Do you think nuclear power is the way to go?

[Dustin2128]

Just wondering what you all thought of the usage of nuclear power. I personally think it's a technology with far too much potential to not develop. Aside from being quite safe compared to coal and other conventional sources (only a handful of incidents in over a half century of operation- compare that to people who die in coal mines or of air pollution every year), it's also reliable and efficient. All the anti-nuclear hysteria has really accomplished is make sure than few of the much safer Generation III and III+ reactors have been allowed to be constructed, while the older ones are still allowed to chug along until you get yourself another Fukishima.

[magmon]

As long as it's done properly, why not have it? It's absolutely silly for people to not want fossil fuels to power a country AND oppose nuclear power. We do need to get it from somewhere.

[Gremlinzzz]

No not after the Japan disaster, it showed that the earth is to unstable.

[magmon]

No not after the Japan disaster, it showed that the earth is to unstable.

That is a very extreme circumstance. Put the reactors in a safer location if need be. There are most certainly locations on the Earth that experience little to no natural disasters.

[Dustin2128]

No not after the Japan disaster, it showed that the earth is to unstable.
Well to be fair, it was a 35-40 year old facility caught in one of the largest earthquakes in recent history. Nuclear power I admit is not the best plan of action in some areas such as those tectonically unstable. But how many earthquakes are you going to have in, say, Kentucky that have enough power to disrupt a nuclear facility? I doubt it would be any less of an environmental disaster if the quake had struck a coal plant.

[PhillyPhil]

It may be less preferable than green tech energy like solar, but it's a far better option than coal, etc, IMHO.

The Japanese plant was more than 40 years old - new nuclear power plants are incredibly safe, and there are designs that can be fed nuclear waste.

[magmon]

Well, that raises another issue. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is green energy not rather hard to gather in significant quantities? The conversion to such techniques would cost a pretty penny as well.

[zer010]

Totally for nuclear energy. New plants would be great, but even upgrading older plants would be okay.

[Dustin2128]

Well, that raises another issue. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is green energy not rather hard to gather in significant quantities? The conversion to such techniques would cost a pretty penny as well.
Solar energy is in fact rather efficient in... obviously... sunny areas like the American southwest, north Africa, etc. and wind is cost efficient in central and northern europe as well as the plains states. What we need is a series of efficient lines to distribute the power to the rest of the world in hours of peak acquisition.

[user1397]

I see it this way:

Fossil fuels = greenhouse gases & other misc. pollution

Nuclear power = clean except for nuclear waste (which doesn't brake down for thousands if not millions of years) & possibility of nuclear disaster

Hydroelectric dams = destruction of environment/flooding where reservoir fills

Wind, solar, geothermal, tidal power, other hydropower (water mills, etc) = pretty much no negative effects (ok some birds die when they run into wind turbines, but that's about the only thing I've heard of)

So we should just concentrate on those last ones which according to many studies could power the entire earth without the need for other fuel sources.

Now, if economics didn't get in the way of things... :(

[KiwiNZ]

For any country or part there of that is on the Pacific ring of fire Nuclear energy should be off the agenda. The same goes for other Earthquake regions.

Also any Tsunami risk areas should be off limits.

[handy]

Due to the catastrophe in Japan, Germany has scrapped their plans for future Nuclear power, & will be Nuclear power station free by 2022.

Read about it here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13592208

Germany is an incredibly industrialised nation. That has financially encouraged solar panel installation by individuals & companies to a larger degree than any other nation, at this time.

If they can do without Nuclear power plants, using renewable energy, then they will become the world leaders in such technology, which will bring them huge financial benefits.

I for one, am very happy to see a world leading nation like Germany, making this commitment & taking this giant step in the right direction that will help to improve the quality of life for the future generations in oh so many ways.

[edit:] @KiwiNZ: you're not wearing your Ubuntu Membership, did they kick you out already?

[wmcbrine]

The principal "problem" with green energy is that there's no natural monopoly in it for the energy companies. You can put a solar panel on your roof, or a windmill in your yard, and meet most of your own electrical needs, or even exceed them -- selling the excess back to the energy companies. People do this now; it's not fantasy. There's a significant up-front investment involved, but it's not out of proportion with other investments people make routinely, like the purchase of a new car.

When you hear about the vast acreages required for solar and wind farms, that's solely an issue because people are trying to shoehorn those technologies into the old centralized electrical production model. But not only is that not necessary, it makes much less sense than using distributed production, and taking advantage of all the spaces -- primarily, rooftops -- that are already going to waste.

[handy]

The principal "problem" with green energy is that there's no natural monopoly in it for the energy companies. You can put a solar panel on your roof, or a windmill in your yard, and meet most of your own electrical needs, or even exceed them -- selling the excess back to the energy companies. People do this now; it's not fantasy. There's a significant up-front investment involved, but it's not out of proportion with other investments people make routinely, like the purchase of a new car.

I'm doing it now. They pay me for electricity! :D



When you hear about the vast acreages required for solar and wind farms, that's solely an issue because people are trying to shoehorn those technologies into the old centralized electrical production model. But not only is that not necessary, it makes much less sense than using distributed production, and taking advantage of all the spaces -- primarily, rooftops -- that are already going to waste.

Energy production is becoming & will certainly continue to become more & more diversified & localised as time roles on.

[KiwiNZ]

Due to the catastrophe in Japan, Germany has scrapped their plans for future Nuclear power, & will be Nuclear power station free by 2022.

Read about it here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13592208

Germany is an incredibly industrialised nation. That has financially encouraged solar panel installation by individuals & companies to a larger degree than any other nation, at this time.

If they can do without Nuclear power plants, using renewable energy, then they will become the world leaders in such technology, which will bring them huge financial benefits.

I for one, am very happy to see a world leading nation like Germany, making this commitment & taking this giant step in the right direction that will help to improve the quality of life for the future generations in oh so many ways.

[edit:] @KiwiNZ: you're not wearing your Ubuntu Membership, did they kick you out already?

Off topic Mode

Staff elected not to have the Membership rank at this point. We felt it looked messy with the staff rank. So we will show only our Forum Staff rank.

[magmon]

The principal "problem" with green energy is that there's no natural monopoly in it for the energy companies. You can put a solar panel on your roof, or a windmill in your yard, and meet most of your own electrical needs, or even exceed them -- selling the excess back to the energy companies. People do this now; it's not fantasy. There's a significant up-front investment involved, but it's not out of proportion with other investments people make routinely, like the purchase of a new car.

When you hear about the vast acreages required for solar and wind farms, that's solely an issue because people are trying to shoehorn those technologies into the old centralized electrical production model. But not only is that not necessary, it makes much less sense than using distributed production, and taking advantage of all the spaces -- primarily, rooftops -- that are already going to waste.

Well, I'm sold. How would the economy catch up with the loss of jobs though?

[Dustin2128]

For any country or part there of that is on the Pacific ring of fire Nuclear energy should be off the agenda. The same goes for other Earthquake regions.

Also any Tsunami risk areas should be off limits.
I agree with that, seems like geothermal would be a better option there.

@ubuntuman001
Some of the newer experimental Gen IV reactors can basically be powered on nuclear waste, and can use uranium fuel until it's depleted into lead. I think reactors that use deuterium (heavy water) instead of normal water can as well but I'm not entirely sure.

[handy]

Well, I'm sold. How would the economy catch up with the loss of jobs though?

There is no projected loss of jobs. By developing & producing green energy technologies, there is actually an increase in jobs.

Have a search on the topic & you will see.

[Dustin2128]

Would a mod mind adding the option "as long as it's in a geographically safe area" or something?

[magmon]

There is no projected loss of jobs. By developing & producing green energy technologies, there is actually an increase in jobs.

Have a search on the topic & you will see.

Hmmm... There really seems to be no downside here...

[KiwiNZ]

Here in New Zealand we are building Wind farms. We are also Nuclear free by Law. That is for Nuclear generation, Nuclear propulsion and Nuclear Arms. No Nuclear powered or Armed Vessel etc is permitted to enter our ports or territorial waters.

[KiwiNZ]

Would a mod mind adding the option "as long as it's in a geographically safe area" or something?

Done

[Dustin2128]

Done
Thank you.

[yetiman64]

Although I voted "for it completely" I would love to see the development of nuclear fusion technology rather than the now common nuclear fission plants.

I also agree wholeheartedly with:


For any country or part there of that is on the Pacific ring of fire Nuclear energy should be off the agenda. The same goes for other Earthquake regions.

Also any Tsunami risk areas should be off limits.

+1 for geothermal in such areas.

It is rather ironic to me that Australia is located in the middle of a tectonic plate, has very little problems with earthquakes or tsunamis, has abundant supplies of raw nuclear materials yet does not use nuclear power. Too much coal as well unfortunately ;). Coal may be cheaper to use for power initially, but in the long run the pollution (including greenhouse effects) certainly isn't imo.

Darn, I like the last option now, I voted too quick :lol:

[Ctrl-Alt-F1]

For it.

[vehemoth]

Here in New Zealand we are building Wind farms. We are also Nuclear free by Law. That is for Nuclear generation, Nuclear propulsion and Nuclear Arms. No Nuclear powered or Armed Vessel etc is permitted to enter our ports or territorial waters.

Not quite as nuclear free as can be hoped, but we do have geothermal, wind and hydro-dam power stations (as well as coal and the such).

Nuclear energy is not renewable so it's all great building nuclear power stations but what happens when it suddenly starts running out like oil.

Links:
Yellow cake uranium NZ http://news.msn.co.nz/haveyoursay/1075418/should-yellowcake-uranium-be-allowed-in-new-zealand-ports
Nuclear renewable http://www.ehow.com/about_4579290_nuclear-energy-renewable-nonrenewable.html

[KiwiNZ]

Although I voted "for it completely" I would love to see the development of nuclear fusion technology rather than the now common nuclear fission plants.

I also agree wholeheartedly with:



+1 for geothermal in such areas.

It is rather ironic to me that Australia is located in the middle of a tectonic plate, has very little problems with earthquakes or tsunamis, has abundant supplies of raw nuclear materials yet does not use nuclear power. Too much coal as well unfortunately ;). Coal may be cheaper to use for power initially, but in the long run the pollution (including greenhouse effects) certainly isn't imo.

Darn, I like the last option now, I voted too quick :lol:

New Zealand is on the subduction Zone for the Pacific plate. Australia is away from it therefore only gets the occasional small earthquake.

[mmsmc]

we must utilize all efficient and safe aspects that earth has to offer

[8_Bit]

No. The human species has shown an enormous propensity to make errors, often fatal ones.
Nuclear power is something that (IMO) you would have to be insane to place in the hands of humanity (much less in the hands of the psychopaths that we elect to office)

Our species simply does not have the track record to show that we can be trusted with such possibly-catastrophic power.

It is just truly disgusting, and shows how much we fail as a species, when we are still arguiing whether to go with nuclear or coal, despite the existence of much, much cleaner (and less finite) resources than nuclear energy. Free energy is constantly raining down every day from the sky and we are STILL arguing like monkeys over this!

[el_koraco]

Solar energy is in fact rather efficient in... obviously... sunny areas like the American southwest, north Africa, etc. and wind is cost efficient in central and northern europe as well as the plains states. What we need is a series of efficient lines to distribute the power to the rest of the world in hours of peak acquisition.

You're partially right about wind power, which has seen a lot of development, coming to the point where it can almost rival fossil fuels on the cost-productivity scale. Although this has only been achieved with significant government involvement in the wind power producing countries like Norway.

Solar power is not cost efficient in any case scenario, and is only able to sustain itself with heavy subsidies. Nuclear power, on the other hand, is both theoretically and practically self sustaining, although one will probably have to wait for the gen 4 reactors to come online for it to really shine. Not a whole lot of sense starting massive-scale nuclear projects at this time, because with a 10 year grace period to get a gen 3 reactor up and running, countries will soon find themselves maintaining depreciated technology. Kinda like running Gnome 2 in 2014.

[Spice Weasel]

If


New designs are used for plants. Plants that use the old cold war era designs should be shut down.
The waste of is disposed of properly.
If it is in a geographically safe area.


Nuclear power is not a permanent solution. It's much better than coal or gas, but I would like to see us move on to wind/solar once the technology improves.

[Bandit]

It should be removed completely.

We dont NEED nuclear power, we already have a hybrid fusion/fission reactor over two hundred times the size of Earth sitting right in the middle of our solar system. It bombards the earth more energy each second then we can use in a year. All we need to do is make more efficient solar energy cells.

Then between Wind, Hydroelectric and even Hydrothermal in some spots. We dont need Nuclear Power.
- NP is costly to build and maintain after the plant is shut down.
- Dangerous, there is no such thing as "safe" nuclear power.
- NUCLEAR WASTE / RADIATION <-- need I say more here..


If the average home purchased just "TWO" $800 USD 4x6 Solar Panels, then we would just about cut our energy demands in half here in the US alone. You say you cant afford $1600 bucks for two of them.. Federal Guild lines for new Green initiative will reimburse a home back $1500 on their taxes to cover the cost, so if you buy then for christmas, you can get your money back a month or two later when you do your taxes. If you purchased more then 2, you can get reimbursed for the remainder the following year and so on. Same is also true about ANY green energy platform.

BTW if you still say $800 is to much, most all new homes are required to have a built in Septic Sewage Tank placed in your yard and that can easily run $1200 BUCKS.. All new homes should be mandated to have 2 solar cells installed when new homes are built and then the cost can be thrown in with the rest of the house contracting cost.

[Paqman]

Nuclear is a valid option for forming part of the energy mix. It's good for base load, and low-carbon.

The issue of high-level waste is a huge sticking point though. At present there's no way of dealing with it, anywhere. At all. We need to sort that one out if we want to keep burning uranium. Even fusion plants will generate some nuclear waste, too, so it's a problem we're stuck with for the conceivable future.

[Paqman]

It should be removed completely.

We dont NEED nuclear power, we already have a hybrid fusion/fission reactor over two hundred times the size of Earth sitting right in the middle of our solar system. It bombards the earth more energy each second then we can use in a year. All we need to do is make more efficient solar energy cells.


PV and solar thermal should also be part of the energy mix, but they have the major drawback of being unsuited for based load, subject to weather conditions, output is very much dependent on latitude, and that peak production comes at times of low demand (except perhaps in parts of the world with high use of domestic HVAC). They also do nothing to satisfy demand for non-electric energy, such as transport fuels.

I'm not anti-PV at all btw, I've got a surveyor coming next week to see about an array for my house, but they are only a very small part of the solution.

[pommie]

Wind and Solar based supplies are no good what so ever for a base load application, don't get me wrong I am all for it and every bit helps, but how would you like it if you couldn't work for a week (so no pay) due to clouds/ no winds, how about afternoon and night shifts ??
There needs to be a reliable base load generation, geo-thermal, very locality specific, and I would like to see a serious study done on the long term effects of cooling the Earths mantle, probably to negligible to worry about, but I would like to know before large scale development.
Even hydro is finicky, we have just gone through a 15 year drought where the output of the hydro had to be cut back.

My thoughts, the varying governments of the world, in sunny area's, need to provide at low cost, pv panels and solar hot water units to all households and factories (those large roofs ;) , there are a lot more green ideas that can, and should, be implemented, but, and its a big but, there still needs to be something there that can generate a base load when the green methods fail, and they will.

And the cleanest/safest base load generation at the moment is nuclear.

Note, I did not say clean or safe just cleanest and safest.

Cheers David

[santaslittlehelper]

A energy resource that produces waste that needs to be stored for thousands upon thousands of years (most likely in a hole in the ground) to reach safe radioactive levels is a poor gift for future generations. Adding to that I doubt it is even all that cost-efficient if you have to deal with the nuclear fuel in a somewhat responsible way if at all possible. What we need is politicians that are not afraid to push hard and invest in alternative green technologies.

[Primefalcon]

the benefits of nuclear far outweigh the risks.

Solar and wind are just a dream atm, but hey.... as the ceo of bmw said, want to buy a bridge?

the benefits of nuclear far outweigh the costs.....

[handy]

A energy resource that produces waste that needs to be stored for thousands upon thousands of years (most likely in a hole in the ground) to reach safe radioactive levels is a poor gift for future generations. ...

Actually, a great deal of the stuff has been dumped in our oceans:

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/centers/ilr/ona/pages/dumping2.htm

[Paqman]

Actually, a great deal of the stuff has been dumped in our oceans:

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/centers/ilr/ona/pages/dumping2.htm

That was a bit naughty though, and you're not allowed to do it any more.

[fontis]

Using Nuclear power to protect us from greenhouse gases is like smoking cigarettes to reduce weight - yes, you do clench your appetite, but you will end up with cancer and die.

There are many "oh no"'s with nuclear power. First of all, the materials needed for the fuel rods are limited (just like other fossil fuels) and the materials once used become extremely radioactive and dangerous and require storage for thousands of years before they become LESS "insta-kill" able.

The risks involved in transporting the wasted fuel rods, the maintenance of the holding facilities, and the potential risk of leakage into the ground soil or pollution makes this insane.
The truth is, we don't even know the real side effects of nuclear power because we have not used it, or stored the waste, for long enough time to measure any real studies on environmental effects from just the storage of the wasted rods.


So no.
It's 2011 already, learn how to use renewable energy sources already, or are we with all the technology gained, just dumbshit's compared to the genius' of the past? :)

[handy]

That was a bit naughty though, and you're not allowed to do it any more.

They just load up a ship with what they don't want anymore & sink it in a very deep part of the ocean. By accident of course...

[tapi0n]

I think you're missing a poll option. "I'm for it, but if they find something better go with that"

I'm totally green power. Thing is, all these "go green, save the earth"- hippies (no all of them ;) ) just don't realise that on a large scale it's not possible to implement yet.

Out here there's not enough sunlight to fully use solar power. Wind energy sounds good, but have you ever been near one? Makes a whole lot of noise and screws up te scenery imo.

That's why I say gogo nuclear power, just untill we perfected other resources.

