Nuclear Power

[TheComrade]

Inspired by today’s 'Independent' I want to know what you think of nuclear power? Is it the answer to the energy crises?

Below are some of the pros/cons...discuss!!


For

Nuclear Fission doesn't produce any CO2 emissions

Building new power stations ensures Britain can retain control over its own energy sources - with gas and oil in such sort supply countries like Russia could (in theory) hold us to handsome by threatening to increase prices - but off supply etc.

Nuclear Power is a 'mature' technology - reactors are reliable and clean

Nuclear Power is a 24/7 thing - nothing affects it and it can be set to meet peak demands


Against

It isn't actually renewable - we will run out of Uranium some day (no idea how long it will last..?)

The obvious - radioactive waste, impossible stuff no one can get rid of (any ideas?)

Can get nukes from the technology

'Target for terrorist attack' apparently - happened in Ossie land didn't it?

Chernobyl makes people suspicious as well as proving that though the dangers are low when it does go wrong...well its bad.

It takes allot of fossil fuels to actually mine Uranium (234?) and all the other stuff that’s involved in transport etc.

[Delirium]

I very much in support of development of renewable energy, and i believe that this should be augmented with a sustainable low enery ecomony, society, and culture.

Given the risks associated with nuclear power, whether they be military, environmental health, or public health related the risk associated with them are unacceptable.

[ComradeOm]

For. Nuclear power is a relatively cheap (after initial costs) and clean. I see nothing wrong with continuing to avail of this energy source for another century or so. When managed in the right way (see France) there are very few problems.

Nuclear waste is highly dangerous but it will not stay so forever. Compare with the irreversible damage that fossil fuels are doing to the environment right now

[TheComrade]

Nuclear waste is highly dangerous but it will not stay so forever.

Not forever...just hundreds of thousands of years.... Do you think there will be any way to dispose of it?

[ComradeOm]

Its more likely to be hundreds of years rather than thousands. But why worry about disposing of it? Stick it down a mineshaft in the Gobi desert and it'll be grand. Compared to the wholesale damage that conventional fuels are doing to the planet its a minor matter.

Who knows, we might actually find a use for the stuff.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Have a look through the old threads concerning nuclear power to get a better idea of the impact that nuclear power has on the environment.

Suffice to say it is overstated by groups like Greenpeace.

[TheComrade]

Sorry - I didn't know there were other threads about nuclear power - maybe I should start using the 'search' tool... I started it though, because it was in the news today - sorry!

[drain.you]

I'm not an expert on power really but my stance based on the limited info I have heard and read makes me quite strongly against nuclear power and anything else related to nuclear technology and very much for renewable energy.

[TheComrade]

Yes - I don't think that we should build nuclear power stations but I do not think we should close the option off entirely. Renewable energy is what we should focus on but investments should be made into ways of getting rid of nuclear waste. Perhaps when we build some sort of star ladder we can just pump it way out into space (out of the earths orbit obviously :D)

[ComradeOm]

I doubt there a renewable source that can produce a fraction of a nuclear plant's output. There's certainly not any technology that's anywhere near the same level of maturity.

That's not to say that there's no point with renewable energy, I've seen some impressive papers on biomass, but a simple cost/benefit exercise shaows that today nuclear is the way to go.

[Janus]

Nuclear power seems relatively sound but it isn't all that cheap. Disposal, proper training and facilities become quite expensive and it will only increase as the use of nuclear power increases. After all, we don't want another Chernobyl do we? If we could somehow master fusion then all our energy woes will be put away even though fusion has been predicted to be the death of our planet.

[Delirium]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 5 2005, 10:26 PM
If we could somehow master fusion then all our energy woes will be put away even though fusion has been predicted to be the death of our planet.
Care to elaborate?

[Janus]

Fusion will produce unlimited energy right? However, no system is totally perfect so heat will always be given off. Therefore, unlimited energy will create unlimited heat which will destroy the planet.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 5 2005, 11:20 PM
Fusion will produce unlimited energy right? However, no system is totally perfect so heat will always be given off. Therefore, unlimited energy will create unlimited heat which will destroy the planet.
Fusion does not produce unlimited energy. To do so would break the laws of physics.


After all, we don't want another Chernobyl do we?

A chernobyl-like incident will never happen in modern reactors because the design is fundamentally different.

For example: You have some neutron-aborbing rods suspended in electromegnetic cylinders above the reaction chamber (Nuclear reactions need free neutrons in order to stay hot) In the event of a runaway reaction, power is cut to the electromagnets and the rods drop into the reaction chamber, instantly killing the reaction. Even if the power isn't cut off manually, the rods will still fall into chamber when the circuit for the electromagnets is broken (simply cut the wire, or in extreme cases, the wire will melt doing the job for you).

Note that this is just one of the safety features present in modern reactors. Also, look up "pebble bed reactors" on Google.

