, self-cleaning oven, and refrigerator are incandescents; as you say, LEDs may not thrive at hundreds of degrees, and the ice-box lamp rarely fails.
And my garage. I wired it some years ago. Neither CFL or LED was attractive simply because of the number of "60W equiv" bulbs needed for *good* light over that area. Electric bill run-up is *not* an issue because we turn-on rarely and usually for just a few minutes. Also cold-start is a real issue here in Maine. So it is several 150W-200W dumb old hot-wire incandescents. I have a several year supply on hand. Maybe by then I can buy larger LEDs.
I do have a LARGE output LED. 100 actual Watts, 10,000 lumen. Made for high-bay use (tall ceiling spaces). Really too bright for me. I may aim it down the driveway.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.