Think I'm just gonna live near a river and make a water mill.

[3Miro]

Current Uranium power plants should be used only until we get the hang of Nuclear Fusion. That would be the safest and cleanest technology (and it is doable, not some sci-fi stuff).

[Paqman]

Current Uranium power plants should be used only until we get the hang of Nuclear Fusion. That would be the safest and cleanest technology (and it is doable, not some sci-fi stuff).

Fusion would be awesome, but there are big question marks hanging over the safety of it. A containment failure would still be pretty nasty nuclear accident. There's also issues of scarcity of some of the materials they might need, such as lithium (they'll be competing against the battery industry for an already scarce resource). On top of that, fusion reactors would still generate some low-level nuclear waste due to the high neutron flux in the reactor.

I really hope they can make it work, but there's a lot of practical problems even once they get the physics working.

[KingYaba]

We need thorium reactors.

[3Miro]

Fusion would be awesome, but there are big question marks hanging over the safety of it. A containment failure would still be pretty nasty nuclear accident. There's also issues of scarcity of some of the materials they might need, such as lithium (they'll be competing against the battery industry for an already scarce resource). On top of that, fusion reactors would still generate some low-level nuclear waste due to the high neutron flux in the reactor.

I really hope they can make it work, but there's a lot of practical problems even once they get the physics working.

With Fusion you can make a large explosion, but it will not leak tons of radioactive waste into the oceans or rivers. The worst case of Fusion plant pollution is better than the best case of Fission or Fossil.

I don't think anyone has gotten commercial Fusion to work. Even if we need lithium to for the first generation power plants, we may be OK later on. Lithium is not required for the reaction, you only need heavy water.

[giddyup306]

I'm all for it. Much greener than other alternatives like coal plants. But people have to be able to pronounce it properly...

The key is new plants. People look at things like Chernobyl. Well, that plant was out dated for a long time.

[Paqman]

We need thorium reactors.

You can't have thorium reactors without uranium ones. They need plutonium to sustain the reaction (in fact they consume it). So you'd still need to be producing plutonium, and you'd have all the expense and complexity of two parallel fuel systems.

The main attraction of thorium reactors would be getting rid of surplus plutonium. You can't use them to supplant all the uranium reactors.

[Paqman]

With Fusion you can make a large explosion, but it will not leak tons of radioactive waste into the oceans or rivers. The worst case of Fusion plant pollution is better than the best case of Fission or Fossil.


If a tokamak breached it's containment and vented the plasma you'd spew a lot of nasty radioactive tritium, which would not be fun. I don't know much about inertial containment fusion, so I couldn't say what the risks are there.

A serious accident at a fusion plant would be considerably worse than one at a fossil fuel plant, although perhaps not as bad as a fission one. Any instability in a fusion reaction is more likely to shut the reaction down pretty quickly AFAIK.



I don't think anyone has gotten commercial Fusion to work.


Nope, nobody's even built a plant generating electricity at all, let alone on a commercial scale. There's a roadmap for that, but it's decades long.



Even if we need lithium to for the first generation power plants, we may be OK later on. Lithium is not required for the reaction, you only need heavy water.

Tokamaks using the D-T fuel cycle would need lithium to start, after that they breed their own fuel. Bear in mind you would have to shut them down occasionally. The ratio of the lithium required for large-scale fusion use to the available reserves is slightly worrying.

[malspa]

Against it, completely.

Part of me wants to say, "As long as the plants and waste are nowhere near where I live!" -- in someone else's back yard, so to speak.

But I think it's too dangerous, and there's too much potential for error (people do make mistakes). Leaves nasty stuff for future generations to deal with.

[3Miro]

If a tokamak breached it's containment and vented the plasma you'd spew a lot of nasty radioactive tritium, which would not be fun. I don't know much about inertial containment fusion, so I couldn't say what the risks are there.


A Tokamak only contains a small amount of fuel at a time. Even if it leaks out, the damage would be highly localized. Compare that to the tons of pollution a fossil plant produces every day.

The nasty stuff in the Tokamak is used to increase the reaction, it is not technically required. If we improve the technology, we may not even need anything other than heavy water. We are not there yet, but Fusion is currently the technology with the greatest potential.

[Quackers]

I think it's too big a risk to take for something that is essentially a kettle!
What do we do with the waste? Not to mention
Three Mile Island
Windscale
Chernobyl
Japan
we had lucky escapes at 3 of those.
It's ok to say that the rarity of these accidents shows that it's quite a safe process, but the possible severity of a serious accident is absolutely mind-boggling!
An exploding water-table should a meltdown happen, would be no picnic!
The possible consequences for years after are just not worth it imho.
Pripyat will be dead for how many years? A thousand?
And all for what? A potentially dangerous kettle that boils water to super-heated steam so that it turns a turbine to produce electricity. The waste products of which have to be stored safely !!!!! for thousands of years!

Not for me, thank you.

[imortalninja161]

I have been reading all the post took a while :p....

I think green is the way to go now i am no tree hugger but its clean and our kids kinds are gunna thank us. apposed to them growing extra hands and melting in the sun ect..
as one could tell i am not very well educated in the matter at hand but i know enought to know that solar,wind and water energy would not be such an expensive project now if they implemented it along time ago because wind and water power have been around for centuries any one ever heard of a wind mill lol. <snip>

[sea_dawg]

Nuclear power should go. It is neither green or safe.

Considering only CO2 emissions during power production is finding the right answer to the wrong question. Instead think about the total pollution footprint from start to finish of the nuke plant. Think about the incredible environmental mess from uranium mining, both the mines themselves and the toxic chemicals used in refining uranium ore. Finally think about the final disposition of the plant and spent fuel. The key fact is the half life of uranium 235, a common civilian nuke plant fuel. 704 million years. Nope, that isn't a typo. 704 million years. We have to store the spent fuel and contain the used power plants until they are safe.

We get what, maybe 50 yrs tops of energy production from a nuke, yet we make a mess that takes millions of years to clean up? How is that clean?

The question of safety isn't even a case of finding the right answer to the wrong question. It is simply wrong. There is no safe way to handle radioactive waste or contamination in the long term. Can you honestly say there is any geographical region on the earth that will not suffer a severe natural disaster on that time scale? <snip>

Yes solar and wind at present do not make a good base power production system. That is fundamentally a problem of storage, not production. It is a solvable problem. For an interesting take on the concept go to your library and look up the January 2008 issue of Scientific American. The article is copy righted material or I would post it here.

There are so many interesting technical concepts out there. We don't need nuclear power. One clever example is capturing the heat in asphalt. Many of our cities are over heating due to replacing vegetation with pavement causing urban dwellers to use more AC, dumping the “waste” heat back out into the local urban climate. As areas are re-paved pipes could be buried in the asphalt to capture the heat which then could be used for any number of things and at the same time reducing urban overheating. There are so many more creative ideas to capture “free” energy.

When anyone tells you nuclear power is clean and safe ask yourself who they represent. What do they stand to gain by the selling and production of nuclear power?

[Paqman]

We get what, maybe 50 yrs tops of energy production from a nuke, yet we make a mess that takes millions of years to clean up? How is that clean?

High level wastes are a problem, definitely. But U-235 isn't the main culprit. It's stuff like plutonium, which has a half-life of several thousand years. The timescales you're looking at for storage of high-level waste is in the thousands of years, not millions. That's still an issue, of course.
<snip>


Yes solar and wind at present do not make a good base power production system. That is fundamentally a problem of storage, not production. It is a solvable problem.

The thing about base load is that it's a constant demand. To try and satisfy it by storing an intermittent supply would require phenomenal amounts of both generation and storage. Considering the only storage option we have right now is pumped storage, it can't be done.

Future smart grids will have to have a lot more storage, at a highly distributed level, but that's a fair way off. You're always going to want and need power plants that can run all day every day for your base load. That doesn't have to be nuclear, plenty of countries use no nuclear, and we managed to supply base load before we had nuclear. But it isn't going to wind or solar either.



When anyone tells you nuclear power is clean and safe ask yourself who they represent. What do they stand to gain by the selling and production of nuclear power?

That's a little paranoid. There is a nuclear lobby of course, but that doesn't mean anybody who isn't stridently opposed to it is part of some kind of conspiracy. Nuclear power is undeniably low carbon (which is a kind of clean) and taken from a formal risk point of view is extremely safe, so you can make a pretty rational case for both IMO. There's plenty of legitimate criticisms of nuclear power, but it does have good points too.

[PC_load_letter]

I think nuclear power is pretty safe, or at least much safer than it used to.
The problem, according to a documentary I saw recently, is that it's not a silver bullet to the energy crisis. It was mentioned that if ALL the energy that we consume today is to be generated from nuclear power, then the world's reserves of nuclear fuel will be depleted in 10 years. Point is, nuclear energy is not renewable.

[3Miro]

It was mentioned that if ALL the energy that we consume today is to be generated from nuclear power, then the world's reserves of nuclear fuel will be depleted in 10 years. Point is, nuclear energy is not renewable.

10 years is short (not sure if it is true).

I don't like the whole "renewable" nonsense. Nothing is renewable, all the energy on this planet comes from the Sun (one way or another) and the Sun is a giant nuclear reactor with finite amount of fuel. We don't need "renewable" energy, we need something powerful enough to get us into space so we can get all the resources and energy there.

[Paqman]

It was mentioned that if ALL the energy that we consume today is to be generated from nuclear power, then the world's reserves of nuclear fuel will be depleted in 10 years. Point is, nuclear energy is not renewable.

Trying to use nuclear to meet all our electricity demand wouldn't really be practical for a lot of reasons, I don't think anyone is suggesting that.

For now, there's no shortage of fuel, so everybody is still just ignoring the problems of finite supply. Just like they were about oil for most of the 20th century.


all the energy on this planet comes from the Sun (one way or another)

Except for nuclear and geothermal, sure. The heavy elements you need for both were originally formed in stars, but not actually in our Sun.



we need something powerful enough to get us into space so we can get all the resources and energy there.

We'll need something like a space elevator to bring the cost per kilo down before orbital power plants will ever be able to compete with ground-based ones.

[3Miro]

Except for nuclear and geothermal, sure. The heavy elements you need for both were originally formed in stars, but not actually in our Sun.


You are right of course, but either way, it is not renewable. The Uranium that we have now was formed in a distant star, but you will not see any significant amount of Uranium coming form anywhere any time soon (and if it does, it will not be a good thing).



We'll need something like a space elevator to bring the cost per kilo down before orbital power plants will ever be able to compete with ground-based ones.

Space elevator isn't impossible, we just can't do it yet. We basically need only enough energy to get us there.

[Bandit]

PV and solar thermal should also be part of the energy mix, but they have the major drawback of being unsuited for based load, subject to weather conditions, output is very much dependent on latitude, and that peak production comes at times of low demand (except perhaps in parts of the world with high use of domestic HVAC). They also do nothing to satisfy demand for non-electric energy, such as transport fuels.

I'm not anti-PV at all btw, I've got a surveyor coming next week to see about an array for my house, but they are only a very small part of the solution.

I agree its not the total answer, I will admit with the exception of coal, fossil fuels still will need to be used. Natural Gas comes to mind. But Studies have already been done that prove that 1 personal wind mill and 2 4x6 solar cells actually produce more electricity per day then the average home can use. Now the cells only get about 10months a year of "good" sunlight for optimum use. And Wind isnt even a good option where I live in Mississippi. Now off shore windmills really really push out some energy. Many countries are going this route in a major way.
I am glad to see you are getting some solar panels. From what I have read up on Samsung seems to make the most efficient and are of good quality.




Wind and Solar based supplies are no good what so ever for a base load application, don't get me wrong I am all for it and every bit helps, but how would you like it if you couldn't work for a week (so no pay) due to clouds/ no winds, how about afternoon and night shifts ??
There needs to be a reliable base load generation, geo-thermal, very locality specific, and I would like to see a serious study done on the long term effects of cooling the Earths mantle, probably to negligible to worry about, but I would like to know before large scale development.
Even hydro is finicky, we have just gone through a 15 year drought where the output of the hydro had to be cut back.

My thoughts, the varying governments of the world, in sunny area's, need to provide at low cost, pv panels and solar hot water units to all households and factories (those large roofs ;) , there are a lot more green ideas that can, and should, be implemented, but, and its a big but, there still needs to be something there that can generate a base load when the green methods fail, and they will.

And the cleanest/safest base load generation at the moment is nuclear.

Note, I did not say clean or safe just cleanest and safest.

Cheers David

There does need to be better load centers to regulate the power when going to Green energy. Like was mentioned, wind isnt a constant, sun inst a constant, hydro isnt a constant. But when used together as much as possible, then it helps. We currently have 125 nuclear power plants here in the US. Even if we had to keep Nuclear around. Wouldnt you like to see half of those gone. Lord knows I have 2 nuke power plants just 100 miles south of me.. Sitting on the New Madrid fault line..

IMHO Nuclear is far from the safest nor cleanest like you did say. Most of the reports that they are have been falsified by IAEA. The big thing is there is no "safeplace" yet to put the waste. Unless we find a way to shoot the mess off into space or onto a baren planet, we dont need the mess here on earth. For one reason we have way to much salt in out ground. What doesnt get illeagly dumped into the ocean is getting put into retired SALT MINES in NV and other states. I will spell this out: "They are placing METAL DRUMS in SALT mines...".



Actually, a great deal of the stuff has been dumped in our oceans:

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/centers/ilr/ona/pages/dumping2.htm
This...

[VCoolio]

Nuclear power has two disadvantages, both of which are on their own a good enough reason not to want it:
1. You can't guarantee safety, especially in the crowded coastline areas where the energy is needed the most. Think of Japan, but also California would be a bad place. As for the Netherlands, there are plans for a second nuclear power plant in the area where in 1953 there was the last great water strike. Add rising sea levels and I'm not a fan.
2. There is the waste issue. You have to think of next generations too. The earth surface isn't stable enough to guarantee safe storage (or even transportation), let alone political constellations.

When considering all this, we may want to check not only the supply side, but also and especially the demand side. Decrease energy usage and you decrease the need to to anything possible to get the power.

[bouncingwilf]

All power on earth is ultimately derived from current or past nuclear reactions - ignoring the future potential is very shortsighted. For those that believe that it is a dangerous option, I think they should look at the statistics for deaths and injuries caused as a direct consequence of other forms of power generation ( coal mining and road transport of fuels come to immediate mind).

Bouncingwilf

[JustinR]

Nuclear Fusion:
http://www.agci.org/dB/PDFs/03S2_MMauel_SafeFusion%3F.pdf

Section III/B

The most obvious advantage of fusion is the virtual inexhaustibility of the fuels which are cheap and widely accessible. Table VI
summarises the presently estimated reserves.
Deuterium, a non-radioactive isotope of hydrogen is extremely plentiful as it can be obtained from ordinary water (about 33 g from 1
ton) with cheap extraction techniques using conventional technology


Another source for Nuclear Fusion would be Lithium, which is abundant, but is only found in tiny concentrations.

[Fedz]

Voted: as long as it's in a geographically safe area.

Areas that are considered unsafe electricity can be 'imported' from safer countries & or control their own supply from safer countries.

In fact maybe use a remote island to locate nuclear power plants & maybe call it Nuclear Island :D

[goldshirt9]

as i work for a turbine maker , i definitely oppose nuclear energy :D

[8_Bit]

<snip>
Now, sure, there are places that don't get enough sunlight, where nuclear might not be viable. But in California, we get sunlight year-round. Somehow we still manage to get these nuclear plants built, directly on fault lines no less. It's easy for you to say "I'm all for nuclear" but if you've lived on a fault line your whole life you wise up to the propaganda the energy companies are using.

[Pogeymanz]

Due to the catastrophe in Japan, Germany has scrapped their plans for future Nuclear power, & will be Nuclear power station free by 2022.

Read about it here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13592208

Germany is an incredibly industrialised nation. That has financially encouraged solar panel installation by individuals & companies to a larger degree than any other nation, at this time.

If they can do without Nuclear power plants, using renewable energy, then they will become the world leaders in such technology, which will bring them huge financial benefits.

I for one, am very happy to see a world leading nation like Germany, making this commitment & taking this giant step in the right direction that will help to improve the quality of life for the future generations in oh so many ways.

[edit:] @KiwiNZ: you're not wearing your Ubuntu Membership, did they kick you out already?

I haven't read the whole thread, so I don't know if someone mentioned it already, but Germany is going to import much energy from (I think) France and England as part of that plan. Guess what technology those countries have feeding their grid? Nuclear.

[Ric_NYC]

I'm against it.

We cannot leave radioative material for the future generations.

I don't think we have that right.

[Ric_NYC]

BTW: burning things (coal, oil, etc) to generate energy sounds like something a caveman would do.

We need to find a new source or energy.

[Paqman]

I haven't read the whole thread, so I don't know if someone mentioned it already, but Germany is going to import much energy from (I think) France and England as part of that plan. Guess what technology those countries have feeding their grid? Nuclear.

Indeed, although it'll mostly be French nuclear power. The UK imports French nuclear juice too, even though it has some nuclear capacity. The French just have a lot more.

You can't use renewables to replace nuclear. Anyone that says otherwise is talking from the cleft in their buttocks. The Germans will most likely end up building new natural gas plants to replace their nuclear ones, or possibly coal with carbon capture.

[Frogs Hair]

Though spent reactor fuel can be stored in relatively safe areas , it is often shipped by train trough heavily populated areas . In the long term there is no place on earth that is geographically safe.

[aaaantoine]

Speaking as someone who lives just a few short miles away from a nuclear plant, I have no objections to nuclear power facilities.

[drawkcab]

We should focus on moving to solar/wind and other clean renewables, developing "smart" grids and increasing the energy efficiency of all products.

[PC_load_letter]

10 years is short (not sure if it is true).

I don't like the whole "renewable" nonsense. Nothing is renewable, all the energy on this planet comes from the Sun (one way or another) and the Sun is a giant nuclear reactor with finite amount of fuel. We don't need "renewable" energy, we need something powerful enough to get us into space so we can get all the resources and energy there.