[Janus]

Certain types of fusion could theoretically create an almost endless or "unlimited" amount of energy, it's just that we can't harness it at our current technological level. I have yet to hear anything about fusion breaking the laws of physics. Search "fusion power" with or without "unlimited" on Google and you will see several credible sources that discuss this topic. Obviously as you can see there is major debate on this matter with some saying that it's impossible while others state that it's difficult but feasible in the future. However, the nuclear fusion that Iter is trying to harness right now is still susceptible to some of the same risks as fission.

When I mentioned Chernobyl, I didn't mean the specifics of it but rather the one of the general cause of the disaster, one of which being poor maintenace. My city has a small nuclear reactor at the university here and I've heard that there have been many problems with it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Certain types of fusion could theoretically create an almost endless or "unlimited" amount of energy, it's just that we can't harness it at our current technological level.

Prove that fusion violates the laws of physics.


I have yet to hear anything about fusion breaking the laws of physics. Search "fusion power" with or without "unlimited" on Google and you will see several credible sources that discuss this topic.

Then post a link. I didn't make the assertion that fusion produces unlimited energy, you did and therefore you must back it up.

Producing unlimited energy is effectively getting something for nothing, which is impossible.


Obviously as you can see there is major debate on this matter with some saying that it's impossible while others state that it's difficult but feasible in the future.

The ones saying it's possible are crackpots who do not understand how physics operates.


However, the nuclear fusion that Iter is trying to harness right now is still susceptible to some of the same risks as fission.

Nonsense. A fusion reaction is much harder to sustain than a fission reaction, since the fusing plasma must be electromagnetically contained and any damage to the reactor will disrupt containment causing the reaction to fail.
Also, the nuclear waste produced by fusion reactors has a half-life of a few weeks at most.

Fusion Power and sustainable development (http://www.fusion.org.uk/susdev/index.htm)


When I mentioned Chernobyl, I didn't mean the specifics of it but rather the one of the general cause of the disaster, one of which being poor maintenace. My city has a small nuclear reactor at the university here and I've heard that there have been many problems with it.

Commercial reactors have much higher standards than university or eastern bloc reactors. This is evidenced by their excellent safety record.

[TheComrade]

Producing unlimited energy is effectively getting something for nothing, which is impossible.

Exactly. But I think what Comrade Qiu is trying to say is that we will never run out of hydrogen or helium (that is what is used in fusion right?) so it is endlessly renewable. It is 'unlimited' in that sense - just like wind, solar, wave, tidal, biomass etc are. Of course unless we somehow invent the perpetual motion machine (pretty neat that would be.)

I agree that nuclear power is much safer than it used to be - but its the nuclear waste that we still have no answer to - unless that is resolved I cannot support further development.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Exactly. But I think what Comrade Qiu is trying to say is that we will never run out of hydrogen or helium (that is what is used in fusion right?) so it is endlessly renewable. It is 'unlimited' in that sense - just like wind, solar, wave, tidal, biomass etc are. Of course unless we somehow invent the perpetual motion machine (pretty neat that would be.)

Well in that case, it's highly unlikely we will run out of fuel for our fusion reactors.
Perpetual motion machines are impossible by the way.



I agree that nuclear power is much safer than it used to be - but its the nuclear waste that we still have no answer to - unless that is resolved I cannot support further development.

Nonsense. A nuclear reactor produces a much smaller and far more managable amount of waste than a comparable fossil fuel station.
Simply stick the nuclear waste in concrete sarcophogi, in areas unlikely to experience tectonic movement or similar land disturbance.

[TheComrade]

Simply stick the nuclear waste in concrete sarcophogi, in areas unlikely to experience tectonic movement or similar land disturbance.

But if it was that simple, why do people make a fuss? Plus why go from one bad power source to one that is just slightly better in the amount of waste it produces - that fact remains that nuclear waste is extremely dangerous and can't be put anywhere near settlements. Even if you bury it underground it still has the potentional to decimate the natural environment - that in my opinion is too much of a risk.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It's plain and simple NIMBYism that's the problem. This isn't helped by the popular portrayal of radiation as some sort of bogeyman that's bad at all times (Regardless of the fact that background radiation can get quite high in some areas and people have yet to gain extra arms and heads in such areas)

[TheComrade]

But nuclear waste immits far more radiation than natural granite does...

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 12:35 PM
But nuclear waste immits far more radiation than natural granite does...
That's what we have lead caskets for. The waste won't simply be dumped in a landfill somewhere, it will be stored away in sealed state-of-the-art containers far below the surface. Its a big world, there are plenty of deserted deserts where it could be stashed.

Compare to the waste of coal or oil power plants and the damage they cause the environment.


But if it was that simple, why do people make a fuss?
I read a piece on the net a few years ago that studied the French nuclear industry. I don't have a link but I encourage you to read up on what the French have being doing. Due to a constant government information campaign nuclear power is quite popular in the country. Towns take pride in their nuclear plants and enjoys the employment they provide.

[Dark Exodus]

I think the main opposition to nuclear power is peoples irrational fear of radiation, a bit like the scares over 'dirty' bombs. Which are harmless so long as you don't run straight into the radioactive cloud and start taking deep breaths.


