Nuclear myths and truths

Lazy Gardener

Super Self-Sufficient
Joined
May 14, 2017
Messages
4,626
Reaction score
5,877
Points
292
Location
Central Maine, Zone 4B
One thing we could do to cut power consumption: put all appliances that have that "always on" feature on a power strip so they can easily be turned off when not in use. Do a walk through and see how many LED lights shine in your home at night. You'd be surprised. Granted, they may not draw much juice. But... NO electricity use over an 8-16 hour period is better than SOME use over the same period. We don't need those LED's while we're sleeping. And a lot of people are at work during the day, leaving their homes empty for an other 8 - 10 hours.
 

Hinotori

Sustainability Master
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
5,476
Reaction score
11,400
Points
373
Location
On the foot of Mt Rainier
Different types of solar planels work better for different climates.

Even up here where it's cloudy 9 months of the year, solar does fine.

Putting solar on roofs is good. Not like they are being used for anything else.

Solar plants down in the desert have a nasty habit of setting themselves on fire. Has to do with the type of solar. Focusing all that heat on one spot. Acres upon acres of land that is dangerous to wildlife.

Most of our power here is hydroelectric. That has it's own bad side effects on the environment and fish populations.
 

Marianne

Super Self-Sufficient
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
3,269
Reaction score
355
Points
287
Location
rural Abilene, KS, 67410 USA
We went back to incandescent some time ago. The manufacturing pollution generated out of the country from the twisty bulbs is insane.
We didn't know they had a heat pump with propane back up when we bought our unit...if they did at all back then. The first year we used electric heat. Egads, $425 or more a month and we were chilly. Then we understood why everyone in this area primarily heats with wood. We bought a wood burning stove for the next year, then a wood burning furnace a year or two after that. Between the two wood burners we use about 5-1/2 to 6 cords. The last two years we bought all our firewood, still a lot less $$ than conventional heating. When we were cutting a lot of it, it was like heating your house for the price of running a couple of fans. Plus I do some cooking on the wood burner and throw sweet potatoes and regular potatoes in the coals. Yum.
Back when we had dogs, I learned that frying bacon on the wood burner wasn't a good thing to do. They stood guard while grease was splattering. Oops.
 

YourRabbitGirl

Lovin' The Homestead
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Messages
431
Reaction score
177
Points
80
Ok so I started talking nuclear power on a different thread and decided it needed its own. I work at a nuclear power plant and have been in the industry since I served in the U.S. Navy on a nuclear powered submarine. I am more than happy to answer questions, debate or whatever about nuclear power. There are currently 103 licensed power generating nuclear power plants in the United States. Two additional units are under construction in Georgia.

Ask away.
Truth is that we are surrounded by naturally occurring radiation. Just 0.005 per cent of the average US annual radiation exposure comes from nuclear power; 100 times less than we get from coal[1], 200 times less than a cross-country trip, and around the same as 1 banana per year.
 

flowerbug

Super Self-Sufficient
Joined
Oct 24, 2019
Messages
6,299
Reaction score
12,034
Points
297
Location
mid-Michigan, USoA
at the present time with the lowering in costs of wind and solar being dramatic enough it is highly unlikely that nuclear energy will ever be again as cost effective as cleaner alternatives. once there is a recycle system set up for solar panels (already possible, just getting going in many places as enough older panels are finally reaching end of life service times to make it worth) and windmill blades (working on that in progress) there won't really be any good reasons for nuclear at all. considering the foibles of humans i just think the technology is not worth the troubles it introduces. will be a happier world without nuclear weapons too as far as i'm concerned. all that money spent on things that shouldn't ever be used - well also in my opinion that goes for much of the "defense" spending for things that are a mess of wasted materials and opportunities that could be going for healthier people and helping out to fix the damaged planet too.
 

Lazy Gardener

Super Self-Sufficient
Joined
May 14, 2017
Messages
4,626
Reaction score
5,877
Points
292
Location
Central Maine, Zone 4B
As for the comparison of naturally occurring radiation to that from a nuclear plant... I would suggest that those who are in favor of nuclear power, and don't consider it to be a risk.... that... they should invite a nuclear reactor to take up residence in their back yard. so much of the discussion about "safety" of this or that environmental poison is promoted by nimbys.
 

Hinotori

Sustainability Master
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
5,476
Reaction score
11,400
Points
373
Location
On the foot of Mt Rainier
I'm not afraid of nuclear power. Was desensitized to it and other disaster risks as a kid.

I grew up 30 miles down river from a nuclear enriching plant. They released contaminated water many times over the years. Many people got sick from that. Mom remembers cousins getting burns on their bodies when they were at the river one summer. Everyone there that day ended up like that. They never admitted to any of this until the early '90. Government oversite of a government owned and run plant was very lax. Cancer rates in the areas around there are very high.

In grade school we went on tours there. I still have my atomic marble.

The teachers did cover nuclear bomb drills a few times when I was in grade school and middle school. Nuclear meltdown as well plus chemical weapons drills in case there was a leak at the army chemical weapons depot outside town. With a major hydroelectric dam in town and cold war era, mostly it was kiss your butt goodbye as there were 3 major targets too close. They did have a plan to bus kids north if there was a chemical leak. Winds blew west to east almost permanently.

They put up electronical signs on the highways when they built the incinerator at the depot to destroy all the mustard gas and such. Basically they were "Danger! Chemical Contamination! Do Not Enter!"
 

Lazy Gardener

Super Self-Sufficient
Joined
May 14, 2017
Messages
4,626
Reaction score
5,877
Points
292
Location
Central Maine, Zone 4B
Back in the 60's we had drills... where we would practice what to do in case of nuclear or other bombs. We were told to hide under our desks, and would practice that. Yeah... that's gonna keep your skin from being melted off during a nuclear attack! One of my neighbors had thyroid cancer, because he was an unwitting experiment that was done on grade school kids: radiated milk. (at least that's what we were told)
 
Top