I don't think it's wrong, because ALL includes also the energy consumed by cars, trucks, trains, machines in factories ...etc. assuming they can all run on electricity. I think the point was that it's a finite supply, as Paqman said, much like oil.

[Pogeymanz]

I'm against it.

We cannot leave radioative material for the future generations.

I don't think we have that right.

The thing about that is that we are already spewing nuclear waste into the environment from coal plants (source: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste&page=2).

The good thing about the nuclear waste is that we can keep track of it. All the ashy crap from coal is impossible for us to control.

Other things to consider: Wind and Solar are incredibly inefficient ways to get energy when we consider the amount of land required to use them. Nuclear takes up the smallest land footprint of any power source available. (Source: http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20006361-54.html)

One more point for nuclear is when looking at how dangerous nuclear power has been. (Did I say point FOR nuclear power? Yep.) Let's look at the current deaths per energy generated graph. http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html

*This graph does not include all three deaths from Fukushima.

The fact of the matter is, there is a TON of energy inside the nucleus of an atom. Even with the nuclear accidents we've had (which are impossible to have happen in a newer plant), the damage is far less than from fossil fuels. The fact is that even solar energy has a higher death-to-energy ratio than nuclear because solar basically sucks at making energy and people have fallen off roofs and died while installing them.

Does anyone know how many people died because of Three Mile Island? Too late: the answer is zero. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/tmi/stories/study090190.htm

[Antarctica32]

here is the truth: nuclear power is safe (in America)
How many people have died of any nuclear accident of any kind anywhere in the US?
The answer is 1. Yes 1 person, the reactor operator during the 3 mile island incident. In the US there MUST be a 10-12 foot thick concrete and steel wall surrounding the plant. This is why there are never any problems in america. In japan, the Ukraine,... they don't have that circular wall. In america we don't even realize it, but that huge tube thing is that wall. Every time anything wrong happens in the US the reactor operator or RO turns a wheel that closes the wall up. there are also computer run systems that shut the door anyway in case the RO can't do it. And the RO is there is case the computers can't do it. Also in America we have the necessary regulatory systems to make sure that plants are failsafe. plants in america can not fail. They save money and we will never run out of fuel. They protect the environment, for all you tree hugers out there. Nuclear waste is just like a piece of the sun:radioactive obviously. I propose that we develop a program to 'shoot' atomic nuclear waste into the sun. Instead of leaving it here on Earth, where somebody could screw up, by having it leave the earth it fundamentally gets rid of the problem. It would be like adding a millionth of a millionth of a billionth of a billionth of a fraction of the sun to the sun. nothing would happen. If anybody disagrees with me please point out any flaws in my argument.

[renkinjutsu]

I'm against it.

They require much higher maintenance
They're vulnerable to attacks
They're considered "clean energy" in terms of CO2 emission, but leaves radioactive waste that needs to be stored

[Paqman]

How many people have died of any nuclear accident of any kind anywhere in the US?
The answer is 1. Yes 1 person, the reactor operator during the 3 mile island incident.

Er, there's been at least three others I know of, but they were not at civilian plant generating electricity. The US military had a small experimental reactor blow its top and kill the three man crew operating it. That was a pretty dangerous design though, not really comparable to what you get in a power station.



In japan, the Ukraine,... they don't have that circular wall.

They certainly do in Japan. The plant at Fukushima was an American design. You're right about the old Soviet-era reactors being dodgy as hell though.

[Antarctica32]

Does anyone know how many people died because of Three Mile Island? Too late: the answer is zero. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/tmi/stories/study090190.htm

agreed. a lot of people don't count the operator, but yes no civilians were even harmed. another thing about 3 mile; it wasn't really a nuclear problem per say. What happened was there was an unexpected build up of hydrogen in the chamber. if the hydrogen was to ignite it would blow the place to hell, spewing radioactive crap everywhere. luckily (well not so much luck, as smarts) the huge wall was shut before it exploded (which it did) The RO was exposed to radiation at levels to make a Geiger counter go crazy, he died the next day of leukemia. 3 mile is not the same thing as what happened in japan, which was a nuclear meltdown. In america there has never been anything close to a meltdown because our policies are to strict. If one was to occur due to a natural disaster like an earth quake, the wall would capture everything and hold it untill we the cooling systems would kick in (something the US has that japan didn't, thats why they were using fire hose water to cool it down).

[forrestcupp]

Why would anyone vote 'For it, completely' instead of 'as long as it's in a geographically safe area'?

Are you guys really for building nuclear power plants on active fault lines and volcanoes, or on the edge of a hill that is a mud slide danger zone? ;)

[Paqman]

another thing about 3 mile; it wasn't really a nuclear problem per say.
3 mile is not the same thing as what happened in japan, which was a nuclear meltdown. In america there has never been anything close to a meltdown because our policies are to strict.


3 Mile Island most certainly was a meltdown. It was contained within the primary containment though.

What happened was that a valve failed, and the operators did not take the correct action to deal with it. The reactor lost it's coolant and the core partially melted.



the wall would capture everything and hold it untill we the cooling systems would kick in (something the US has that japan didn't, thats why they were using fire hose water to cool it down).

No, they had multiple redundant cooling systems at Fukushima. They just weren't able to cope with being swamped by the Tsunami and simultaneously losing all external power. Remember, this was an American designed plant, I'm sure GE built very similar ones in the US.


The RO was exposed to radiation at levels to make a Geiger counter go crazy, he died the next day of leukemia.

Nobody died at TMI. High doses of radiation cause you to die of radiation sickness, not leukaemia. Leukaemia doesn't kill you in one day, it's a type of cancer.

[Antarctica32]

3 Mile Island most certainly was a meltdown. It was contained within the primary containment though.

What happened was that a valve failed, and the operators did not take the correct action to deal with it. The reactor lost it's coolant and the core partially melted.



No, they had multiple redundant cooling systems at Fukushima. They just weren't able to cope with being swamped by the Tsunami and simultaneously losing all external power. Remember, this was an American designed plant, I'm sure GE built very similar ones in the US.



Nobody died at TMI. High doses of radiation cause you to die of radiation sickness, not leukaemia. Leukaemia doesn't kill you in one day, it's a type of cancer.

although our minor points are slightly different it appears we agree

[Quackers]

Dodgy double post!

[Quackers]

If I recall correctly (and I think I do) it wasn't the outcome of Three Mile Island that was the problem.
The problem was that nobody knew what to do! In the end they GAMBLED that an influx of cooling water would not break down into its constituent parts( hydrogen, for one) thus ADDING to the problem. It could have made any resulting explosion worse!
This course of action was decided to be TOO RISKY when it was first considered!
Having run out of options they tried it and fortunately things did not go so badly as they feared.
In any event, it wasn't an explosion they were most worried about, as I understand it. Their main concern was a meltdown (China Syndrome).

[Paqman]

although our minor points are slightly different it appears we agree

No offence, but I think you really need to do your homework.

[Dustin2128]

Ugh, getting sick of posting this.
@All the people who said no because of radioactive waste
Some of the generation IV reactor designs can actually be powered with nuclear waste until it's depleted into lead, and most of them can be powered with their initial fuel- again- until it's depleted into lead. Waste is not much of an issue for new plants.
@forrestcupp
The geographically safe option was added later by kiwi.

[NCLI]

I think nuclear power is an excellent stop-gap measure, but not a solution.

We should consider using it only in geographically safe, sparsely populated areas, and only until we have built up a capacity of sustainable energy.

[tgm4883]

It should be removed completely.

We dont NEED nuclear power, we already have a hybrid fusion/fission reactor over two hundred times the size of Earth sitting right in the middle of our solar system. It bombards the earth more energy each second then we can use in a year. All we need to do is make more efficient solar energy cells.

Then between Wind, Hydroelectric and even Hydrothermal in some spots. We dont need Nuclear Power.
- NP is costly to build and maintain after the plant is shut down.
- Dangerous, there is no such thing as "safe" nuclear power.
- NUCLEAR WASTE / RADIATION <-- need I say more here..


If the average home purchased just "TWO" $800 USD 4x6 Solar Panels, then we would just about cut our energy demands in half here in the US alone. You say you cant afford $1600 bucks for two of them.. Federal Guild lines for new Green initiative will reimburse a home back $1500 on their taxes to cover the cost, so if you buy then for christmas, you can get your money back a month or two later when you do your taxes. If you purchased more then 2, you can get reimbursed for the remainder the following year and so on. Same is also true about ANY green energy platform.

BTW if you still say $800 is to much, most all new homes are required to have a built in Septic Sewage Tank placed in your yard and that can easily run $1200 BUCKS.. All new homes should be mandated to have 2 solar cells installed when new homes are built and then the cost can be thrown in with the rest of the house contracting cost.

Please show me where I need to go to get 2 solar panels for $800 and cut my energy use/bill in half. Isn't there more I would need than just the panels? Heck, if 2 will cut it in half I'll buy 4.

BTW, this is a serious question, as when I looked into it before it seemed pretty costly. Please note I also live in the Pacific Northwest and it rains 9 months out of the year.

[tumbes2000]

Nuclear power is a must if we want to continue to provide carbon free affordable power. Plain and simple. That is not to that we shouldn't also use renewable sources as well, but those sources cannot replace coal power.

Obviously safety needs to be priority number one, but it should be doable.

Of course, once cold fusion is working none of this will matter:D

[Bandit]

Nuclear Fusion:
http://www.agci.org/dB/PDFs/03S2_MMauel_SafeFusion%3F.pdf

Section III/B

Another source for Nuclear Fusion would be Lithium, which is abundant, but is only found in tiny concentrations.

Your confusing Fusion with Fission.

Cold Fusion for example is Safe, but scientist cant seem to make it work.

Now what we use in Nuclear power plant is a Fission Reactor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor_technology

[Bandit]

Please show me where I need to go to get 2 solar panels for $800 and cut my energy use/bill in half. Isn't there more I would need than just the panels? Heck, if 2 will cut it in half I'll buy 4.

BTW, this is a serious question, as when I looked into it before it seemed pretty costly. Please note I also live in the Pacific Northwest and it rains 9 months out of the year.

Sure..

Actually looks like prices have dropped since last year when I looked them up.
http://solarpanelprices.org/samsung-solar-panel-prices
http://www.wholesalesolar.com/samsung-solar-panels.html

They list the other equipment you will need also. Nowadays they instead of your basement being full of car batteries, you can get a moderately sized battery module thats no different the a modern UPS you get from APC. Just wired slightly different.

EDIT:
Living in the Pac Nortwest wind power may be a better option. Even more so the closer you live to the coastline.

[Paqman]

Sure..

Actually looks like prices have dropped since last year when I looked them up.
http://solarpanelprices.org/samsung-solar-panel-prices
http://www.wholesalesolar.com/samsung-solar-panels.html


Bear in mind those are wholesale prices, which is not what the consumer pays. Two panels would also only be 0.5kWp, which is a moderately useless amount of power. Domestic base load is 0.2-0.9kW, and most installed systems are between 2-4kWp. Peak power usage in a home can be well upwards of 5kW (a kettle is usually 3kW), and the average power output of any array is well below the peak output, so you need a lot more than two panels. An array of 2-4kWp could reasonably be expected to reduce your power consumption by a third if used carefully. Cutting it in half would be difficult to do, especially since peak demand doesn't coincide with peak output.

Here in the UK for the array, inverters, meters, installation (including scaffolding, etc) you're looking at about £10-15,000. Solar PV is not cheap. You can get it for free here, but you have to sign over all your Feed-in-tariff to the company that installs them.

[tgm4883]

Bear in mind those are wholesale prices, which is not what the consumer pays. Two panels would also only be 0.5kWp, which is a moderately useless amount of power. Domestic base load is 0.2-0.9kW, and most installed systems are between 2-4kWp. Peak power usage in a home can be well upwards of 5kW (a kettle is usually 3kW), and the average power output of any array is well below the peak output, so you need a lot more than two panels. An array of 2-4kWp could reasonably be expected to reduce your power consumption by a third if used carefully. Cutting it in half would be difficult to do, especially since peak demand doesn't coincide with peak output.

Here in the UK for the array, inverters, meters, installation (including scaffolding, etc) you're looking at about £10-15,000. Solar PV is not cheap.

That was my understanding of it as well. The solar panels themselves aren't extremely expensive, but you need quite a few of them (8-10) + inverters, installation, meters, etc.

[pookiebear]

I propose that we develop a program to 'shoot' atomic nuclear waste into the sun. Instead of leaving it here on Earth, where somebody could screw up, by having it leave the earth it fundamentally gets rid of the problem. It would be like adding a millionth of a millionth of a billionth of a billionth of a fraction of the sun to the sun. nothing would happen. If anybody disagrees with me please point out any flaws in my argument.

weight of the materials to be shot into the sun would make this too cost prohibitive. But the person that figures this one out will be RICH!

MY addition to the thread.
if every house had a windmill and a couple of solar panels.
AND 1 thing that has not been discussed yet. A micro hydro generator. (http://www.microhydropower.com/index.htm)(good stuff on that site)
Those could pump out some wattage.
Have a solar water heater setup as a preheater.
Have a solar home heater like this one made from aluminum soda cans (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1520770/how_to_build_a_soda_can_solar_collector.html?cat=6 )
Change out all your lights to 12v fluorescent and run them off the batteries that are charged by the solar
Do small stuff each year to make a difference.

Today I turned off the lights in the house that my wife left on 37 times. That was down from 52 the day before.

I just don't know why some of these changes are not being mandated yet.

Another thing I like as an interim product is the home/office power server that runs on natural gas. http://www.bloomenergy.com/products/what-is-an-energy-server/

[PhillyPhil]

weight of the materials to be shot into the sun would make this too cost prohibitive. But the person that figures this one out will be RICH!

MY addition to the thread.
if every house had a windmill and a couple of solar panels.
AND 1 thing that has not been discussed yet. A micro hydro generator. (http://www.microhydropower.com/index.htm)(good stuff on that site)
Those could pump out some wattage.
Have a solar water heater setup as a preheater.
Have a solar home heater like this one made from aluminum soda cans (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1520770/how_to_build_a_soda_can_solar_collector.html?cat=6 )
Change out all your lights to 12v fluorescent and run them off the batteries that are charged by the solar
Do small stuff each year to make a difference.

Today I turned off the lights in the house that my wife left on 37 times. That was down from 52 the day before.

I just don't know why some of these changes are not being mandated yet.

Another thing I like as an interim product is the home/office power server that runs on natural gas. http://www.bloomenergy.com/products/what-is-an-energy-server/

Not many of us have running water nearby for hydro generators ;)

I think the reason solar panels aren't ubiquitous is that they're expensive. And even when they're cheap enough for an average Western home owner, it still won't be cheap enough for almost 3 billion people living in China and India.

[santaslittlehelper]

<snip> When they went to the moon there was a lot of motives but more interesting for the argument I would like to make is that; someone made the decision that it was a good idea and science followed. I think someone today should make the decision that renewable clean energy resources is a good idea and see if science could not follow.

I am not going to make a point out of arguing with science if generation IV reactor designs truly pans out someday in the future to be a clean renewable and safe technology then that's just great. There is however a fair chance that we have to live with the decisions made in the past and with the decisions we choose today.

[Pogeymanz]

weight of the materials to be shot into the sun would make this too cost prohibitive. But the person that figures this one out will be RICH!

MY addition to the thread.
if every house had a windmill and a couple of solar panels.
AND 1 thing that has not been discussed yet. A micro hydro generator. (http://www.microhydropower.com/index.htm)(good stuff on that site)
Those could pump out some wattage.
Have a solar water heater setup as a preheater.
Have a solar home heater like this one made from aluminum soda cans (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1520770/how_to_build_a_soda_can_solar_collector.html?cat=6 )
Change out all your lights to 12v fluorescent and run them off the batteries that are charged by the solar
Do small stuff each year to make a difference.

Today I turned off the lights in the house that my wife left on 37 times. That was down from 52 the day before.

I just don't know why some of these changes are not being mandated yet.

Another thing I like as an interim product is the home/office power server that runs on natural gas. http://www.bloomenergy.com/products/what-is-an-energy-server/

These are all nice things for a family to do, but what about factories? What about construction companies? What about big giant skyscrapers? Some solar cells and turning lights off are probably not going to be enough. We need things that are good energy producers. As far as I know those things are coal, oil, nuclear, and hydro (in some places).

[fontis]

The thing about that is that we are already spewing nuclear waste into the environment from coal plants (source: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste&page=2).

The good thing about the nuclear waste is that we can keep track of it. All the ashy crap from coal is impossible for us to control.

Other things to consider: Wind and Solar are incredibly inefficient ways to get energy when we consider the amount of land required to use them. Nuclear takes up the smallest land footprint of any power source available. (Source: http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20006361-54.html)

One more point for nuclear is when looking at how dangerous nuclear power has been. (Did I say point FOR nuclear power? Yep.) Let's look at the current deaths per energy generated graph. http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html

*This graph does not include all three deaths from Fukushima.

The fact of the matter is, there is a TON of energy inside the nucleus of an atom. Even with the nuclear accidents we've had (which are impossible to have happen in a newer plant), the damage is far less than from fossil fuels. The fact is that even solar energy has a higher death-to-energy ratio than nuclear because solar basically sucks at making energy and people have fallen off roofs and died while installing them.

Does anyone know how many people died because of Three Mile Island? Too late: the answer is zero. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/tmi/stories/study090190.htm


I LOL'ed.
You do realize that the 3 deaths, or "1 death" from Three Mile Island and Fukushima were due to the event itself, and not related to the fallout?

Your source is typical propaganda. If you would take into account the environmental damage caused, and as an effect of that also the radioactive fallout with its own consequences, the figure would be much higher. Do you know what Thyroid cancer is? Do you know that in all those areas, the incidence rate of thyroid cancer skyrocketed after the incident? That children born with congenital defects increased? And much much more..