Nonsense. A nuclear reactor produces a much smaller and far more managable amount of waste than a comparable fossil fuel station.
Simply stick the nuclear waste in concrete sarcophogi, in areas unlikely to experience tectonic movement or similar land disturbance.

And once there is no more places to put them, we should be able to cheaply launch them at the sun, what with it being the far future by that time.

[Janus]

Prove that fusion violates the laws of physics.

I never said that it did.


Then post a link. I didn't make the assertion that fusion produces unlimited energy, you did and therefore you must back it up.
Producing unlimited energy is effectively getting something for nothing, which is impossible.

I am backing it up; there are plenty of sources and I'm not sure which one to choose from. I'm not sure if fusion can produce unlimited energy but that is how many people describe it as doing. I don't understand how unlimited energy produces something from nothing, there's just an almost limitless supply. Perhaps I interpreted the definition of unlimited wrongly.

[QUOTE]Commercial reactors have much higher standards than university or eastern bloc reactors. This is evidenced by their excellent safety record.

Then what about Three Mile Island?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Then what about Three Mile Island?

One major accident among all the Western reactors, the sort of which hasn't happened since? That's a damn good safety record.

[NewWorldDisorder]

Nuclear is not the long term answer but currently it is the lesser of two evils when compared to fossil fuels. I am doing a course in renewable energy at uni and there is a lot of potential in the field. But there is no way renewable energy can meet our current energy demands. We need a shift to local generation schemes, where there is very little energy lost in the transmission of the generated power, also huge improvements in energy efficiency are needed to reduce out CO2 emmissions.



So beware Bush and Blair hear my words were not scared - you cannot bully us with fear

[polemi-super-cised]

I think nuclear (fission) power is a good option. Yields are high, there are no messy "carbon emissions" to deal with, and the process is utterly safe if managed correctly. The problem with radioactive waste needs to be dealt with sensibly - this means puting people above profits - but again, there's no reason why we shouldn't be able to cope with these demands.

In the longer term, I believe investment in (nuclear) fusion power is crucial. This will provide vast quantities of essentially "free energy", with no associated pollution issues. Other sources of alternative energy - particularly hydroelectric and solar power - should also be looked into. Something has to be done: oil, gas and coal reserves are NOT unlimited!

[codyvo]

Why wate money on fusion when we could put that money toward solar and wind energy which have no enviromental rebukes, are relatively cheap if they don't have their prices inflated by corporations like they do now. Also, the upkeep for solar and wind energy is minimal and as to the argument of it being space consuming, each house could power itself just by the panels on its roof and maybe a few wind turbines in the yard which take up no more room than a tree.

[polemi-super-cised]

Money invested in nuclear fusion is NOT wasted! They've already built a fusion plant; all that remains is to generate a sustainable, efficient reaction. Once this is achieved, mankind can power itself to the stars.

Besides, wind farms are ugly.

And solar collectors are ridiculously inefficient - I think scientists have just about worked out how to harness 10% of the energy that the solar collector absorbs! This is why they need to be improved before they are considered a reliable energy source - and before we spend a fortune installing them everywhere.

Fusion power is the future!

[NewWorldDisorder]

Modern PV panels are woking at around 15% efficiency, but they are still expensive per kilowatt of installed capacity and the view that wind farms are ugly is a very personal issue, i like the look of them they are cool to watch quite relaxing. Renewable power can only provide our energy if we increase energy efficiency and make use of generation at point of use as codyvo says having generation on each house is a very good idea.

Nuclear fission does have huge potential for suppling our future power, but i dont know how far off this technology is.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 10:55 AM
Nuclear fission does have huge potential for suppling our future power, but i dont know how far off this technology is.
You mean fusion, surely?

[NewWorldDisorder]

Yeh sorry the words are too similar

[pedro san pedro]

I read a piece on the net a few years ago that studied the French nuclear industry. I don't have a link but I encourage you to read up on what the French have being doing. Due to a constant government information campaign nuclear power is quite popular in the country. Towns take pride in their nuclear plants and enjoys the employment they provide.


i wonder if the french also take pride in the fact that they pump huge amounts of nuclear waste into the ocean. or was this not included in the government's 'information campaign'?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by pedro san [email protected] 10 2005, 02:58 AM

I read a piece on the net a few years ago that studied the French nuclear industry. I don't have a link but I encourage you to read up on what the French have being doing. Due to a constant government information campaign nuclear power is quite popular in the country. Towns take pride in their nuclear plants and enjoys the employment they provide.


i wonder if the french also take pride in the fact that they pump huge amounts of nuclear waste into the ocean. or was this not included in the government's 'information campaign'?
Do you have any evidence for this?

[Vallegrande]

Yeah I also heard something quite recently about France dumping nuclear waste in the New Zealand ocean, where there have been cases of people getting skin burns from being a few miles out to sea from land. I dont have the papers to prove though.

