(800) 853-2651
SHOP NOW

Nebraska burns too much coal???

T in NE

T in NE

Well-known Member
Location
Cambridge, Nebraska
Here's a few facts you may find interesting.
Due to use of wind, hydroelectric, and nuclear power generation, in 2013, 44% of Nebraska Public Power's generation was carbon-free.
The national average is 30%
The 5-year average for the states surrounding Nebraska is 20%.
 
(quoted from post at 10:15:56 03/05/14) Here's a few facts you may find interesting.
Due to use of wind, hydroelectric, and nuclear power generation, in 2013, 44% of Nebraska Public Power's generation was carbon-free.
The national average is 30%
The 5-year average for the states surrounding Nebraska is 20%.
Click to expand...

The Brownville nucleur plant is nearly capable of supplying all of Nebraska's power needs. All by itself. If every state would build one of those plants, we wouldn't need those pesky wind turbines.
 
Too bad the nuke plant in Fort Calhoun is down, that would change the numbers some, probably not much though. Its good to see they are producing even though I question the efficiency of the program sometimes.
 
Bury them..out of sight, out of mind. Just kidding. If they can add a chemical to Iran's nuclear material and "destroy" it, why can't they do it to fuel rods? Or doesn't that method do anything about the radiation?
 

Nearly ALL foreign contries are 100% nucleur. They have all found a way to get almost all of the goodie out of those rods, to the point that is very little contamination potential in the spent rods.
 
Used fuel is not a problem, it's a resource.
Used PWR fuel burns just fine without re-processing in a PHWR down to approx .1% U235. Bonus being a breeder, the used fuel now contains 1% of valuable plutonium.
New and used fuel operates just fine in a sodium cooled reactor. The technology is there. It's just the lack of political motivation to make investment justified.
 
There's a reactor that uses a different fuel than the ones currently in use as well. It is less dangerous. Both the fuel and the reactor. The reactor is fail-safe. If something goes wrong it defaults to shut-down. With the current reactors they tend to default to melt-down.
I think they use cesium. Don't hold me to that, though.

Germany and Japan are shutting down their reactors due to the fukushima aftermath. Yet they are not taking into account how much it is hurting the people in increased electricity costs. Britain and Australia seem to be getting it at least.

It just seems that some people want us spending so much on the basics that there's nothing left over for anything else.
 
I'm not a rocket scientest, so I may be wrong. Doesn't U238, inside a reactor, change in to Pu239? Pu239 has more punch too. Beside making bombs, can PU239 be used to make electricity or is it too hot to control?
 
I don't have a problem with coal. They don't burn it in the form they used to in 1901. Oddly enough, whenever one sees an anticoal commercial, addvertisement or whatever, they are always treated to black and white video clips or photos from the 1930's, 40's, 50's of smoke stacks belching thick and rich black smoke. Show me such a stack anywhere in this nation in years, decades. She me one...in THIS nation.

As far as I'm concerned, coal is my friendly cheap and reliable source of energy for electrical power. I suppose that I could believe that guy that said I could keep my doctor and the cost of my insurance would go down $2,500, but I'm not finding any reasons to believe him about much of anything, including coal being evil.

Mark
 
The oil and gas companies aren't lining your pockets with acouple million bucks a year to keep you from saying that either
 
(quoted from post at 16:04:27 03/05/14) I'm not a rocket scientist, so I may be wrong. Doesn't U238, inside a reactor, change in to Pu239? Pu239 has more punch too. Beside making bombs, can PU239 be used to make electricity or is it too hot to control?
Click to expand...

Pu239 goes Ka-Boom if allowed to reach critical mass.
Pu238 makes lots of decay heat with relatively little emitted radiation. Good fuel for an Atomic Battery for spacecraft etc.
True, U238 will absorb a neutron and transmute into Pu239.
Any form of natural occurring plutonium in nature is rare.
Weapons grade Pu239 can be mixed with uranium to make MOX fuel which can fuel a PWR, PHWR or a liquid sodium reactor.
Those graphite moderated reactors are an accident looking for a place to happen.
 
Is it also possible that U235 in a breeder reactor packed with U238 can actually make more energy, Pu239, than was in the orignal U235?

So where are all the those graphite moderated reactors that are an accident looking for a place to happen located? USA?
 
(quoted from post at 19:59:06 03/05/14)
So where are all the those graphite moderated reactors that are an accident looking for a place to happen located? USA?
Click to expand...

One of them was located in Chernobyl, it's not working anymore. :shock:
BillL
 
(quoted from post at 12:31:30 03/05/14) Used fuel is not a problem, it's a resource.
Used PWR fuel burns just fine without re-processing in a PHWR down to approx .1% U235. Bonus being a breeder, the used fuel now contains 1% of valuable plutonium.
New and used fuel operates just fine in a sodium cooled reactor. The technology is there. It's just the lack of political motivation to make investment justified.
Click to expand...

At last! B+D and I agree on something. The problem with nuclear isn't the fuel or "waste", it's the politics.
 
(quoted from post at 16:56:09 03/05/14) I don't have a problem with coal. They don't burn it in the form they used to in 1901. Oddly enough, whenever one sees an anticoal commercial, addvertisement or whatever, they are always treated to black and white video clips or photos from the 1930's, 40's, 50's of smoke stacks belching thick and rich black smoke. Show me such a stack anywhere in this nation in years, decades. She me one...in THIS nation.

As far as I'm concerned, coal is my friendly cheap and reliable source of energy for electrical power. I suppose that I could believe that guy that said I could keep my doctor and the cost of my insurance would go down $2,500, but I'm not finding any reasons to believe him about much of anything, including coal being evil.

Mark
Click to expand...

We agree. As with nuclear, the problem with coal isn't the fuel, it's the politics.
 
(quoted from post at 08:18:02 03/06/14) What do/can they use the plutonium for ? bill
Click to expand...


Which plutonium isotope
In particular?
Pu239 is used in devices that go Ka-boom as the primary/atomic explosive. Either by it's self in small atomic bombs or to set off the larger output fusion secondary.
Pu239 can be mixed with pwr or PHWR fuel .
Pu238 is the heat source for most atomic heated thermocouple power supplies on space craft.
 
Truth be told, I don"t have a problem with nuclear either. Actually, if someone wants to invest private money into it, keeping the government out of it and from using MY money against ME and YOU by imbedding the sticky fingers of corrupt politicians fingers into places where they have no business, I truely could be for an "...all of the above..." solution, AND ACTUALLY mean "...all of the above..." when I say it, instead of saying it to friendly cameras all the while trying to kill almost "...all of the above..." behind the scenes like some other guy out there whose name escapes me right now. Just escapes me.

Mark
 
Actually the Chernobyl nuclear plant was still producing electricity for that part of the country for years after the explosion in reactor 4. I think it might be completely shut down now.
 
Hair under $.09 per kw/hr. Round the clock.

If I was irrigating I could get a lower rate for the irrigation equipment if I were to allow the power district to install a remote shut-off for load control.
You pick which days they can shut your irrigation equipment off, and they lower your rate on that meter a certain amount for each day you allow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Hey Walt , Found this furnace in Ohio
Replies
3
Views
1K
John 37A
J
Tractor Parts Tractor Manuals

We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.

Copyright © 1997-2024 Yesterday's Tractor Co.

All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.

Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy

Back
Top