[Pogeymanz]

<snip> When they went to the moon there was a lot of motives but more interesting for the argument I would like to make is that; someone made the decision that it was a good idea and science followed. I think someone today should make the decision that renewable clean energy resources is a good idea and see if science could not follow.

I am not going to make a point out of arguing with science if generation IV reactor designs truly pans out someday in the future to be a clean renewable and safe technology then that's just great. There is however a fair chance that we have to live with the decisions made in the past and with the decisions we choose today.

I agree, for the most part. If people want it, then their motivation comes through in the form of government support of research, like with the space program.

The big difference between now and the 1960's in the United States is that people keep saying "the scientists should figure out solar energy," or whatever, but then don't want to give them any money to feed themselves while they're researching. In the 1960's we had the creation of the NSF and NASA, which cost a pretty penny. Today, the NSF is the same size as it was back then, despite having a lot more people pursuing science careers.

It's a problem of priorities.
<snip>

[Pogeymanz]

Your source is typical propaganda. If you would take into account the environmental damage caused, and as an effect of that also the radioactive fallout with its own consequences, the figure would be much higher. Do you know what Thyroid cancer is? Do you know that in all those areas, the incidence rate of thyroid cancer skyrocketed after the incident? That children born with congenital defects increased? And much much more..

Source please. The only "study" I found about TMI causing more deaths was debunked several times by academically credible research. Fukushima is obviously yet to be seen, but we all agree that it's far worse than TMI was. I'm just saying TMI was actually great for nuclear power. That was the second worse nuclear incident in history before Fukushima happened, and it didn't even kill any civilians.

Based on the sensationalist wording you use, I have a feeling you may be the pot while I'm the kettle of biased information. "Skyrocketed?" Really? We need to see these sources.

[pookiebear]

These are all nice things for a family to do, but what about factories? What about construction companies? What about big giant skyscrapers? Some solar cells and turning lights off are probably not going to be enough. We need things that are good energy producers. As far as I know those things are coal, oil, nuclear, and hydro (in some places).

http://www.bloomenergy.com/customers/customer-story-google/
Google is running 400kw using those boxes and nat gas. Until skyscrapers are mandated to have 1 side skinned in solar and a good power storage solution can be implemented. or a worldwide power grid so the parts of the world getting sun will power the parts that aren't.

now if you need some investment capital to implement other green stuff. Look at just the 1q profits of this year listed in this article. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/exxon-mobil-profit-soars-along-with-gas-prices/2011/04/28/AF1gWG7E_story.html. There's a lot of money changing hands in the power markets. It just doesn't seem to be going in the right places. Even though their TV commercials tell us they are.

Need some more money for the ideas? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget take a look at the U.S. federal budget and see where you can shift some money around. There is a lot of money changing hands there that is not green too.

Just seems like the right people need to align the right ideas and do the right thing. It won't be solved on a country by country basis either, it is going to have to be a world shaking plan. Nuclear Ain't it, nuclear like the bloom boxes is only an interim/stop gap thing. There needs to be something bigger.

[santaslittlehelper]

Reading over the poll options again made me wonder if the third option isn't (see [1]) a oxymoron (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oxymoron)

[1] As long as it keeps us free from coal and oil and the waste is disposed of cleanly.

Not only does it assume that nuclear power can free us for coal and oil resources (or maybe the intention was that less coal and oil would be needed) further more that the high-level radioactive waste produced today by plants can be disposed of in a safe and clean manner. Maybe I am wrong?

[Paqman]

These are all nice things for a family to do, but what about factories? What about construction companies? What about big giant skyscrapers? Some solar cells and turning lights off are probably not going to be enough.

Absolutely. People focus on domestic electricity consumption, but that doesn't even amount for the majority of domestic demand, let alone demand overall. The biggest consumer of energy at home is space and water heating, not appliances and lighting.

Ultimately, there's only so effective you can be looking at the demand side. You can make far bigger changes far quicker for less money on the supply side.

In the short term we need to start shifting current systems into lower carbon options. Those options include things like:

Replacing old coal plants with gas CCGTs
Increased use of CHP
Nuclear
Carbon capture and sequestration
More renewables
Better grids
Efficiency improvements


Medium term we need to start using low-carbon energy sources, such as hydrogen, which could initially be made from fossil fuels (it's easier to capture the carbon centrally than at point of use). Then in the long term we need to build a proper hydrogen economy.

What's going to make the really big changes in carbon emissions is not changing the lightbulbs in your home, it's the kind of power stations we build.

[fontis]

Source please. The only "study" I found about TMI causing more deaths was debunked several times by academically credible research. Fukushima is obviously yet to be seen, but we all agree that it's far worse than TMI was. I'm just saying TMI was actually great for nuclear power. That was the second worse nuclear incident in history before Fukushima happened, and it didn't even kill any civilians.

Based on the sensationalist wording you use, I have a feeling you may be the pot while I'm the kettle of biased information. "Skyrocketed?" Really? We need to see these sources.

Are you kidding me?
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs303/en/index.html
That's WHO's selective view on the aftermath of Chernobyl.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident_health_effects

I'm going to snip out a piece from it for you

According to the American Nuclear Society, using the relatively low official radiation emission figures, "The average radiation dose to people living within ten miles of the plant was eight millirem, and no more than 100 millirem to any single individual. Eight millirem is about equal to a chest X-ray, and 100 millirem is about a third of the average background level of radiation received by US residents in a year."

Mind you, the data as you can see is widely disputed by many and even insiders who took part of the data gatherings are saying that the figures have been cut off to show the incident as "less harmful" than it truly was. Not even all radioactive isotopes were taken into consideration during the gathering (which is quite ironic) nor was infant mortality etc.

And imagine how bad things are, when the American Nuclear Society has to admit that the incidence rate of Thyroid cancer in neighboring counties has increased 2 times, (which is obvious due to fallout spreading via the soil/rain) but with the hilarious conclusion that "it couldn't have been a direct cause of TMI".

Seriously dude. Your argumentation kind of made me chuckle, reminds me of how tobacco companies claim cigarette smoke doesn't give you cancer :p

[kevin11951]

If the choice is between Nuclear or Fossil Fuels, then Nuclear is the best option.

But, if the options include something more renewable than Nuclear, then those options are better than Nuclear.

[Dustin2128]

Reading over the poll options again made me wonder if the third option isn't (see [1]) a oxymoron (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oxymoron)

[1] As long as it keeps us free from coal and oil and the waste is disposed of cleanly.

Not only does it assume that nuclear power can free us for coal and oil resources (or maybe the intention was that less coal and oil would be needed) further more that the high-level radioactive waste produced today by plants can be disposed of in a safe and clean manner. Maybe I am wrong?
For the third time. Generation IV reactors can run on nuclear waste until it is depleted into lead. And we don't need to assume that nuclear power can free us from coal and oil dependence- look at france. 75% nuclear power, and the remaining amount can be supplied by renewable energies completely if the numbers are right.

[santaslittlehelper]

For the third time. Generation IV reactors can run on nuclear waste until it is depleted into lead. And we don't need to assume that nuclear power can free us from coal and oil dependence- look at france. 75% nuclear power, and the remaining amount can be supplied by renewable energies completely if the numbers are right.
I see. Could you be kind enough to provide some documentation for those claims regarding generation IV reactors?

[Dustin2128]

I see. Could you be kind enough to provide some documentation for those claims regarding generation IV reactors?
Here's something from the wikipedia article:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor#Advantages_and_disadvantages
It only reduces waste's half life and radioactivity level though, I'll have to find the reactor type that ran until depleted.
EDIT: Here we go:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor

The nuclear reaction continues until all the uranium is spent.Realistically, though, I think investments need to be made into fusion power.
Here's another one though a bit light on information.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/news/areva-develops-new-nuclear-reactors-that-destroy-atomic-waste/story-e6frg90o-1225843555348
These were interesting as well:
http://www.utexas.edu/news/2009/01/27/nuclear_hybrid/
http://io9.com/357511/the-future-is-coming-up-nukes

[conradin]

Ive worked all round the power industry (wind, hydro, Gas, Nuclear). I know the controversy, and the internal workings. I can see no more environmentally friendly option than Nuclear power, although, most likely over regulation makes actually running an effective plant nearly impossible.

[santaslittlehelper]

Here's something from the wikipedia article:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor#Advantages_and_disadvantages
It only reduces waste's half life and radioactivity level though, I'll have to find the reactor type that ran until depleted.
EDIT: Here we go:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor
Realistically, though, I think investments need to be made into fusion power.
Here's another one though a bit light on information.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/news/areva-develops-new-nuclear-reactors-that-destroy-atomic-waste/story-e6frg90o-1225843555348
These were interesting as well:
http://www.utexas.edu/news/2009/01/27/nuclear_hybrid/
http://io9.com/357511/the-future-is-coming-up-nukes
OK but after reading that I still got a few issues with your claims and you might have to repeat yourself even one more time. Firstly this is future technology ((Gen IV) are a set of theoretical nuclear reactor designs currently being researched. Most of these designs are generally not expected to be available for commercial construction before 2030 - people can read themselves for context) it is however under serious development. I already stated earlier that if nuclear power could be a safe and clean technology then that would be great.

I also read that one advantage is that the Gen IV reactors would be able to reuse the waste from the old reactors. Here is a few facts as I understood them.

1. There is so much radioactive waste already that there is plenty to reburn.

2. Thorium is used in the process but as I understand it it is not a material that is easy to come by or said in another way you do not just dig it up in your backyard.

3. The fuel is burned in a more efficient way which in turn reduces the high-level radioactive waste to "only" be a biohazard for approximately hundred of years (I am still uncertain about a more exact number) oppose to thousands upon thousands of years.

So to conclude from this I would claim we are talking about a future technology (which is fine) but I think we should agree that it is still a unknown technology in terms of a real world scenario. Reusing the old fuel is great. That it should make the high-level radioactive waste fully disintegrate or disappear (during the process) that I have been unable to find any documentation on that suggest such a thing to be a fact. Thorium is apparently a sound material for nuclear power but it is unclear to me if it is a material that is easy to come by and so is it a variable? So now we are talking about waste that supposedly becomes safe in hundreds of years instead of thousands before you could safely get close enough to eat it that would however still kill you.

I am sorry but I am not sure I find even that ethical you still leave highly toxic waste to future generations instead of owning up. So I am very fare from convinced that nuclear power should have a place among the energy resources of the future.

To clarify I suppose the oxymoron would simply be "clean nuclear" or even "safe nuclear".

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikiped...g_wave_reactor
Sorry but i am getting a 404 on that one I could goggle it but we might as well be sure to read the same page.
The last links are referring to "Nuclear Fusion-Fission Hybrid" that has nothing to do with Gen IV reactors right?

[PhillyPhil]

Medium term we need to start using low-carbon energy sources, such as hydrogen, which could initially be made from fossil fuels (it's easier to capture the carbon centrally than at point of use). Then in the long term we need to build a proper hydrogen economy.

What's going to make the really big changes in carbon emissions is not changing the lightbulbs in your home, it's the kind of power stations we build.

Well, hydrogen isn't really the energy source here, it's an energy carrier, and doesn't really have any effect on the discussion about energy sources.

But I personally can't see why someone might prefer hydrogen as an energy carrier over electricity anyway. We already have a lot of electricity infrastructure, and electric motors are more efficient than hydrogen motors.

[fontis]

Here's something from the wikipedia article:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor#Advantages_and_disadvantages
It only reduces waste's half life and radioactivity level though, I'll have to find the reactor type that ran until depleted.
EDIT: Here we go:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor
Realistically, though, I think investments need to be made into fusion power.
Here's another one though a bit light on information.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/news/areva-develops-new-nuclear-reactors-that-destroy-atomic-waste/story-e6frg90o-1225843555348
These were interesting as well:
http://www.utexas.edu/news/2009/01/27/nuclear_hybrid/
http://io9.com/357511/the-future-is-coming-up-nukes


So your greatest idea and argument relies on a theory that hasn't even been proved to work? No experiment has been conducted to even prove that such a scenario is sustainable..

It's like saying: "The energy of the future; Farting"
"We have come up with the theory that our energy demands can be satisfied easier than we think. Everyone farts, and in farts we have methane gas. We will utilize that energy."
And then we will stop there by not speaking of how to utilize the methane :P

[mobilediesel]

A coal-fired power plant with everything working according to the latest safety and emissions rules will still kill people on a continuous basis. Replace all the coal power plants with nuclear, please!

[Quackers]

A coal-fired power plant with everything working according to the latest safety and emissions rules will still kill people on a continuous basis. Replace all the coal power plants with nuclear, please!

Hmm, so do cars, but we haven't banned those yet:-)

[mobilediesel]

Hmm, so do cars, but we haven't banned those yet:-)

Replacing the main energy source for cars will fix a lot of the problems with them. The rest of the problems that cars have come from the driver. That part is going to be harder to fix than the fuel problem. :D

[santaslittlehelper]

It is my believe that nuclear power should be a technology of the past not the future nothing I have seen so fare has convinced me that nuclear power is a viable solution. Most importantly I can not see it becoming a clean nor safe technology and again it would depend on resources that would need to be mined resources that are depended on specific geographically locations resources that is not unlimited or renewable it seems to be just more of the same old grasshopper mentality that got us here in the first place.

I believe that serious investment into renewable technologies is needed (see post #96) it is not a cheap magic wand we are however talking about something as crucial as future power supplies the safety of or environment and future generations. I do not think we can just leave it to big business to solve these issues. The past track record of capitalizing on energy resources has been a greedy and immoral path often carried out with recklessness in a depraved fashion. I believe we need to move away from that mentality and ensure that the power supplies of the future consist of clean renewable energy that is available to all.

[Paqman]

Well, hydrogen isn't really the energy source here, it's an energy carrier, and doesn't really have any effect on the discussion about energy sources.

Which is why it might be a good interim step to turn fossil fuels into hydrogen. If you convert gas, coal or oil to hydrogen you can capture all the carbon for sequestration relatively easily (compared to capturing it at every point of use).



But I personally can't see why someone might prefer hydrogen as an energy carrier over electricity anyway. We already have a lot of electricity infrastructure, and electric motors are more efficient than hydrogen motors.

Hydrogen has a lot of nice points. For a start it is a way to store energy, which is the biggest hurdle. It can be used in internal combustion engines and gas turbines with minimal modification, and it's the best fuel for fuel cells, which can be used in vehicles and for CHP of various sizes (from domestic to industrial).

It's not a perfect fuel by any means, I can't see it being used in aircraft much, but it's got its good points.

[prodigy_]

It seems practically everyone here could operate a reactor with their eyes closed. With so many nucler power experts on a completely unrelated forum what could possibly go wrong?..

[Jacobonbuntu]

......what is (almost) never mentioned:

if you take the costs of storing the nuclear waste for 250.000 years in a save way in account, every other source of energy is way, way cheaper....

ok, back to Ubuntu \\:D/

[Dustin2128]

<snip>

1. There is so much radioactive waste already that there is plenty to reburn.

2. Thorium is used in the process but as I understand it it is not a material that is easy to come by or said in another way you do not just dig it up in your backyard.

3. The fuel is burned in a more efficient way which in turn reduces the high-level radioactive waste to "only" be a biohazard for approximately hundred of years (I am still uncertain about a more exact number) oppose to thousands upon thousands of years.

So to conclude from this I would claim we are talking about a future technology (which is fine) but I think we should agree that it is still a unknown technology in terms of a real world scenario. Reusing the old fuel is great. That it should make the high-level radioactive waste fully disintegrate or disappear (during the process) that I have been unable to find any documentation on that suggest such a thing to be a fact. Thorium is apparently a sound material for nuclear power but it is unclear to me if it is a material that is easy to come by and so is it a variable? So now we are talking about waste that supposedly becomes safe in hundreds of years instead of thousands before you could safely get close enough to eat it that would however still kill you.

I am sorry but I am not sure I find even that ethical you still leave highly toxic waste to future generations instead of owning up. So I am very fare from convinced that nuclear power should have a place among the energy resources of the future.

To clarify I suppose the oxymoron would simply be "clean nuclear" or even "safe nuclear".

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikiped...g_wave_reactor
Sorry but i am getting a 404 on that one I could goggle it but we might as well be sure to read the same page.
The last links are referring to "Nuclear Fusion-Fission Hybrid" that has nothing to do with Gen IV reactors right?
1. Yes.
2. Actually I believe thorium is more common than uranium.
3. Pretty much, but there's also less waste.
As for the rest, try the non secure wikipedia link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travelling_wave_reactor
And as for the last I just threw it in there cause I was kind of sleep deprived and thought it was cool.

[del_diablo]

It seems practically everyone here could operate a reactor with their eyes closed. With so many nucler power experts on a completely unrelated forum what could possibly go wrong?..

0. Plant is 30 years old, and there is corruption regarding the safety
1. Plant gets hit by Tsunami
2. Plant gets hit by 9 ritcher earthquake
3. All 3 failsafes fail
4. And the core meltdown has already happened

And we are still waiting for it to blow up...... Or there to be any lasting damage..........
So, arguments against nuclear power please?

[Paqman]

......what is (almost) never mentioned:

if you take the costs of storing the nuclear waste for 250.000 years in a save way in account, every other source of energy is way, way cheaper....


Depends. The standard way of assessing costs tends to discount costs far in the future right down. Any costs incurred thousands of years in the future would be pretty much zero when viewed from today.

It's this kind of thing that tends to get gas power plants built instead of hydro ones. Hydro plants have large costs up front and take a long time to build, whereas gas ones are quick and cheap to build but have ongoing costs (for fuel). Because of the time preference for money, investors tend to favour gas. They would rather pay ongoing costs in the future than fork out lots now and have to wait ages to start seeing a return.

This can lead to the odd situation where investors wish they had invested in hydro 30 years ago, but state that they couldn't afford to do so today, even though they were saying the same thing 30 years ago :(

[del_diablo]

......what is (almost) never mentioned:

if you take the costs of storing the nuclear waste for 250.000 years in a save way in account, every other source of energy is way, way cheaper....