Also another issue, as someone mentioned on this topic, is that people should be put above profits. Not so is the case in Washington with the Hanford nuclear site. Not long ago an initiative was passed (I-297) prohibiting any more nuclear transfer there, until the existing waste was properly taken care of, as many of you suggest should be done right? It is not, and that is why the initiative was passed, to prevent the further leakage of nuclear waste until properly taken care of.

However, that initiative was ruled by the Court to be unconstitutional! How can an initiative, voted by the people of WA state, be ruled unconstitutional by some judges? It happened, so how can people trust that they will be put before profits?

[polemi-super-cised]

Also another issue, as someone mentioned on this topic, is that people should be put above profits.


Of course people ought to be put before profits. But this is only wishful thinking: capitalism has no obligation to "ethical" business practices. The corporation has a responsibilty to deliver profits to shareholders - nothing else. If it can be proved that spending money on stricter safety measures will benefit the company (i.e. a better public image resulting in increased consumer investment), then these crucial reforms can be introduced...

Or, the government can attempt to regulate matters such as these. But then, the taxpayer has to fork out for inspection (enforcement) teams, to police the whole business - when, in actual fact, the whole nuclear industry would work far better if the profit motive were removed.

[Delirium]

Originally posted by polemi-super-[email protected] 11 2005, 05:51 PM


Also another issue, as someone mentioned on this topic, is that people should be put above profits.


Of course people ought to be put before profits. But this is only wishful thinking: capitalism has no obligation to "ethical" business practices. The corporation has a responsibilty to deliver profits to shareholders - nothing else. If it can be proved that spending money on stricter safety measures will benefit the company (i.e. a better public image resulting in increased consumer investment), then these crucial reforms can be introduced...

Or, the government can attempt to regulate matters such as these. But then, the taxpayer has to fork out for inspection (enforcement) teams, to police the whole business - when, in actual fact, the whole nuclear industry would work far better if the profit motive were removed.
A revelation!

(i am a jackass)

[OkaCrisis]

Originally posted by NoXion+Dec 9 2005, 11:24 PM--> (NoXion @ Dec 9 2005, 11:24 PM)
pedro san [email protected] 10 2005, 02:58 AM

I read a piece on the net a few years ago that studied the French nuclear industry. I don't have a link but I encourage you to read up on what the French have being doing. Due to a constant government information campaign nuclear power is quite popular in the country. Towns take pride in their nuclear plants and enjoys the employment they provide.


i wonder if the french also take pride in the fact that they pump huge amounts of nuclear waste into the ocean. or was this not included in the government's 'information campaign'?
Do you have any evidence for this?[/b]
Whether the waste is going into the ocean or into abandoned mineshafts, or shipped to Siberia or whatever, the waste has got to go somewhere, and there is no good place to dump it.

For me, until nuclear waste is no longer an issue, I am vehemently anti-nuclear. I don't believe in trading one evil (C02 emissions) for another (nuclear waste).

Also, what about increasing hydro-electrically generated power? More reliable than solar/wind, no waste. What is stopping societies from building infrastructure that would harness more hydro?

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 12:41 AM
Whether the waste is going into the ocean or into abandoned mineshafts, or shipped to Siberia or whatever, the waste has got to go somewhere, and there is no good place to dump it.

For me, until nuclear waste is no longer an issue, I am vehemently anti-nuclear. I don't believe in trading one evil (C02 emissions) for another (nuclear waste).
So despite the mass damage that carbon fuels continue to inflict on the environment you refuse to consider an established alternative? Nuclear power is cleaner than existing fossil fuels. Fact. I believe in taking the lesser evil in the hope that an alternative will come along. As it is we'll be very lucky to reach working fusion stations without the planet being irreversibly polluted.

And frankly I consider Siberia to be a pretty good place to store waste for a couple of centuries.


Also, what about increasing hydro-electrically generated power? More reliable than solar/wind, no waste. What is stopping societies from building infrastructure that would harness more hydro?
Two reasons - One many of these solutions have geographical limits. you can only build wind farms or tidal harnesses in a few certain spots. And obviously solar power is little good in northern Europe where sunshine is rare.

Two, these technologies cannot provide a fraction of the energy that society requires and that both oil and nuclear provide. Combined with the above mentioned geographical limits and it is impossible for a nation to rely on these energy sources. I believe that even those nations that have embraced them are struggling to meet targets of even 10% of their energy needs from renewable sources. And that at huge cost.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Whether the waste is going into the ocean or into abandoned mineshafts, or shipped to Siberia or whatever, the waste has got to go somewhere, and there is no good place to dump it.

Rubbish. There are plenty of places in the world where nuclear waste can be stored without being a danger to the public.


For me, until nuclear waste is no longer an issue, I am vehemently anti-nuclear. I don't believe in trading one evil (C02 emissions) for another (nuclear waste).

In spite of the fact that nuclear waste is vastly more managable than the waste produced by fossil fuel stations or solar cell etching facilities?


Also, what about increasing hydro-electrically generated power? More reliable than solar/wind, no waste. What is stopping societies from building infrastructure that would harness more hydro?

Mainly because hydroelectric floods vast tracts of land, unbalancing the local ecosystem and displacing the local inhabitants. Also, hydroelectric dams silt up and become less effecient overtime, and cleaning them out is an expensive and difficult procedure.

[OkaCrisis]

I consider Siberia to be a pretty good place to store waste for a couple of centuries.
Try a couple of hundreds of thousands of years. I wonder what Siberians will have to say about it?


There are plenty of places in the world where nuclear waste can be stored without being a danger to the public.
Sure, but what about danger to the environment, the Earth, and the local wildlife? Human beings have to share the planet not only today with animals (even in polar regions), but also with the future generations of people tomorrow. I doubt that when the population of the future are looking for settle-able land in the then-will-be-warmed climate of Siberia, they don't want to have to worry about nuclear waste stored underground from hundreds of years ago contaminating the soil that they might build their homes on and grow their food from.

The reply about Hydro was what I expected. And I do agree... It's tough to call between destruction of local eco-systems and displacement of (usually rural, poor, disempowered) residents, in the name if increased 'cleaner' energy production.


you can only build wind farms or tidal harnesses in a few certain spots
On the topic of wind farms, a great example I think are vast empty tracts of Northern land, like what we have here in the Canadian North. What better place for a few thousand windmills than the windy arctic and sub-arctic tundras? I think windmills could be successful in a greater variety of places than you're implying.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Try a couple of hundreds of thousands of years. I wonder what Siberians will have to say about it?

Considering the very low population density of Siberia, I don't see a problem.


Sure, but what about danger to the environment, the Earth, and the local wildlife? Human beings have to share the planet not only today with animals (even in polar regions), but also with the future generations of people tomorrow. I doubt that when the population of the future are looking for settle-able land in the then-will-be-warmed climate of Siberia, they don't want to have to worry about nuclear waste stored underground from hundreds of years ago contaminating the soil that they might build their homes on and grow their food from.

That's why you dispose of it properly. This means you place the waste in sturdy containers, place the containers in a concrete sarcophagus, and place the sarcophagus in a location away from water sources, faultlines, and general human habitations.


The reply about Hydro was what I expected. And I do agree... It's tough to call between destruction of local eco-systems and displacement of (usually rural, poor, disempowered) residents, in the name if increased 'cleaner' energy production.

You ignored my point on maintanence. A nuclear power plant is easier to maintain than a hydroelectric dam.
Also, a reactor meltdown can be confined within the facility and present no danger to the public (Not to mention the fact that the most recent reactors, such as the PBR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble+bed+reactor) design, physically cannot meltdown due to the way they handle reactions), but if a dam breaks then it's tough shit for those who live downriver.


On the topic of wind farms, a great example I think are vast empty tracts of Northern land, like what we have here in the Canadian North. What better place for a few thousand windmills than the windy arctic and sub-arctic tundras? I think windmills could be successful in a greater variety of places than you're implying.

Wind is an unreliable power source, to say the least. Also, you need to route that power to homes and factories, and if you put them in the Great White North you're going to need an awful lot of powerlines to get that electricity down south where most of Canadian civilisation lives. Why bother to go to all that expense when you can simply plonk a PBR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble+bed+reactor) reactor or two just outside every major city?

[Zingu]

It isn't actually renewable - we will run out of Uranium some day (no idea how long it will last..?)


We'll run out of everything eventually, sometime in the very distant future, the universe will be nothing but dark floating clumps of carbon billions of light years apart, with maybe rare and scant radiation emissions that haven't died out yet.

And with Uranium, you can create Plutonium, which can also be put to use.

[OkaCrisis]

NoXion:

I'll give you the win on the Nuclear argument.

Just a question, do you have any positive views on alternative, "green", energy sources?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 06:59 PM
NoXion:

I'll give you the win on the Nuclear argument.

Just a question, do you have any positive views on alternative, "green", energy sources?
They're great when they work, and should be employed wherever it's reasonable to do so. For instance, almost all of Iceland's power comes from geothermal plants. To build nuclear plants instead would be a waste of resources.

[DaCuBaN]

There is one overriding argument against Nuclear Power:


It isn't actually renewable - we will run out of Uranium some day (no idea how long it will last..?)

However, thankfully it's merely a common misunderstanding. Bear with me, I'm no nuclear physicist, but the principle is based on Einstein's most famous work:-


Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared

The reason we use uranium is simple - it's already unstable. To "split" a uranium atom is remarkably simple (fire some neutrons into it), and the release of thermal energy is then used to heat water into steam to drive turbines (electric motors in reverse, essentially, and interestingly enough it was this invention that served as part of the influence for Einstein's mathematical work), and the waste products consists of some of the original uranium (say 70% of the original mass) plus a little extra - if I remember correctly, radium (or perhaps thorium, I'm often mistaken) at say 20% of the original mass. The remaining 10% of the mass is converted to energy... and the quantity of energy is astounding: the quantity "lost" multipled by the square of 300,000,000, or 90,000,000,000,000,000! That's worth the risk!