1. Build a breeder reactor
2. Use that old waist as fuel
3. Profit

[Paqman]

1. Build a breeder reactor
2. Use that old waist as fuel
3. Profit

Er, breeder reactors are so-called because they produce more fissile material than they are fed.

IIRC it is technically possible to make an FBR that functions as a burner, but I don't think it's as simple as just feeding it wastes. There would have to be some kind of reprocessing going on, with all the risks and difficulties that involves. Also, AFAIK it's never been done.

Most of the FBRs have been shut down I believe. We've got plenty of uranium, and way more plutonium than we need already.

[santaslittlehelper]

1. Yes.
2. Actually I believe thorium is more common than uranium.
3. Pretty much, but there's also less waste.
As for the rest, try the non secure wikipedia link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travelling_wave_reactor
And as for the last I just threw it in there cause I was kind of sleep deprived and thought it was cool.
Feel free to elaborate or correct any misconceptions I might have regarding nuclear power I would not mind it whatsoever. Otherwise you can read my opinion on this subject in earlier posts. As for the rest maybe you should ad a option to the poll along the lines of "do you think this conceptual cool idea could solve..." instead of calming that current nuclear technology is clean safe technology and then go on to calming that theoretical future nuclear technology is proved to be clean safe technology. If you feel that nuclear technology is necessary (therefore outweighing any moral or safety concern) both in the short- and long-term as a solution to get of fossil fuels then that is fine but please do not stick your head into the sand and produce false statements in an effort to persuade people. Or else I will have to consent with the fart analogy made by @fontis.

[Dustin2128]

Feel free to elaborate or correct any misconceptions I might have regarding nuclear power I would not mind it whatsoever. Otherwise you can read my opinion on this subject in earlier posts. As for the rest maybe you should ad a option to the poll along the lines of "do you think this conceptual cool idea could solve..." instead of calming that current nuclear technology is clean safe technology and then go on to calming that theoretical future nuclear technology is proved to be clean safe technology. If you feel that nuclear technology is necessary (therefore outweighing any moral or safety concern) both in the short- and long-term as a solution to get of fossil fuels then that is fine but please do not stick your head into the sand and produce false statements in an effort to persuade people. Or else I will have to consent with the fart analogy made by @fontis.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Thorium

It (thorium) is estimated to be about three to four times more abundant than uranium (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Uranium) in the Earth's crust.

[del_diablo]

Er, breeder reactors are so-called because they produce more fissile material than they are fed.

Unless the halflife is equal or longer than what is being fed into it, that is completely irrelevant...........

[Paqman]

Unless the halflife is equal or longer than what is being fed into it, that is completely irrelevant...........

???

You can't really directly equate how dangerous the product of a reactor is directly with it's half-life. Products with short half lives are highly active, those with long half-lives less so. It's not as simple as long=bad/short=good.

Besides, plutonium has a very long half life. More plutonium is the last thing we need, really.

[PhillyPhil]

Which is why it might be a good interim step to turn fossil fuels into hydrogen. If you convert gas, coal or oil to hydrogen you can capture all the carbon for sequestration relatively easily (compared to capturing it at every point of use).
You can do that with electricity generation too. I guess you're talking about eliminating oil burning cars, but I don't see why hydrogen would be preferable to electricity there.
Hydrogen has a lot of nice points. For a start it is a way to store energy, which is the biggest hurdle. It can be used in internal combustion engines and gas turbines with minimal modification, and it's the best fuel for fuel cells, which can be used in vehicles and for CHP of various sizes (from domestic to industrial).


I suppose for storage it is a nice choice.

[juancarlospaco]

I live on the same city that Esso (Exxon Mobile) the Oil Refinery is...,
they got a 24x7x365 *gigantic* gas burner flaming a several meters of fire,
these Gas is too unstable and dangerous to use it directly, so they burn it in a pointless manner,
i think, why dont simply put an Stirling Generator on it...?, what a waste of energy... :(

[Paqman]

You can do that with electricity generation too. I guess you're talking about eliminating oil burning cars, but I don't see why hydrogen would be preferable to electricity there.

Until battery technology improves substantially, we need a nice energy-dense liquid fuel for vehicles.

[Khakilang]

The human generate more bioelectricity than a 120 volt battery and over 25,000 BTU of body heat. Combine with a form of fusion. The machine have found all the energy they ever need. - The Matrix

There, that will solve all our energy problem.

[ssam]

its worth noting that to reduce carbon emissions we need to switch transport and heating to electricity. so we need to vastly increase electricity production.

so look at the stats for how electricity is produced in your country, and figure a way to double/triple it. then have a look at some numbers for cost of different electricity generation. remember to compare actual useful output. a 5 MW wind turbine may output an average of 1 or 2 MW. a 1 GW reactor will output close to 1 GW for 80-90% of the time. solar depends a lot on where you are/time of year.

[juancarlospaco]

Stirling are +3,5 times more efficient than traditional Solar Panels.

"... Parabolic dish Stirling systems provide the highest solar-to-electric efficiency ..." -Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power#Dish_stirling)

[Ric_NYC]

Stirling are +3,5 times more efficient than traditional Solar Panels.

"... Parabolic dish Stirling systems provide the highest solar-to-electric efficiency ..." -Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power#Dish_stirling)


Stirling Engine running on hand heat
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uh4G0G0xPDA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJd2flOjOy0&NR=1

[Paqman]

its worth noting that to reduce carbon emissions we need to switch transport and heating to electricity. so we need to vastly increase electricity production.


Eventually you might be right, but in the meantime every coal-burning plant we replace with a gas-burning one will achieve a substantial reduction in CO2 (as well as all the other nasties coal spews out).

There are other options for heat too. Power plants produce a lot of waste heat, and smart countries use this to provide district heating or process heat to industry. Denmark is really good at this. Fuel cells also produce both heat and power, and we're likely to start using those a lot once the price comes down.

[luceerose]

We should be waiting for cold-fusion to build nuclear power plants.
I'm all for cold-fusion, but the current systems of nuclear power are far too hot & somewhat unstable.

[Paqman]

We should be waiting for cold-fusion to build nuclear power plants.
I'm all for cold-fusion, but the current systems of nuclear power are far too hot & somewhat unstable.

Cold fusion is impossible. They are working on fusion, but it's not going to be ready for several decades at least (some would say it'll never be ready).

[forrestcupp]

The human generate more bioelectricity than a 120 volt battery and over 25,000 BTU of body heat. Combine with a form of fusion. The machine have found all the energy they ever need. - The Matrix

There, that will solve all our energy problem.

Do you want to be the first volunteer? :)

[Dustin2128]

The human generate more bioelectricity than a 120 volt battery and over 25,000 BTU of body heat. Combine with a form of fusion. The machine have found all the energy they ever need. - The Matrix

There, that will solve all our energy problem.
I always thought part of that was... wrong. To blatantly rip off some slashdot poster:

Combined with a form of fusion, they had found all the energy they'd need.
Pfft- that's like saying that by flapping your arms, combined with a 747, you can fly across the Atlantic ocean.

[WinterMadness]

As long as it's done properly, why not have it? It's absolutely silly for people to not want fossil fuels to power a country AND oppose nuclear power. We do need to get it from somewhere.

a lot of people want us to live like its 1776 again.

as for me, i want newer smarter power plants. we should obviously invest in alternate technologies as well

[Ric_NYC]

Italians say no to nuclear energy in referendum



ROME, June 13 (Reuters) - Italians voted to ban nuclear energy for decades on Monday in a referendum that was strongly influenced by Japan's Fukushima disaster but was also a strong political vote against Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.

Official figures showed almost 95 percent of votes cast were in favour of blocking a nuclear power revival in earthquake-prone Italy.
(Mon Jun 13, 2011)

http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFLDE75C1IZ20110613






Good!

[ssam]

Italy doesn't score to highly on the environment:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/mafia-earning-euro20bn-from-dumping-toxic-waste-2294720.html

[Ric_NYC]

Italy doesn't score to highly on the environment:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/mafia-earning-euro20bn-from-dumping-toxic-waste-2294720.html


Talking about environment:



Brazil ships rotting British rubbish back to UK
A ship loaded with 1,600 tonnes of rotting rubbish set sail on Wednesday to return the cargo to Britain from Brazil, where it had been shipped falsely declared as plastic for recycling.

Eighty-nine containers packed with waste that includes dirty nappies, used syringes, food waste and computer parts were packed on to the freighter MSC Oriane in the early morning hours at Santos, South America's largest port.
The incident outraged many Brazilians and prompted President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva to criticise Britain and developed nations for urging higher environmental standards while using developing nations as garbage dumps.
( 05 Aug 2009 )


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/brazil/5979904/Brazil-ships-rotting-British-rubbish-back-to-UK.html

[MasterNetra]

It should be removed completely.

We dont NEED nuclear power, we already have a hybrid fusion/fission reactor over two hundred times the size of Earth sitting right in the middle of our solar system. It bombards the earth more energy each second then we can use in a year. All we need to do is make more efficient solar energy cells.

Then between Wind, Hydroelectric and even Hydrothermal in some spots. We dont need Nuclear Power.
- NP is costly to build and maintain after the plant is shut down.
- Dangerous, there is no such thing as "safe" nuclear power.
- NUCLEAR WASTE / RADIATION <-- need I say more here..


If the average home purchased just "TWO" $800 USD 4x6 Solar Panels, then we would just about cut our energy demands in half here in the US alone. You say you cant afford $1600 bucks for two of them.. Federal Guild lines for new Green initiative will reimburse a home back $1500 on their taxes to cover the cost, so if you buy then for christmas, you can get your money back a month or two later when you do your taxes. If you purchased more then 2, you can get reimbursed for the remainder the following year and so on. Same is also true about ANY green energy platform.

BTW if you still say $800 is to much, most all new homes are required to have a built in Septic Sewage Tank placed in your yard and that can easily run $1200 BUCKS.. All new homes should be mandated to have 2 solar cells installed when new homes are built and then the cost can be thrown in with the rest of the house contracting cost.

I hereby claim the Sun as my territory...I can see the brochures now... "Don't like snow or cold weather? Then come to the sun its warm, cozy, spacious...just don't go outside..."

lol anyway. I disagree solar at least local-wise is efficient enough...unless you live in the polar regions with those rather lengthy night periods..how long are those again... 3-6 months? At anyrate water and electricity at least should be handled by the homes themselves, except in locations where that is impractical. Some waste could be handled locally as well. But then again I suppose how are companies suppose to charge you a arm and a leg if your home handles its own utilities...man what was I thinking. :P

[Khakilang]

Do you want to be the first volunteer? :)

Don't you want to be in the Matrix? Where you can fly and punch through walls and get the hot chick in red dress? All we need is your body! :D:D:D

[del_diablo]

???

You can't really directly equate how dangerous the product of a reactor is directly with it's half-life. Products with short half lives are highly active, those with long half-lives less so. It's not as simple as long=bad/short=good.

Besides, plutonium has a very long half life. More plutonium is the last thing we need, really.

If I can stuck the short halflife products into a box, and clean up the box a year later, why would I even care anymore?
I am well aware of that short == super radiactive and super mutating, and that long is annoying because it never goes away.
But lets say you have the choice of turning the product into something with a lot less halflife(from 400-500 years to a day), and get some proper boxes to keep them in, why would you not do that?

[Dustin2128]

Just to kind of clarify, I'm for nuclear power in Generation III designs (modern), not just generation IV. As long as the waste is handled properly, in 30 years, we'll have loads of fuel! ;)

[santaslittlehelper]

Today's nuclear industry produces high-level radioactive wast that needs to be stored safely for thousands upon thousands of years (lets hope a ice age does not come around and a future Mr.Dustin2128 Jr. digs into a long forgotten nuclear dump :)).
It is estimated that commercial plants producing high-level radioactive waste will be able to deliver waste (by reprocessing) that will only need to be stored for approximately 200-400 years these plants should be operational in some 20-30 years. Generation IV reactors is a broad term used to cover several future reactor designs. Among the positives to these designs are reprocessing of waste and passive safety which in theory should prevent any nuclear accident to occur.
Of cause you will still need to mine the materials need foolproof plants need foolproof transportation for waste need a foolproof storage facility.
To me this is still like peeing in your pants to stay warm only you are doing it in the future as well as today.

[del_diablo]

If nuclear is peeing in your pants to stay warm, what is coal or gas then? Setting your arm on fire to stay warm?

[8_Bit]

Missing the point entirely. All of them are harmful. They are all a form of theft. We are stealing from the children of the future for our own gain.

[balumain]

Very much against nuclear energy, in the end it will ultimately fail and the nations who did'nt opt for alternates will be left behind.

[juancarlospaco]

Imagine a new Kindergarden built on top of an very old nuclear waste deposit.
(+250.000 years is too much)

[Dustin2128]

Missing the point entirely. All of them are harmful. They are all a form of theft. We are stealing from the children of the future for our own gain.
Stealing from the children of the future? How? We're utilizing resources that we have today that will be around for quite a while, converting them into another form (nuclear waste) to produce energy today, while that byproduct can be used as fuel to produce energy tomorrow with less required input (mining) than it takes to get it in raw form. Contrast it to coal, where we're digging up a resource that's probably going to be largely exhausted in my life time, burning it and thus releasing toxic fumes into the atmosphere, poisoning the oceans, killing people, and warming the planet. Solar, wind, etc. are great, but they won't be ready to power the world for a good while, and will never be able to power some places. Additionally, nuclear technology developed now, today, can be widely used in, say, the exploration of the outer solar system, where most other forms of energy are impractical.

[Rasa1111]

Eliminate it.

If major corporations weren't so g'damned greedy..
We wouldnt even need fossil fuels, or nuclear energy.

The truth has been suppressed for a long time..
all for the sake of perpetuating profits.

That Truth being that we already know how to harness energy from practically nothing, for free.

One day, you'll see.
Promise.

[juancarlospaco]

Nuclear Reactors arent invented by the Humans, they just copied from the Nature:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklo

[Cathhsmom]

Being a Nuclear Engineer, yes, I am for it.

[themarker0]

Lets take a little poll, how many pop songs are about a nuclear apocalypse.

How many from a damn breaking.

How many from a wind turbine breaking

Or solar panel.

[juancarlospaco]

1)Imagine a Stirling Generator, ... connected to a 3D Printer,
2)the 3D Printer print an Stirling Generator, goto(1)

:D

[santaslittlehelper]

Rofl I forgot about this one.
http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/4184/dutycallso.png (http://img193.imageshack.us/i/dutycallso.png/)
Anyway there is probably better places to get informed on this subject then a thread on a OS support forum.

[Rasa1111]

Rofl I forgot about this one.

Anyway there is probably better places to get informed on this subject then a thread on a OS support forum.

I thought it was a poll?
You know.. based on peoples opinions?

Of course there are better places to be informed on the subject..
If one wants to be informed.
But this is not meant to be an "informational" thread.
Hence the "Poll:" in the title.
:p

[Gremlinzzz]

Lets count how many were built on or near a fault line.
1
Indian Point Energy Center (IPEC) is a three-unit nuclear power plant station located in Buchanan, New York just south of Peekskill. It sits on a small earthquake fault on the east bank of the Hudson River, 38 miles north of New York City. :D

[santaslittlehelper]

I thought it was a poll?
You know.. based on peoples opinions?

Of course there are better places to be informed on the subject..
If one wants to be informed.
But this is not meant to be an "informational" thread.
Hence the "Poll:" in the title.
:p
Obviously my mistake :D

[Ric_NYC]

Lets count how many were built on or near a fault line.
1
Indian Point Energy Center (IPEC) is a three-unit nuclear power plant station located in Buchanan, New York just south of Peekskill. It sits on a small earthquake fault on the east bank of the Hudson River, 38 miles north of New York City. :D


The Diablo Canyon nuclear plant on the coast of California.

2

Diablo is within a sixty-mile radius of three major fault lines, including the Hosgri fault just 2.5 miles away.
(CNN)

[Bandit]

Cold fusion is impossible. They are working on fusion, but it's not going to be ready for several decades at least (some would say it'll never be ready).

I wouldnt say its Impossible, but it fore sure isnt currently working. hehe

But like you said, at the rate they are moving with figuring a way to make it work it may be a few decades before its even an option.

[Bandit]

The Diablo Canyon nuclear plant on the coast of California.

2

Diablo is within a sixty-mile radius of three major fault lines, including the Hosgri fault just 2.5 miles away.
(CNN)

Any that run up or down the Mississippi River are on the New Madrid fault line as well since the entire river flows over it.

Heres a helpful link (http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/)

[Rasa1111]

I wouldnt say its Impossible, but it fore sure isnt currently working. hehe

Yeah, it is not "impossible".

[Paqman]

Yeah, it is not "impossible".

Yes, "cold" fusion at room temperature is impossible. Regular fusion at high temperatures isn't. That's where research is focussing.

[Gremlinzzz]

The Perry Nuclear Power Plant is located on a 1,100-acre (450 ha) site on Lake Erie, 40 miles (65 km) northeast of Cleveland in North Perry, Ohio, USA. In 1978, the plant was closed for nine months while modifications were made to improve its resistance to earthquakes. This followed the discovery both of major building construction errors and of the close proximity of a previously unknown faultline [4]. The operators sued the builders, and an undisclosed out-of-court settlement was eventually reached.

The Trojan steam generators were designed to last the life of the plant, but it was only four years before premature cracking of the steam tubes was observed:D
3

[Anuovis]

It would all be good and well if people could control nuclear energy. But we can't. Time and again it has been proven, with tremendous consequences to the life, health and well-being of the people.

Every plant that has failed has been built within reasonable safety requirements (even that is a question, obviously). And still, unforeseen things have happened.

Engineers in Chernobyl did not think the power plant design was bad. The Japanese did not think an earthquake of such magnitude could hit Fukushima.

The way to go is to change the way we think, produce and consume energy. The Western civilization has become extremely wasteful, with all this culture of mass consumption, buying tons of things you don't really need so that some company can earn another billion that would be invested in another plant producing even more junk nobody needs.

This is the real tragedy of our culture. I don't think nuclear power plants are safe but even if they were, the needs of greedy people have no bottom. The moment we'd produce enough energy, we'd just waste even more of it.

This might be all abstract, judgmental and dreamy but the very design of our economic system cause a lot of practical problems and I don't think another power plant is the way to go. And certainly not when the failure in the cooling system has a potential of wiping out an entire country.

[RichardG891]

I voted against. Aside from the headline consequences of containment failure of the reactors themselves, they are not safe or clean. If the ancient egyptians had developed nuclear fission, we'd still be dealing with the degraded waste they produced, today. The only reason they exist at all is to make plutonium, electricity production is just a side benefit.

[del_diablo]

Engineers in Chernobyl did not think the power plant design was bad.

Actually, they did. And a few years after building the plant, they would have had it rebuildt IF they could.
Consider the fact that they had to disable 3-4 failsafes just to get where they did, how about it wiseguy?
Lets remove railing and make 45 degree slipper steps on long staircases, and lets see how the accident rate will skyrocket!


The Japanese did not think an earthquake of such magnitude could hit Fukushima.

The plant is CERTIFIED for withstanding a earthquake on a larger magnitude than it was hit by.
The plant was also riffed in corruption, and small "incidents" has happened on regular intervals.
And the plant was suppose to be retired and replaced in May that has happend.
The entire thing is already a "worst case scenario" and nothing bad has happened so far. Even the radiactive that was dumped into the water has already disappered due its halflife time.

Before any of you fanatics are willing to bash nuclear power, please consider that there currently is no decent alternatives, and that you are mostly spewing out senseless sensationalist fear like another silly tabloid newspaper.
Even the entire "nuclear waiste lasts forever" is sparked by a bloody ban on research. Image what would have happened if proper research was done, if there was a proper political will to start properly experimenting with fusion plants, and a proper accountability for anybody who starts doing bad decisions.
<snip>

If you want to be taken seriously about nuclear power: Please start every single "I want nuclear power banned" with "I want coal and gas plants banned, as they are more hazardous than nuclear power".

[Anuovis]

Actually, they did. And a few years after building the plant, they would have had it rebuildt IF they could.
I see, goodwill of designers is now part of nuclear engineering and that alone should be enough for us to build more of them?



And the [Fukushima] plant was suppose to be retired and replaced in May that has happend.
Well, if only the human nature was perfect and we would make no errors in our judgments. Well, that thought alone should be a reason to build more plants, right?

You just confirmed my point. They are supposed to be safe but they aren't. Be it for our lack of technological know-how, for our human negligence, or for some other reason.

Both Chernobyl and Fukushima demanded huge human sacrifices to clean up the mess, both were purely experimental trial-and-error attempts to control something that was out of control. And both incidents could have wiped out entire countries. Well, they didn't but something tells me we should be more sceptical about nuclear energy from now on. Or is it fanatical to look at past experience and draw conclusions from that?


Before any of you fanatics are willing to bash nuclear power, please consider that there currently is no decent alternatives

You are talking about the social world as if it was the natural world. The order and systems we create are our own design and by no means necessary. Granted, the change might be next to impossible given the forces that shape our world but our energy needs are, in principle, adjustable.

And if you think nuclear waste is held back by lack of research, how much money is exactly poured into finding and exploiting new energy sources?

And how many people are willing to give up some hours of entertainment for the sake of energy conservation?

Let's wait and see what would Germany do without its power plants. Somehow I doubt they would make that decision without calculating the energy needs. And if we can, if there is a chance to make something better besides nuclear energy, be it social or technical solutions, isn't it worth to try?

I am aware I am dreaming here and not giving good and ready recipes, just answering the question whether nuclear energy is our way to go. No, I think we must find better ways and cut down on it.

[Paqman]

Before any of you fanatics are willing to bash nuclear power, please consider that there currently is no decent alternatives,


Yes there are, coal, oil and gas are all suitable, but they all emit CO2 and/or other nasties. Large scale hydro can meet some base load, but there's limited capacity for expansion available.



Let's wait and see what would Germany do without its power plants.

Short term they'll import electricity from their neighbours, which will most likely mean French nuclear and Czech coal. Gas turbine plants are pretty quick to build, so I'm sure we'll see a lot of those getting rapid approval and being built as fast as possible. Obviously that means higher carbon emissions and handing over even more control of their energy supply to the Russians.

The problem is that they've also committed to getting rid of their older coal plants, so they've got to replace those too. That's likely to mean even more CCGTs. All this is going to drive up the energy prices right across Europe, and the Russian gas oligarchs are going to be laughing all the way to the bank.

[del_diablo]

I see, goodwill of designers is now part of nuclear engineering and that alone should be enough for us to build more of them?
Quite the shame I never said that. I said that the goverment overhead preverted propery science, and proper security.
That is 1 straw.



Well, if only the human nature was perfect and we would make no errors in our judgments. Well, that thought alone should be a reason to build more plants, right?

I never said that either. 2 straws.


You just confirmed my point. They are supposed to be safe but they aren't. Be it for our lack of technological know-how, for our human negligence, or for some other reason.

And that is claiming I said something.
I said that they WHERE safe, if somebody had not been doing their very best to tempt fate.
<snip>
Nuclear power is like that: It is not a death trap until somebody turns it into it.
3 straws.


Both Chernobyl and Fukushima demanded huge human sacrifices to clean up the mess, both were purely experimental trial-and-error attempts to control something that was out of control. And both incidents could have wiped out entire countries. Well, they didn't but something tells me we should be more sceptical about nuclear energy from now on. Or is it fanatical to look at past experience and draw conclusions from that?

That is not a straw but a logical fallancy.
Coal power costs hundred of lives each year, and emits more power than your run of the mill ancient nuclear plant.
And yet, you do not put a large "lets stop it!" sign.......
You also imply that you can never build something that lasts(how about Roman bridges?), and you imply that we never learn, or learn the reason it failed.
And fun fact: How powerful do you think a nuke is? An entire country? At the best you can oblitorate a area, and contimiate a larger area.
With a nuclear plant going "Boom?!"? It is smaller.
So if your definition of "size of a country" is vaticane, then yes, by all means, it can ruin countries.
But if we are realistic? Countries are too large. You need a large array of nuclear missiles, and hope you hit everything on the top of that.

<snip>


And if you think nuclear waste is held back by lack of research, how much money is exactly poured into finding and exploiting new energy sources?
How much money do you think the oil companies are pouring each year into partial block of development of new tech?
Or how much money do you think coal got funded by back in its day relative to the nations wealth?
And how much tech of new energy stuff do you think never gets properly funded?
"Properly funded" means that a tech has a mega corporation in its back, and a large engineering staff.
How do you think the development for nuclear power compares to how much money Intel and IBM uses each year on Research and Development?



And how many people are willing to give up some hours of entertainment for the sake of energy conservation?

Ask yourself: You are willing to remove the only sensible way of collecting energy in a effective fashion, not me.



Let's wait and see what would Germany do without its power plants. Somehow I doubt they would make that decision without calculating the energy needs. And if we can, if there is a chance to make something better besides nuclear energy, be it social or technical solutions, isn't it worth to try?

Give me the blueprints, and I will say "sure".
<snip?


I am aware I am dreaming here and not giving good and ready recipes, just answering the question whether nuclear energy is our way to go. No, I think we must find better ways and cut down on it.

So... are you willing to shut up, and start going after coal and gas first? If yes, then please move along.
<snip>



Paqman: What is that you say? That something with at the least 375 times the death rate is considered a alternativ?
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

[juancarlospaco]

I have to Pay 200$ to go into the gym and pull up dumb iron some hours,
I have to Pay 200$ for electricity made by moving the iron of generator.

... Only me is seeing a pattern here?

[Paqman]

Paqman: What is that you say? That something with at the least 375 times the death rate is considered a alternativ?
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

Yes, coal in particular also has extremely high external costs. Acid rain from coal plants does a lot of damage to industries like forestry, for example. There are still plenty of coal plants being built, although modern ones are enormously less awful than the old ones.

Bottom line is you do need power sources that can meet base load in the middle of the night when there's no wind. That generally limits your choices to either fossil fuels or nuclear. Renewables can and should form part of the energy mix, but they can't meet all our demands.

[ssam]

I have to Pay 200$ to go into the gym and pull up dumb iron some hours,
I have to Pay 200$ for electricity made by moving the iron of generator.

... Only me is seeing a pattern here?

that is basically biofuel.

a person on a bike can sustain about 200-300 Watts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_performance

so you will need over 20 cyclists going 24*7 for an average UK power consumption.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_energy

[Anuovis]

@del_diablo

All I am saying is that we need to seriously start looking for:
(1) alternative energy sources
(2) reduction of our energy needs

You sort of missed all of those points and left a trail of logical contradictions instead but I won't dig into those because that's not the core of the debate.

Just a few points...
Biomass and hydrogen potential is not yet discovered. If done right, they could start replacing dirty power plants in the future.

Coal mine death rate is not necessary either. If China has 300 and US has 15 (bringing the world average to 160) that's one example that things don't have to be the way they are. I am not sure about the pollution from such plants but it might be reduced with technology as well. This sort of math has another problem, how many people die from indirect damage like coal atmosphere pollution or cancers that show up 20 years after a nuclear incident?

We might have this either-or situation at the moment (nuclear vs fossil burning) but it's a lose-lose choice. So we need others. And we can't say there aren't until we really tried.

[del_diablo]

Anuovis: You are making a large fallancy, you are stating the options exist or will be "ready" for light usage after short time of research.
Come back when it is, until then nuclear is the cleanest and safest.

[Dustin2128]

Interesting thing I read on slashdot, after a mathematical analysis, a poster concluded that nuclear plants would have to have 24 meltdowns a year to be as dangerous as coal.

[Anuovis]

Anuovis: You are making a large fallancy, you are stating the options exist or will be "ready" for light usage after short time of research.
Come back when it is, until then nuclear is the cleanest and safest.

I won't argue further than this, since I don't have enough knowledge. But from what I gathered, it would seem that biomass and hydrogen energy is not a utopia any more. They might not be ready or as easily-implemented as what we have now but they aren't unrealistic either.

It would seem that there are more social than technical constrains in this regard, it might be my superficial impression.

In any case, the question is broad. I don't think the next 20 years would be without nuclear energy but that's not the long-term "way to go" either.

As for coal, again, correct me if I am wrong, but it would seem that the security measures for workers and environmental protection seem to be lower on the list than financial efficiency. Sadly, this also seems to be the case with nuclear power plants. Hence, why I emphasize the need for another mentality when it comes to energy and economy.

[Chronon]

that is basically biofuel.

a person on a bike can sustain about 200-300 Watts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_performance

so you will need over 20 cyclists going 24*7 for an average UK power consumption.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_energy

How do you figure that? It seems like you're roughly a factor of 500,000 off.

[Crempel]

1. What the heck does this topic have to do with an Ubuntu forum?
2. And if it does have anything to do with it, why are so many people supporting open source software in favor of nuclear power?
:confused:

[gufide]

I think there's a lot of potential, but I prefer hydroelectricity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity) , witch is green, and low costs to exploit, and give practically free energy, because as far I know, a river don't stop to fall few days after ;) This energy is very exploited in my country. The only problem is to find an exploitable river.

[tgm4883]

1. What the heck does this topic have to do with an Ubuntu forum?
2. And if it does have anything to do with it, why are so many people supporting open source software in favor of nuclear power?
:confused:

This is in the community cafe, which


Almost any non-tech-support topic may be discussed here.

That said, what does supporting open source software have to do with nuclear power? Supporting OSS and support NP are not mutually exclusive.

[tumbes2000]

Actually, they did. And a few years after building the plant, they would have had it rebuildt IF they could.
Consider the fact that they had to disable 3-4 failsafes just to get where they did, how about it wiseguy?
Lets remove railing and make 45 degree slipper steps on long staircases, and lets see how the accident rate will skyrocket!



The plant is CERTIFIED for withstanding a earthquake on a larger magnitude than it was hit by.
The plant was also riffed in corruption, and small "incidents" has happened on regular intervals.
And the plant was suppose to be retired and replaced in May that has happend.
The entire thing is already a "worst case scenario" and nothing bad has happened so far. Even the radiactive that was dumped into the water has already disappered due its halflife time.

Before any of you fanatics are willing to bash nuclear power, please consider that there currently is no decent alternatives, and that you are mostly spewing out senseless sensationalist fear like another silly tabloid newspaper.
Even the entire "nuclear waiste lasts forever" is sparked by a bloody ban on research. Image what would have happened if proper research was done, if there was a proper political will to start properly experimenting with fusion plants, and a proper accountability for anybody who starts doing bad decisions.
And please consider that organizations like Greenpeace are acitivists willing to start killing people if the situation called for it, led by morons, and who can not even backup what they say with scientific facts.

If you want to be taken seriously about nuclear power: Please start every single "I want nuclear power banned" with "I want coal and gas plants banned, as they are more hazardous than nuclear power".


Agreed!

[ssam]

a person on a bike can sustain about 200-300 Watts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_performance

so you will need over 20 cyclists going 24*7 for an average UK power consumption.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_energy


How do you figure that? It seems like you're roughly a factor of 500,000 off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_energy says 9.85 exajoules per year for the UK.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%289.85+exajoules+per+year%29+%2F+%2860+million %29
that's 5000 W per person.

[tumbes2000]

We all would love to have all green energy and I am all for pushing for more green energy, but we have a growing population that is consuming energy at greater and greater rates and none of the green energies available can come close to providing a stable, source of electricity the way nuclear, coal and gas can. Wind is great, but is not dependable, same with solar. Hydroelectric power still causes a drastic change in an ecosystem, not to mention not available in most places.

So as it stands we have three sources of dependable power, coal, natural gas, and Nuclear fission. It is a fact that the production of coal for power has killed more people and damaged much more of the environment than nuclear power ever has. Natural gas is cleaner to burn but more expensive than coal, still produces green house gases and the natural gas extraction process can be very damaging. Nuclear power produces zero green house gases and has yet to kill anyone in the US unlike coal production.

Really the end goal should be a combination of renewables on a smart grid with Nuclear power as a constant dependable source to supplement green energy production. France currently produces 80% of its electricity from nuclear power and has a good track record of safety. I believe they are the country the rest of the world should be trying to mimic in regards to energy.

There is some hope that nuclear fusion will be possible that could produce even more electric power safely and without radioactive after effects of fission. Until that time we have to pick the least destructive option and that is nuclear power.

[SuperFreak]

Perhaps after the rhetoric about Nuclear vs Green vs Coal vs Gas subsides a few people will consider the obvious non-polluting & cost free solution. CONSERVATION. Our Great Grandparents and Grandparents knew how to use less energy and material generally and have a happy existence. The energy intensive period of civilization has lasted barely 100 years out of Tens of thousands of years where man lived in harmony with the earth . Numerous studies have shown that people of the western hemisphere are not happier with ever more material and by the same reasoning more energy. It would appear that the West is now learning (Austerity programs in Greece, Cuts in Public Services in North America, High Unemployment in many areas)the hard way that we have to be careful with what resources we have (including energy resources) if there is to be any hope for future generations.

[tgm4883]

Perhaps after the rhetoric about Nuclear vs Green vs Coal vs Gas subsides a few people will consider the obvious non-polluting & cost free solution. CONSERVATION. Our Great Grandparents and Grandparents knew how to use less energy and material generally and have a happy existence. The energy intensive period of civilization has lasted barely 100 years out of Tens of thousands of years where man lived in harmony with the earth . Numerous studies have shown that people of the western hemisphere are not happier with ever more material and by the same reasoning more energy. It would appear that the West is now learning (Austerity programs in Greece, Cuts in Public Services in North America, High Unemployment in many areas)the hard way that we have to be careful with what resources we have (including energy resources) if there is to be any hope for future generations.

And our great great great grandparents didn't have electricity and they lived fine. Go back far enough and i'm sure we can find people living fine without fire.

Or realize that producing electricity/energy doesn't have to be a bad thing.

[Anuovis]

Perhaps after the rhetoric about Nuclear vs Green vs Coal vs Gas subsides a few people will consider the obvious non-polluting & cost free solution. CONSERVATION.

What I was also trying to say. We can cut down on our energy uses without reducing our happiness and quality of living, there is plenty of wasteful usage these days. And if you add millions of people saving every day, it really builds up.

Nobody is talking about going back to the stone age.

[del_diablo]

Perhaps after the rhetoric about Nuclear vs Green vs Coal vs Gas subsides a few people will consider the obvious non-polluting & cost free solution. CONSERVATION. Our Great Grandparents and Grandparents knew how to use less energy and material generally and have a happy existence. The energy intensive period of civilization has lasted barely 100 years out of Tens of thousands of years where man lived in harmony with the earth .

Man, in harmony with nature?
By becoming farmers we created plagues.
By being travelling farmers we burned down entire forests.
By learning how to hunt we start going on a extinction spree if left unchecked.
The only reason they did not manage to torch the planet was because they never managed to breed a lot of people. Even they, they was far worse to nature compared to what we do. The only reason what we do looks bad is because we are so many, and we have so super advanced tools, that we can do something anything our ancestors did on a super massive scale.
Today, we damage nature less per person, and we live a lot more comfortable on that top of that too.
<snip>


Numerous studies have shown that people of the western hemisphere are not happier with ever more material and by the same reasoning more energy. It would appear that the West is now learning (Austerity programs in Greece, Cuts in Public Services in North America, High Unemployment in many areas)the hard way that we have to be careful with what resources we have (including energy resources) if there is to be any hope for future generations.