What must be remembered is that this setup is merely one example of how nuclear energy could function. If for example, we could split the hydrogen atom (using similar weights of hydrogen as we do uranium), given the fact that hydrogen is the most common known substance in the universe, we would have more fuel than we would know what to do with (although I have no clue what by-product is created when splitting the hydrogen atom and it may even be worse, but I'm sure you get the idea). Simply put, Nuclear Power can use ANYTHING as a fuel - we just need to get the particular atom to split!

I feel here is a suitable place to discuss this - Einstein theorised that the speed of light was the "speed limit" of the universe, and his theory of relativity proved that the speed of light is the only constant in the universe - that mass, time, everything are merely relative to the speed of light. Now, if we managed to travel up to the speed of light, light would continue to move away from us at the speed of light. In his own words:


If I were to travel at the speed of light holding a mirror, would I be invisible?

One day I'll get my head around that :)

[Pink Moon]

I'd say no. There is no telling on who would be making nuclear bombs.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by X`[email protected] 23 2005, 01:34 AM
I'd say no. There is no telling on who would be making nuclear bombs.
Well it's a good thing that there are reactor designs that do not produce fissile material or require enriched uranium in order to operate.

[Seeker]

he upkeep for solar . . . energy is minimal

Thats not entierly true. Batteries don't last forever and the chemicals used make them difficult to dispose of safely. Also, the non-passive arrays that turn with the sun require regular mechanical maintinance from a highly specilized worker.




you place the waste in sturdy containers, place the containers in a concrete sarcophagus, and place the sarcophagus in a location away from water sources, faultlines, and general human habitations.

Ideally you would also harness the heat the "waste" produces.



I think the answer is a diverse list of energy sources. Fusion, wind, passive solar, permaculture of oil-rich veggies, tidal, geo-thermal, and more that have yet to be invented.

One of the more fantastical concepts I've kicked around in my head is using space elevators to lift a series of solar-powered satelites into orbit and set them moving in the direction opposite to the earth's rotation. The eventual goal would be to use the planet's rotation as the powersource of a ginourmous space-based turbine, and feed the charge back down the elevators.

[Nebb]

Cold fusion!

oh...wait <_<

[DEPAVER]

A few points....

Centralized authoritarian social systems require centralized energy systems subject to concentration and commodification so as to remain under the control of the central authority. But in a post Peak Oil society, centralized energy production and distribution will no longer be tenable.

Our present industrial civilization is built on abundant, inexpensive energy that is easily centralized, commodified and distributed in a for-profit, capitalist economy in which natural resources are held by private corporations and sold to the people to fuel the workings of our various societies. Almost all societies in the world are built on the use of oil and other fossil fuels.

The dominant economic system in our industrial civilization is based on and is totally dependent on constant expansion of resource availability and consumption, resulting in increasing urban sprawl, increasing air and water pollution from the effluents of fossil fuel combustion and an increasing rate of fossil fuel consumption. However, we also know that oil and fossil fuels are finite resources and we know that we are approaching the maximum rate of resource extraction of oil, beyond which extraction and production rate cannot be expanded.

Furthermore, we also know that a civilization based on constantly expanding consumption of a rapidly dwindling resource cannot long continue in its present form and will inevitably change. We can&#39;t know exactly when this will happen, how long the change will take or what form the change in society will take. Any attempt to predict the future change is simply speculation and further insult to innocent phosphors.

But once centralized energy production and distribution are no longer tenable, in a post-oil society, we will be forced to concentrate on local energy production, point of use generation, cogeneration and conservation.

Renewable energy sources are dispersed, available to all, most efficiently used at point of need, on small, scale specific use applications. As we spin down from industrial civilization and return,inevitable, to local production for local consumption, we will also, of necessity, return to local dispersed energy sources that are not suitable for concentrated central control.

Any technology that makes use of energy or materials that cannot be replenished will fall away, as it cannot be maintained indefinitely. This is partially reflected in what we call EROEI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested.)

My friends in the environmental community often talk about sustainability. But what is more important than any perception of sustainability, is an assessment of sufficiency. The dominant human culture on the earth drives an economy based on consumption wildly out of proportion to what is necessary and sufficient for a full and satisfying human existence. Attempting to craft an energy/materials use system that sustains such an extravagant culture on a long-term basis is absurd. We cannot develop technologies based on renewable energy and materials if we don&#39;t change our dominant culture and abandon the consumerist economy dependent on short-term exploitation of nonrenewable energy and materials sources.

Considering nuclear, let&#39;s take a look at our present level of energy consumption, growth of consumption and the number of plants required to fill that energy need. No matter whether one calculates what it would take to keep our energy consumption at present levels or (much harder still) to allow for a few percent points of growth per year, the numbers are so high that it&#39;s one of those "you can&#39;t get there from here" situations.

A scientist in a group I was recently involved in performed a calculation of how many new nukes must be put in operation every year in the US, to give us 2% growth energy growth per year. The last number is the amount of energy the US would consume each year in nuclear equivelants. These numbers jump dramatically if we factor in actual depletion.