Learn?
The publics memory lasts roughly 10-15 years. Anything before that is a obstacle of history, or some super major event. With some decent education you can boost that public memory to 30-40 years, but beyond that nobody will remember or care.
Even the "democratic messup" is nothing more than a farse and stagnat corruption, something we have seen since the first bits of recorded history. Please tell me that we have learned from history, because we have apparently not.
However, kids need to be taught that they are not number 1, but will have a great life. And they must learn to never compromise, for a compromise is a evil.

[Ric_NYC]

Thorium???




"Safe nuclear does exist, and China is leading the way with thorium


A few weeks before the tsunami struck Fukushima’s uranium reactors and shattered public faith in nuclear power, China revealed that it was launching a rival technology to build a safer, cleaner, and ultimately cheaper network of reactors based on thorium.

Professor Robert Cywinksi from Huddersfield University said thorium must be bombarded with neutrons to drive the fission process. “There is no chain reaction. Fission dies the moment you switch off the photon beam. There are not enough neutrons for it continue of its own accord,” he said.

Professor Robert Cywinksi from Huddersfield University said thorium must be bombarded with neutrons to drive the fission process. “There is no chain reaction. Fission dies the moment you switch off the photon beam. There are not enough neutrons for it continue of its own accord,” he said.

US physicists in the late 1940s explored thorium fuel for power. It has a higher neutron yield than uranium, a better fission rating, longer fuel cycles, and does not require the extra cost of isotope separation.
The plans were shelved because thorium does not produce plutonium for bombs. As a happy bonus, it can burn up plutonium and toxic waste."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/8393984/Safe-nuclear-does-exist-and-China-is-leading-the-way-with-thorium.html


I like this part: thorium must be bombarded with neutrons to drive the fission process. “There is no chain reaction. Fission dies the moment you switch off the photon beam.

[8_Bit]

When the U.S. decided it wanted to be the first country to land a man on the moon, within a small matter of years, they managed to do it, thanks to a concerted effort and massive pouring of research funding.

<snip> The reason we do not have cheap cost-effective solar power yet is not because it doesn't exist. It is simply a matter of lousy priorities.

Nuclear power is a dinosaur. It is an irrelevant energy source, a Cold War commodity that needs to go away into the depths of history.

As another poster noted, infinite free energy sources do exist and their discoverers throughout history have been suppressed and persecuted. The energy companies are a cartel, and they own the majority of the media. (General Electric owns NBC for example)
<snip>

<snip>

[bapoumba]

We'll have a little rest here, giving us time to read, thanks.

[bapoumba]

Thread reopened.

Please keep in mind to avoid politics. I had no time to read the entire thread and clean it. Yet :)

[PhillyPhil]

Thorium sounds like a fantastic compromise until we can fully transition to green, non-nuclear options.

It's reaction requires continuous energy input, so it's incredibly safe: as soon as you turn off the input, everything stops...

[henrique_rauen]

Interesting topic.

People talking about how those before us managed to "live in peace with nature"...
I loved the "geographically safe location" option... This explains a lot about why those before us "lived in peace with the nature" and why we do not, and never will.

As usual, popular wisdom has something interesting to say: "What the eyes don't see, the heart doesn't feel"

See the relation? hehehehehe.

[Elfy]

closed temporarily

re-opened.

From bapoumba - Please keep in mind to avoid politics. I had no time to read the entire thread and clean it. Yet


Some posts snipped. One post removed - simply because it referred to points snipped from a previous.

[Retlol]

Cheap, unlimited and safe powersource?

Yes pls.

Just cuz some Japanese dudes built their plants at unsafe locations and didn't had proper security doesn't mean it's not safe.

[henrique_rauen]

I hope that when people say "unlimited", they actually mean "large" and not literally unlimited.

[jimbobs]

Why build extremely expensive nuclear power stations when vast amounts of solar energy is available? While we understand and appreciate that, in theory, nuclear is safe and clean in operation, the reality is that there are huge practical problems. The difficulties associated with coolant leaks, waste disposal, maintenance and refurbishment etc. are significant.

Lets take a look at the potential of solar: let's assume a potential of 100 watts of solar energy per square foot in full sun. With 12 hours of sun a day, this equals 100x12x365 or 438,000 watt-hours per square foot per year. Given that there are 27,878,400 square feet in a square mile, this equals over 12 trillion watt-hours per square mile per year.

These numbers are incredible and it's all free! No environmental issues beyond the manufacturing process. Solar farms could be put on every surface build by people, walls, roofs as well as less useful locations for other purposes. Highways could be covered with solar roofs, entire downtown areas could be covered with solar roofs. The possibilities are endless and this is where mankind should be investing.

[User3k]

Supplement solar panels with wind turbines and we are set.

[tgm4883]

Why build extremely expensive nuclear power stations when vast amounts of solar energy is available? While we understand and appreciate that, in theory, nuclear is safe and clean in operation, the reality is that there are huge practical problems. The difficulties associated with coolant leaks, waste disposal, maintenance and refurbishment etc. are significant.

Lets take a look at the potential of solar: let's assume a potential of 100 watts of solar energy per square foot in full sun. With 12 hours of sun a day, this equals 100x12x365 or 438,000 watt-hours per square foot per year. Given that there are 27,878,400 square feet in a square mile, this equals over 12 trillion watt-hours per square mile per year.

These numbers are incredible and it's all free! No environmental issues beyond the manufacturing process. Solar farms could be put on every surface build by people, walls, roofs as well as less useful locations for other purposes. Highways could be covered with solar roofs, entire downtown areas could be covered with solar roofs. The possibilities are endless and this is where mankind should be investing.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/entries/icons/square/000/005/545/OpoQQ.jpg?1302279173

Please just stop. You are making up numbers and it's pretty ridiculous. I was going to post a longer reply with actual numbers but you make my head hurt. Instead, I'm just going to go eat dinner.

[SuperFreak]

Please just stop. You are making up numbers and it's pretty ridiculous. I was going to post a longer reply with actual numbers but you make my head hurt. Instead, I'm just going to go eat dinner.

The numbers are in fact reported on many web sites just as the poster wrote them, in fact it is a direct quote from at least one of many web sites(ie http://www.wattfree.com/new_page_2.htm).These numbers represent the actual energy reaching the earth in direct sunlight not what would be harvested by a square foot of solar panel as at best these are 30% efficient and this does not account for other variables such as cloud cover, physical obstructions to the panels (ie trees), angle of the panel to the sun, location on the earth,temperature etc.

[jimbobs]

http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/entries/icons/square/000/005/545/OpoQQ.jpg?1302279173

Please just stop. You are making up numbers and it's pretty ridiculous. I was going to post a longer reply with actual numbers but you make my head hurt. Instead, I'm just going to go eat dinner.

Ah yes, the traditional argument of the arrogant: your argument is so stupid/weak/unrealistic/nonsensical that I'm not even going to bother to respond.

But, strangely enough, you did have time to demonstrate how arrogant and superior you are :)

And please don't bother if you're just going to quibble about the actual number of watts per square foot or the efficiency of panels etc.

[jimbobs]

in fact it is a direct quote from at least one of many web sites(ie http://www.wattfree.com/new_page_2.htm)

It wasn't actually a direct quote from this site or any other site. I can't actually remember where I read/heard it. And I actually used Google calculator to work out the figures.

But thanks for the link - that looks like an interesting site.

[Bandit]

I understand many here think solar energy is weak and not a real option. But past few years the solar cell industry have really improved quality and mostly efficiency of the units. Two (125watt) 4x6ft sheets will actually run cut a huge amount of cost down. At 250watts per kilowatt hour will actually keep most homes AC running all day and fridge going. Yea when everyone gets home and turns on everything that afternoon they may not seem like a lot. But with many homes pushing $500 electric bills during the summer due to cooling cost, wouldnt it be great to at least know your AC is running at home for FREE during the day.. It would be nice to knock off 150 to $200 bucks off a electric.

Now many make the argument that you dont get good sunlight all the time. True except for Phoenix AZ. But unless your from Washington State or Oregon most states get 10 months of good sun lite a year. But the point is that most electricity bills are the highest when the sun is blaring down on everything and temps are the highest. Hey this is when the Cells will be pushing the most energy.. SO I dont know what everyone's argument is.

[Gremlinzzz]

Its not just earth quakes we should be concern with.the weather is changing were getting more powerful storms and floods.Nuclear power plants should be shut down and eliminated.:D

[tgm4883]

Ah yes, the traditional argument of the arrogant: your argument is so stupid/weak/unrealistic/nonsensical that I'm not even going to bother to respond.

But, strangely enough, you did have time to demonstrate how arrogant and superior you are :)


Ohh look at me, super arrogant. Funny enough, it doesn't take much time to post a few sentences.



And please don't bother if you're just going to quibble about the actual number of watts per square foot or the efficiency of panels etc.

So the numbers don't matter then? I can play that game.

Let's build nuclear everywhere. It only costs $5 per plant and only costs the consumer $0.01/kWh. Oh, and we'll put a small reactor in every home.

But seriously, I live in Oregon. Tell me when I'm going to get anything near the rated watts from a solar panel. Guess I'll just have to suck it up and live with less electronics than you.

I always hear about how cheap the solar panels are getting. But as I mentioned earlier in this thread, what about all of the other equipment you need in order to use solar panels?

On the other hand, at least I wouldn't have to worry about the rain anymore. :p


Highways could be covered with solar roofs, entire downtown areas could be covered with solar roofs. The possibilities are endless and this is where mankind should be investing.

[Bandit]

Its not just earth quakes we should be concern with.the weather is changing were getting more powerful storms and floods.Nuclear power plants should be shut down and eliminated.:D

You know its not that I am totally against Nuke plants. Its just I see to much corp greed either paying the lowest bidder to build plants a cheap as possible, letting the plants go to crap, and trying to squeeze the last bit of life out of the plants years past their designed life span. If it was possible to eliminate those 3 main issues. Nuclear plants could be made much safer. When I was in the Navy I was on a Aircraft Carrier and we have two nuclear plants on board the ship powering it. Those plants use U235 and are extremely safe and well maintained. If all nuke plants where ran like the ones on a aircraft carrier we would see a lot less issues and I would be one of the first to give the thumbs up for them. IMHO

[Bandit]

But seriously, I live in Oregon. Tell me when I'm going to get anything near the rated watts from a solar panel. Guess I'll just have to suck it up and live with less electronics than you.

Honestly solar panels are a bad option for you. Just like Wind Turbines are a bad option for me. Yes you get sun and I get wind, but not enough quantity or quality to make either or worth while for each of us. If you live within a few miles of the coast, wind turbines could be a much better alternative to solar for you. I say "could" as I havent looked up your area for complete details. They do have maps listing what your best options are in you area.


EDIT:
After watching a report on NBC the other day about the supposedly "Clean Coal", I had rather have a nuclear plant near by. The "Clean Coal" is currently just being dumped in land fills or next to coal plants. The stuff is like talc powder and is a complete mess. If I can find link I will post it.

[tgm4883]

Honestly solar panels are a bad option for you. Just like Wind Turbines are a bad option for me. Yes you get sun and I get wind, but not enough quantity or quality to make either or worth while for each of us. If you live within a few miles of the coast, wind turbines could be a much better alternative to solar for you. I say "could" as I havent looked up your area for complete details. They do have maps listing what your best options are in you area.


EDIT:
After watching a report on NBC the other day about the supposedly "Clean Coal", I had rather have a nuclear plant near by. The "Clean Coal" is currently just being dumped in land fills or next to coal plants. The stuff is like talc powder and is a complete mess. If I can find link I will post it.

Salem Oregon, about an hour from the coast. Where can I look up my best options?

[Bandit]

Salem Oregon, about an hour from the coast. Where can I look up my best options?

http://www.windpowermaps.org/windmaps/images/ORwindspeed50_highres.jpg

[tgm4883]

http://www.windpowermaps.org/windmaps/images/ORwindspeed50_highres.jpg

Hmm, maybe 13MPH, doesn't look like that is a good option for me either.

[Bandit]

Hmm, maybe 13MPH, doesn't look like that is a good option for me either.

May not.. Prob better the closer you live to cost.
Nuclear Energy may be a better option in your area :-)

[Ric_NYC]

Honestly solar panels are a bad option for you. Just like Wind Turbines are a bad option for me. Yes you get sun and I get wind, but not enough quantity or quality to make either or worth while for each of us. If you live within a few miles of the coast, wind turbines could be a much better alternative to solar for you. I say "could" as I havent looked up your area for complete details. They do have maps listing what your best options are in you area.


EDIT:
After watching a report on NBC the other day about the supposedly "Clean Coal", I had rather have a nuclear plant near by. The "Clean Coal" is currently just being dumped in land fills or next to coal plants. The stuff is like talc powder and is a complete mess. If I can find link I will post it.



The "clean coal":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGAvO91fDe4&feature=related

[tgm4883]

May not.. Prob better the closer you live to cost.
Nuclear Energy may be a better option in your area :-)

Heh, could be. Maybe I should build one of these http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/nuclear/4273386

[ssam]

Why build extremely expensive nuclear power stations when vast amounts of solar energy is available? While we understand and appreciate that, in theory, nuclear is safe and clean in operation, the reality is that there are huge practical problems. The difficulties associated with coolant leaks, waste disposal, maintenance and refurbishment etc. are significant.

Lets take a look at the potential of solar: let's assume a potential of 100 watts of solar energy per square foot in full sun. With 12 hours of sun a day, this equals 100x12x365 or 438,000 watt-hours per square foot per year. Given that there are 27,878,400 square feet in a square mile, this equals over 12 trillion watt-hours per square mile per year.

These numbers are incredible and it's all free! No environmental issues beyond the manufacturing process. Solar farms could be put on every surface build by people, walls, roofs as well as less useful locations for other purposes. Highways could be covered with solar roofs, entire downtown areas could be covered with solar roofs. The possibilities are endless and this is where mankind should be investing.

the economics of nuclear and wind/solar are pretty similar. billions in upfront costs, which get paid back over 10-20 years. people die in any construction project, so you could argue that neither are completely safe.

wind and solar are fairly dependant on location, climate and population density. so they work out ok in some places.

[Paqman]

Supplement solar panels with wind turbines and we are set.

Er, no.

Jimbobs numbers are roughly correct, btw. The standard rule of thumb for comparing solar panels is that the norm for the available solar energy is 1kW per square metre (which is about 10 square feet for you people stuck in the middle ages). That's at Air Mass 1.5, which is about the latitude of Paris, and for an optimally aligned panel.

The problem is that output is highly variable. It's affected by weather, season and latitude. Solar PV and thermal generate most of their output a few hours either side of midday, which is not a time of high demand in most places.

Wind is even less well matched to demand, as it's a lot more variable. Worse, the coldest days in winter tend to have zero wind, as they#re caused by regions of high pressure parked over the land.

Solar and wind can only ever supplement the output of more dependable plants.

Economically wind is an easier sell than solar. Solar has really high costs up front, whereas wind turbines are highly modular, mass produced, easy to install and don't affect land use. The main obstacle to wind development is people's attitudes to them. Solar installations are quite expensive, so getting investment is tricky, and they need to have high confidence that they can sell their electricity at a good price to make it worth it. In countries with totally deregulated power pools that makes solar a pretty risky investment. Bottom line is that solar is really only attractive in places with lots of strong sunshine and high demand for electricity during the day (ie: places where aircon is used heavily)

[Paqman]

When I was in the Navy I was on a Aircraft Carrier and we have two nuclear plants on board the ship powering it. Those plants use U235 and are extremely safe and well maintained. If all nuke plants where ran like the ones on a aircraft carrier we would see a lot less issues and I would be one of the first to give the thumbs up for them. IMHO

The most common kind of reactor, the PWR, is directly derived from the reactors used on US naval vessels like subs and carriers. They basically took the reactor design from the USS Nautilus and built a building around it.

[santaslittlehelper]

I can only speak for myself but not being a nuclear physicist I can only read so many wiki pages about Rubbia reactors (see [1]) and the likes. Thorium got its very own spokesperson namely Kirk Sorensen so I turned to Dr. kiki (see [2]) (according to his resume he should know what his is talking about (see [3])). Apparently thorium is the best thing since sliced bread not only can it help to cure cancer be vital for future exploration of space not be weaponized as well as it is dirt cheap safe clean technology. At 32:00 he loses me when he goes on to explaining the amazing track record of nuclear power and how today's nuclear technology is both safe and clean because IMO you do not need to be a nuclear scientist to comprehend that places like Yucca Mountain (see [4]) was needed and still is for the storage of nuclear waste - furthermore (see [5]). Lots more could be said about potential risks concerning nuclear power. If future nuclear technology becomes better both in terms of safety as either thorium reactors or Gen IV reactors promises and cleaner as they both again promise (I have read anywhere between 100 - 1000 years regarding high-level radioactive waste I am guessing that they do not know for sure yet beside if it is less then 1000 years it De facto becomes less interesting) then of cause it becomes more viable.

Since India plans on getting 25% of there energy from nuclear power in 2050 (see [6]) I am sure that we will get to know the future of nuclear technology soon enough be it in 20 or 30 years. I remain a nuclear skeptic I also hope that serious investments will be made in to other alternative energy resources for the reasons that we at least all can agree upon be it for the environment or energy independence.

On a side note Bjorn Lomborgs (see [7]) book and later documentary Cool It might be of interest to some as it asks some good questions particularity that ever so often we meet up and promises to cut carbon emissions and then we do not do it (at it's core it is about how we spent our money on the best solutions and not the worst ones in a act of panic) as well as it offers some possible solutions. Just to be clear I am about as skeptical about Bjorn Lomborg as of nuclear power but I found it just as interesting as thorium.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Rubbia
[2] http://atomicinsights.com/2011/02/kirk-sorensen-explains-molten-salt-thorium-reactors-to-dr-kiki-interview-includes-exciting-info-about-bismuth-213-for-cancer-treatment.html
[3] http://www.linkedin.com/pub/kirk-sorensen/3/765/48b
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository
[5] http://newmdb.iaea.org/profiles.aspx?ByCountry=US
[6] http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf53.html
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg

[User3k]

Er, no.