The second number is the number of new nukes we&#39;d have to build that year, to account for 2% energy growth in the US. The third number is how much energy the US would be consuming in nuke units.

Nukes needed each year in the US to maintain 2% energy growth (abbreviated chart without all years)

2005 492 4920
2010 108.64 5540.72
2020 132.43 6754.11
2040 196.79 10036.25

Is it really possible to build all of these reactors and build them safely?

The world just doesn&#39;t have enough qualified engineers and technicians trained in their construction to pull this off.Once oil production goes into decline, so many other issues will become top priorities that even getting folks through the years of training required will probably be nearly impossible on a small scale. So, if we&#39;re willing to take a lot of shortcuts and have quite a few of these plants suffer failures, then we can probably meet this schedule. Engineers could learn how to safely build them (oversee construction, make sure safety requirements are met, etc...) as they go.

At this time, it seems the US might be able to build one a year. But even that schedule seems to be too aggressive for the costs.

Then after the natural gas cliff, the concrete steel and welding will jump dramatically in cost.

The Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant was estimated at &#036;60 million. It cost &#036;600 million before it was even completed. The federal government had to step in a pay a hefty chunk of the construction costs. When it was first proposed, Ft Worth residents were promised a dramatic drop in electricity prices. Before it was finished, their electric bills had doubled, and it was estimated they&#39;d have to pay ten times their original rate to cover the extra costs. It took the Federal Govt&#39;s intervention to get the costs to the consumer down.

That was in the early 1980s. An new plant no would now cost what? &#036;5-20 billion?

So we&#39;d be looking at minimum costs of &#036;500 billion a year to embark on this program? And probably much more when we consider all of the new administration costs and the problems with having so many projects going at the same time, competing for the same personnel and materials.

Other factors would be how you adjust our civilization from being mainly petroleum based to using electricity. If we use them to produce hydrogen and ignore the pie in the sky theories that ignore thermodynamics, then we&#39;ll probably have to multiply these numbers by ten. So once oil depletion starts rolling, we&#39;ll need to build 3500 new plants every year.

And until the nuclear power advocates produce a solution to the problem of waste disposal and internment for the eons; it is simply not a viable option. Pebble bed reactor do seem to be safer and could be built as smaller more modular facilities in the 200 - 300 MW range, but they do not address waste disposal. The pebble bed reactor uses pressurized helium to cool the reactor pebbles and is then circulated through a gas turbine, cooler and compressor to generate electricity.

Helium is produced by extraction of the small quantities of helium that are present in only some gas fields. Peak Oil means Peak Helium.

I believe the answer to our energy issues is found in living sufficiently (sustainably) and in a world of decentralized energy production.

Since most energy sources are decentralized: solar, wind and small-scale hydro, it makes no sense to build large wind generator fields, solar furnaces, huge hydro dams, and suffer 50% transmission losses distributing energy from a dispersed source as if it were centralized. The end of the Age of Oil will bring with it a significant reduction in automobile transportation, including trucks, in favor or local production and energy use. Each home will have its own energy production facilities, that will feed excess power into the existing grid, helping to supply energy to areas where sun and wind are low. Every house will have a solar water heater, gray water recovery, wind generator and solar voltaic panels as part of its roof construction.

These are very simple ideas that will be come common as centralized sources of energy become less viable.

As a result of this change of emphasis from centralized to decentralized power generation, our perception of political life will change as well. Since each household will be responsible for the production and storage of its own energy, the people will be come empowered to take control of their own lives in other respects. When we don&#39;t have to pay the corporate utility
for electricity, we are less in thrall to corporate manipulation. Individuals, neighborhoods and communities will have more say in their energy autonomy, undermining corporate manipulation of energy supplies as witnessed in California and the ENRON obscenity.

Energy generators for decentralized generation are small and easily constructed by local builders who operate in the local economy. Neighborhoods and communities will be able to act cooperatively to manage local energy production and distribution. Once the corporate stranglehold on energy availability is broken, citizens will have much more say in the conduct of their lives.

The model of decentralization will be applied to all aspects of human society, leading the way to local self-autonomy and self-responsibility.

[DeathtoPrejudice]

Well, nuclear power is a pretty clean source of electricity. But it makes highly radiated nuclear waste which, is highly dangerous and CAN be used by the wrong people to make dirty bombs and such.

My preferred method of power, would have to be ethanol. You can produce ethanol from a variety of ryes and canes and other vegetation, so it is very renewable. It is very clean making ethanol (In sugar factories for example) is very clean, and thus more favorable then the processing of oil.

Growing sugarcane would be comparable to growing oil, and the processing it to make ethanol would be like processing the oil, very clean, very renewable... Brazil is far ahead of anyone else in this field.

[DEPAVER]

According to UC Berkeley geoengineering professor Tad W. Patzek, in terms of renewable fuels, "ethanol is the worst solution."

Ethanol is produced by fermenting renewable crops like corn or sugarcane (which, as of today, requires fossil fuels). Patzek says this may sound green, but that&#39;s because many scientists are not looking at the whole picture. According to his research, more fossil energy is used to produce ethanol than the energy contained within it.