Jimbobs numbers are roughly correct, btw. The standard rule of thumb for comparing solar panels is that the norm for the available solar energy is 1kW per square metre (which is about 10 square feet for you people stuck in the middle ages). That's at Air Mass 1.5, which is about the latitude of Paris, and for an optimally aligned panel.

The problem is that output is highly variable. It's affected by weather, season and latitude. Solar PV and thermal generate most of their output a few hours either side of midday, which is not a time of high demand in most places.

Wind is even less well matched to demand, as it's a lot more variable. Worse, the coldest days in winter tend to have zero wind, as they#re caused by regions of high pressure parked over the land.

Solar and wind can only ever supplement the output of more dependable plants.

Economically wind is an easier sell than solar. Solar has really high costs up front, whereas wind turbines are highly modular, mass produced, easy to install and don't affect land use. The main obstacle to wind development is people's attitudes to them. Solar installations are quite expensive, so getting investment is tricky, and they need to have high confidence that they can sell their electricity at a good price to make it worth it. In countries with totally deregulated power pools that makes solar a pretty risky investment. Bottom line is that solar is really only attractive in places with lots of strong sunshine and high demand for electricity during the day (ie: places where aircon is used heavily)

We have some areas that all you see for a distance in the fields are wind turbines,(wind farms.) Seems to be working out well and no complaints.

I am more then sure solar power can work out as well to with some work.

Below is the explanation of how Nuclear power plants work. They are basically steam generators. But with this we have nuclear waste and the potential for a disaster. Yeah disasters do happen. Especially when some idiot decide's, "Hey this earthquake prone, tsunami prone area would be a great place to build one. What? People? Who cares, we just want the money."

http://www.duke-energy.com/about-energy/generating-electricity/nuclear-how.asp


1. The Fuel
The fuel used in nuclear generation is uranium 235. It is manufactured as small round pellets. A single pellet is less than an inch long, but produces the energy equivalent to a ton of coal. The pellets are placed end to end into fuel rods 12 feet long. Over 200 of these rods are grouped into what is known as a fuel assembly.

2. Reactor
The process of producing electricity begins when uranium atoms are split (i.e., fission) by particles known as neutrons. Uranium 235 has a unique quality that causes it to break apart when it collides with a neutron. Once an atom of uranium 235 is split, neutrons from the uranium atom are free to collide with other atoms of the uranium 235. A chain reaction begins and the chain reaction produces heat. This reaction is controlled by rods which absorb neutrons.

Control rods are inserted among the fuel assembly rods that hold the uranium pellets. When they are in place, they absorb the atomic particles that would normally initiate the chain reaction. When they are withdrawn from the fuel assembly, fission is allowed to occur.

3. Pressurizer
The heat produced in the reactor is transferred to the first of three water systems: the primary coolant. The primary coolant is heated to over 600 degrees Fahrenheit. In a pressurized water reactor, a pressurizer keeps the water under pressure to prevent it from boiling.

4. Steam Generator
The hot, pressurized water passes through thousands of tubes in nearby steam generators. These tubes are surrounded by another water system called the secondary coolant. The heat from the primary coolant is transferred to the secondary coolant, which then turns into steam.

The primary and secondary systems are closed systems. This means that the water flowing through the reactor remains separate and does not mix with the water from the other system or the lake.

5. Turbine
The steam is piped from the containment building into the turbine building to push the giant blades of a turbine. The turbine is connected to an electric generator by a rotating shaft. As the turbine blades begin to spin, a magnet inside the generator also turns to produce electricity.

6. Condenser Coolant
After turning the turbines, the steam is cooled by passing it over tubes carrying a third water system, called the condenser coolant or lake water. The steam is cooled so it condenses back into water and is returned to the steam generator to be used again and again.

7. Lake or Cooling Towers
At some nuclear stations, such as Oconee and McGuire, lake water flows through thousands of condenser tubes to condense steam back to water. It is then discharged down a long canal (for cooling) and eventually enters the main part of the lake.

At other plants such as Catawba Nuclear Station, the condenser cooling water is circulated through cooling towers to remove the extra heat it has gained. The water is pumped to the top of the cooling towers and is allowed to pour down through the structure. At the same time, a set of fans at the top of each tower pulls air up through the condenser water. This lowers the temperature of the water by about 24 degrees. After it is cooled, the condenser water flows back into the turbine building to begin its work of condensing steam again.

[jimbobs]

So the numbers don't matter then? I can play that game.

You completely miss the point. My numbers were not ridiculous - yours are!

Huge amounts of government money was poured into nuclear power in the 40's, 50's and 60's. Much of it was to support military purposes so was "hidden". If similar investments were made today into alternative forms of energy, into super-insulated and zero-energy homes, into distributed power generation, our energy problems would be gone.

We are still working with a generation and distribution model that is over 100 years old! Once upon a time, it made sense to built big power stations and huge and very inefficient distribution grids. It makes less and less sense to do that today. In fact, it is those very inefficient and inadequate grids that is the biggest limiting factor on the larger adoption of alternative forms of energy. Projects are being put on hold because the closest access to the grid can't handle the wind or solar farm.

My opposition to nuclear is purely based on the fact that it is not nearly as inexpensive or as efficient or as clean or as safe as it was and is made out to be. For those reasons, I am opposed to it.

[Bandit]

Heh, could be. Maybe I should build one of these http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/nuclear/4273386

You know that plant I actually like. One of the big features is that its passively cooled. Also its small enough that if built in a proper structure that a large earthquake would not damage it. If they would use weapons grade uranium which is even more stable (U235) then they would be rock solid units IMHO. Yes not as robust as a large plant, but doesnt come with robust problems if everything goes to crap.

[Ken UK]

Nuclear is just the next generation of coal and gas power:


They still need to mine it
There is still only limited supply of material to mine
Theres the added fact that they can't actually get rid of the waste effectively and probably will not find a practical way any time soon


If you live in the UK theres a programme about it (can't remember what its called) on 4OD you should check out about the underground facility they have built to store the waste for hundreds of years and the solutions they are thinking about to avoid people unearthing it in the far future.

Made me realise what a poor long term solution nuclear is.

[TheDoctorX]

I don't think that nuclear power is bad, if you compare it with other ways of energy production isn't bad at all! :D but i don't think that nuclear is the energy of the future ... i'm italian and as you probably know, we have many problems with the normal trash :( ... try to imagine what can italians do with radioactive rubbish :( ... on the outskirts of Naples although we have no nuclear you can find nuclear waste from all europe ... putting nuclear waste underground and wait is not the solution ... so nuclear is not the way... i'm not going to make the earth a colander :)

[Ric_NYC]

Atlantic City wind turbines become a tourist attraction :D



ATLANTIC CITY - The 32-story turbines of the Jersey-Atlantic Wind Farm have so dramatically changed Atlantic City's skyline - perhaps more than any casino could - that tourists haven't stopped asking questions about them since they went up five years ago along a back-bay salt marsh.

Some casino hotel guests are so fascinated that they ask for rooms with a view of the five delicate fans, resort operators say.

So the Atlantic County Utilities Authority is cranking open the security gates at the Route 30 wastewater-treatment facility that houses the turbines for twice-a-week tours in June, July, and August.

The tours were offered by appointment only last summer - to see whether anyone was interested. This year, they are scheduled for noon Mondays and Fridays, no appointment necessary. About 15,000 people a year - mostly school groups - had previously visited since the turbines were erected.
(Philadelphia Inquirer)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITtGr7v6vxI

[Ric_NYC]

What Do Cows Think of Wind Turbines?



Hmmmm.... MOOOOOOO!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bp5ZooiTbw

[DirtyPC]

One word:

Japan.

[ebattleon]

The most common kind of reactor, the PWR, is directly derived from the reactors used on US naval vessels like subs and carriers. They basically took the reactor design from the USS Nautilus and built a building around it.

Err...not they are not the same type of reactor. Reactors on ships are significantly different to Land based nuclear reactors do your research!

As for nuclear reactors I am for the development of Thorium based nuclear reactors as the require an external supply of neutrons. Thus they are self sustaining and thus not likely to meltdown if the lose power. Now this based on the use of external accelerator based Thorium reactors. There are designs that more conventional that may be prone to meltdown failures.

[jimbobs]

the economics of nuclear and wind/solar are pretty similar. billions in upfront costs, which get paid back over 10-20 years.

Not quite. There may be upfront capital costs to wind/solar but it is a much more incremental model and more scalable to demand. Once you decide to build a nuclear plant, you are committed to expenditures of hundreds of millions of dollars. Furthermore, you are committed to sourcing the fuel and disposing of the waste. With wind/solar, you have a more scalable model whereby you can investment significantly smaller amounts in more places and have no issues with fuel either on the input or output side. If all costs are taken into account, wind/solar is always cheaper than nuclear.

Another point, wind/solar is most often thought of as a means of generating electricity. However, much research has gone into using them for local heating and hydrogen generation plants. These models are worthy of consideration and investment.

Right now, in small scale solar, the most efficient opportunity is for hot water heating with a solar water heater on residential/small office roofs. Payback is measured in months rather than years,

[Dustin2128]

Its not just earth quakes we should be concern with.the weather is changing were getting more powerful storms and floods.Nuclear power plants should be shut down and eliminated.:D
Even if it's in a geographically safe location without all that? Okaaaaaaaaaaay....

[Ric_NYC]

Operator Of Damaged Plant Suspends Clean-Up Due To Rising Radiation Levels

TOKYO, Jun 18 (Reuters) - The operator of Japan's stricken Fukushima nuclear power plant, said on Saturday it had suspended an operation to clean up radioactive water only hours after it had begun as radiation levels rose faster than expected.

"The level of radiation at a machine to absorb caesium has risen faster than our initial projections," said a spokesman for Tokyo Electric Power Co .
...Around 110,000 tonnes of highly radioactive water is stored at the plant.

[Bandit]

I was just thinking. Were gonna have nuke power unless LT Carter brings us a ZPM back through the stargate. Right now people are also already starting to complain about the mining going on on the Oil Sands fields in Canada. Would that be a great place to store the spent uranium. Maybe I am wrong, but the ground will still have some slight oil in the sand, unlike salt in the sand in Nevada or Utah. So containers want rust, also its freaking cold there. Further helping keep the spent mess cooled down for safer storage. Last, no freaking body lives there unless their mining for oil. Less chance of polluting our water system in case of leaking as well.

** Thoughts? **

[Bandit]

Operator Of Damaged Plant Suspends Clean-Up Due To Rising Radiation Levels

TOKYO, Jun 18 (Reuters) - The operator of Japan's stricken Fukushima nuclear power plant, said on Saturday it had suspended an operation to clean up radioactive water only hours after it had begun as radiation levels rose faster than expected.

"The level of radiation at a machine to absorb caesium has risen faster than our initial projections," said a spokesman for Tokyo Electric Power Co .
...Around 110,000 tonnes of highly radioactive water is stored at the plant.

Yea that plant is a "lessen learned" mistake. At least I hope everyone has learned something from it.

Moores Law - What ever can happen, will happen..

[del_diablo]

Operator Of Damaged Plant Suspends Clean-Up Due To Rising Radiation Levels

TOKYO, Jun 18 (Reuters) - The operator of Japan's stricken Fukushima nuclear power plant, said on Saturday it had suspended an operation to clean up radioactive water only hours after it had begun as radiation levels rose faster than expected.

"The level of radiation at a machine to absorb caesium has risen faster than our initial projections," said a spokesman for Tokyo Electric Power Co .
...Around 110,000 tonnes of highly radioactive water is stored at the plant.

1x1x1 meter of water is 1 tonn of water was it?
110.000? A room of 5x5x5 meter contains that does it not?
That is not really much water.

[tgm4883]

1x1x1 meter of water is 1 tonn of water was it?
110.000? A room of 5x5x5 meter contains that does it not?
That is not really much water.

You misplaced the decimal point. The stated number was 110,000 not 110.000. That is not 110 cubic meters like you suggest, it is 110,000 cubic meters.

Now there isn't a link to back up the 110,000 claim, but if true that is 1,000 times more than you suggested.

[Perosteck]

Thorium reactors and breeders are not viable in large scale use.

Liquid metal reactors are a nightmare as regards handling and economy. Hot, liquid sodium, fat chance. Hot, liquid lead, lol.

Nuclear power can never be operated "properly". There is too much room for mistakes, and mistakes can be deadly and infinitely expensive. Private industry is under cost reduction pressure due to our splendid everything-competes-with-everything-else economic "system". In addition, regulating bodies suffer from the revolving door syndrome. The nuclear industry is not under control politically, it completely regulates itself. Corruption is widespread. Mistakes, lack of training and substandard materials cause accidents all the time. Operation of nuclear plants gives exactly those people economic and political power who have an interest to use it to stop and hinder the effort against global warming. The energy industry is not reformable and must be dismantled urgently. Abolishing nuclear power is a political mechanism to do it.

Even if coal plants emit more radiation, that's no argument. We want to get rid of those too.

The true co2 balance of nuclear power is hardly clean. Some people put it at 30% of a comparable gas plant, others at over a 100%. The chain reaction itself is co2-free, but all the support infrastructure and process is not. And it's bound to get worse with low grade ores and more nuclear plants. Nuclear is NO global warming solution.

It's also extremely expensive. It is only cheap of the private owners of the plants. The costs to build and dismantle plants, the costs to handle the waste over millenia, the costs to handle the vast environmental destruction caused by the mining, and the costs of the accidents are all socialised. If they weren't no plants would ever be built at all.

The claim that the energy density of regenerative energies is too low to run an industrial society is utter ********, and part of the FUD campaign of the energy industry. Energy density is only important for those people who want energy centralisation and the political and economic power that comes with it.

[spook1980]

it's just way too dangerous, yeah there are few problems with it but when there are problems its a huge deal, we have safer alternitives like geo-thermal

[User3k]

What Do Cows Think of Wind Turbines?



Hmmmm.... MOOOOOOO!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bp5ZooiTbw

That was so touching how cows and wind turbines coexist. When I watched that video I was really moooved.

[Dustin2128]

I was just thinking. Were gonna have nuke power unless LT Carter brings us a ZPM back through the stargate. Right now people are also already starting to complain about the mining going on on the Oil Sands fields in Canada. Would that be a great place to store the spent uranium. Maybe I am wrong, but the ground will still have some slight oil in the sand, unlike salt in the sand in Nevada or Utah. So containers want rust, also its freaking cold there. Further helping keep the spent mess cooled down for safer storage. Last, no freaking body lives there unless their mining for oil. Less chance of polluting our water system in case of leaking as well.

** Thoughts? **
Actually, the earth's power output is about the same as that of a single ZPM- little more actually. But 1 ZPM per continent would probably work with current energy consumption rates, and then quite a lot. </sg1maniac>

[Bandit]

One of these days I will have to make a ZPM..

** Adds to TO-DO list.. **

[Dustin2128]

One of these days I will have to make a ZPM..

** Adds to TO-DO list.. **
I run a ZPM with my solid hydrogen GPU cooling system.

[santaslittlehelper]

There are plenty of ongoing projects for future nuclear waste repositories (see[1]) for a list unsure if all new sites under construction are mentioned. If anyone got doubts about how nuclear waste is dealt with then have a look at the current site under construction for nuclear waste disposal in Finland (see[2]) as a case for studying.

I find it hard to grasp that anyone fail to see the very real and relevant concerns that the nuclear industry courses as for instead with the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing facility (see [3]) which recently again prompted a reaction from Norway (see [4]). It also goes to tell that possible nuclear accidents do not take geographic borders into consideration as well known from the Chernobyl disaster (see [5]).

When it comes to transportation of nuclear waste the track record is good (see [6]). However in connection to Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository (see [7]) this short piece of footage (see [8]) asks (granted it seems to be a lobby work against the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository) nonetheless the very obvious question which is "can anyone say with certainty that transportation of nuclear waste can be done safely?" because when it comes to nuclear power it might very well be reasonable to demand certainty (see [9]).

[1] http://www.stuk.fi/ydinturvallisuus/ydinjatteet/loppusijoitus_suomessa/en_GB/loppusijoituslaitokset/
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Onkalo_waste_reposit ory
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield
[4] http://theforeigner.no/pages/news/sellafield-safety-concerns-prompt-norwegian-environment-minister-visit/
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
[6] http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf20.html
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository
[8] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rLjNvWzbZc
[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certainty

[8_Bit]

I would not link to Wikipedia pages about power plants if I were you. We are not allowed to post links that support our arguments here.

I posted a link to an article about the Diablo Canyon Power Plant that is situated right next to a fault line and the Pacific Ocean (with no barrier in place to protect against tsunamis), here in southern California. (Google it). Even though it had nothing to do with politics and was very relevant to the thread, the moderators edited it out. I find it interesting that 99% of the posts that were censored were the posts that spoke against nuclear energy. Only one post in favor of nuclear was censored, and it was because it was quoting one that wasn't.

[Paqman]

Err...not they are not the same type of reactor. Reactors on ships are significantly different to Land based nuclear reactors do your research!


I'd like to think I have a rough idea what I'm talking about. Details of the implementation are different, but the US Navy did pioneer the PWR, and does still use them on their warships.

This was in response to a poster who claimed that civilian reactors would do well to emulate US navy ones, when in fact that's exactly how the first generation of civilian reactors were developed.

[Paqman]

I find it interesting that 99% of the posts that were censored were the posts that spoke against nuclear energy.

Even if that were so, you could interpret that a couple of ways:

ZOMG! It's a conspiracy!
The anti-nuclear side of the argument is more prone to posting dodgy linkage


From what I've seen, a certain amount of the opposition to nuclear is well-meant and heartfelt, but not particularly rational or well-informed. Not saying all of it, I definitely think there is a strong rational, fact-based case to make against nuclear, I'm just saying that's not where a lot of the posts have been coming from.

There's been some derp from the pro-nuclear camp too, FWIW.

[Gremlinzzz]

I think most of the pro nuclear power like the idea .but not in there back yard:)