Patzek&#39;s ethanol critique began during a freshman seminar he taught in which he and his students calculated the energy balance of the biofuel. Taking into account the energy required to grow the corn and convert it into ethanol, they determined that burning the biofuel as a gasoline additive actually results in a net energy loss of 65 percent.

Recently, Patzek published a fifty-page study on the subject in the journal Critical Reviews in Plant Science. This time, he factored in the myriad energy inputs required by industrial agriculture, from the amount of fuel used to produce fertilizers and corn seeds to the transportation and wastewater disposal costs. All told, he believes that the cumulative energy consumed in corn farming and ethanol production is six times greater than what the end product provides your car engine in terms of power.

[DeathtoPrejudice]

Hmmm This is something new. I have never heard of that study, and it doesn&#39;t make sense seeing as Brazil bases much of it&#39;s energy off of sugarcane, DUE to it&#39;s shortages of Oil...

In what way is oil involved in the fermenting process? Powering the plant?

[Dark Exodus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 06:33 PM
Well, nuclear power is a pretty clean source of electricity. But it makes highly radiated nuclear waste which, is highly dangerous and CAN be used by the wrong people to make dirty bombs and such.
Have you actually read any of this thread&#33;?

[DeathtoPrejudice]

Originally posted by Dark Exodus+Jan 2 2006, 07:34 PM--> (Dark Exodus @ Jan 2 2006, 07:34 PM)
[email protected] 2 2006, 06:33 PM
Well, nuclear power is a pretty clean source of electricity. But it makes highly radiated nuclear waste which, is highly dangerous and CAN be used by the wrong people to make dirty bombs and such.
Have you actually read any of this thread&#33;? [/b]
First post.

[DEPAVER]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 02:28 PM
Hmmm This is something new. I have never heard of that study, and it doesn&#39;t make sense seeing as Brazil bases much of it&#39;s energy off of sugarcane, DUE to it&#39;s shortages of Oil...

In what way is oil involved in the fermenting process? Powering the plant?
Well, all agriculture (except small scale organic) is supported by fossil fuel. Fertilizers, transport, etc.

According to this study, from one square meter of land, you can get roughly one watt of energy. The price you pay is that in Brazil alone you annually damage a jungle the size of Greece. That&#39;s pretty significant.

[DeathtoPrejudice]

Well in processing Sugarcane, there&#39;s a biproduct produced (like this grassy stuff, forget the name) that can be used to power the plant, and even have enough energy left over to export to other locations as raw energy. So although it might take fossil fuels to fuel the vehicles used in harvesting the crops, when it comes to powering the actual plant and all it&#39;s machinery and equipment, it actually powers itself by refining sugarcane.

Not sure if the same can be done for sugarbeats, however.

[Dark Exodus]

Originally posted by DeathtoPrejudice+Jan 2 2006, 09:01 PM--> (DeathtoPrejudice @ Jan 2 2006, 09:01 PM)
Originally posted by Dark [email protected] 2 2006, 07:34 PM

[email protected] 2 2006, 06:33 PM
Well, nuclear power is a pretty clean source of electricity. But it makes highly radiated nuclear waste which, is highly dangerous and CAN be used by the wrong people to make dirty bombs and such.
Have you actually read any of this thread&#33;?
First post. [/b]
I suggest you at least skim the thread you are about to reply to, the issues you brought up had already been addressed.

[1984]

The folks at Max Plank institute (Germany) were able to produce a stable fusion reaction&#33; Too bad it lasted for only 2 seconds... but hey - that&#39;s a giant step already, don&#39;t you agree?

[OkaCrisis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 12:12 PM
I believe the answer to our energy issues is found in living sufficiently (sustainably) and in a world of decentralized energy production.

...

These are very simple ideas that will be come common as centralized sources of energy become less viable.

As a result of this change of emphasis from centralized to decentralized power generation, our perception of political life will change as well. Since each household will be responsible for the production and storage of its own energy, the people will be come empowered to take control of their own lives in other respects. When we don&#39;t have to pay the corporate utility
for electricity, we are less in thrall to corporate manipulation. Individuals, neighborhoods and communities will have more say in their energy autonomy, undermining corporate manipulation of energy supplies as witnessed in California and the ENRON obscenity.

Energy generators for decentralized generation are small and easily constructed by local builders who operate in the local economy. Neighborhoods and communities will be able to act cooperatively to manage local energy production and distribution. Once the corporate stranglehold on energy availability is broken, citizens will have much more say in the conduct of their lives.

The model of decentralization will be applied to all aspects of human society, leading the way to local self-autonomy and self-responsibility.
Damn right&#33;

Re: the energy "crisis"

Apocalypse now&#33;

[Koruptah]

Has anyone commented yet about Pebble Bed Reactors? From what I&#39;ve read about them, they&#39;re very safe. China is building a bunch of them, I first read about them in a Wired article in &#39;04 called "Let a Thousand Reactors Bloom (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china.html)"

Wikipedia - Pebble_bed_reactor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor)