Energy Crisis Solved by Science

[sdafdfhrye3245]

Ok, this is good, but it's nuclear power, and frankly, after Chernobyl

Let me stop you right there. Chernobyl can not be used as an example of what nuclear plants can do, it happened because of the shit job creating the place and the shit job maintaining it. There is no plant now that would be allowed to be made without the safety precognitions Chernobyl should of had. Chernobyl was a giant fuck up that never should of happened and never will happen again. So never use it as an example of "Oh nuclear power caused this" ever again, thank you.

 

[mega48man]

This sounds all good, but approximately how much Actinouranium is there in the world?

about 3 gallons of stop asking good questions O_O

 

[jonyboy13]

You do realize that there are enough ways of getting clean energy but they just won't start using them because oil rules the world?

 

[Kopikatsu]

You do realize that there are enough ways of getting clean energy but they just won't start using them because oil rules the world?

Are there a shitton of methods for obtaining clean energy? God yes. Do they produce ANYWHERE near enough to matter? Not really.

The very highest current theoretical yield of solar cells is about 28-ish% for example, and solar cells are a major source of renewable energy. If only we could get that to 100%. Probably won't happen for another gajillion years, though. SCIENCE IS HARD.

OT: I don't have a problem with nuclear power. It's efficient, easy, mostly clean...provided that the plant has proper maintenance done and security level maintained of course.

 

[Sizzle Montyjing]

Radioactive fuels!
I see no drawback to that at all...

Besides, Hamsters are the energy source of the future!
Hamsters in wheels...

 

[aashell13]

Thorium has a lot of advantages over uranium in terms of safety and waste management, plus seawater is chock full of the stuff.

as a side note, i think a lot of people are overly scared of nuclear power in general because they don't understand it. if a coal plant or oil refinery blows up (which they sometimes do) you can see the smoke, feel the heat, etc. but you're not natively equipped to detect ionizing radiation and dangerous isotopes.

 

[ajemas]

I see what you did there!
Anyway, you are greatly understanding the costs of this kind of fuel usage. Although there are little to no greenhouse gas emissions, it still has a terrible effect on the environment. Once the actinouranium, Uranium for those of you slow on the uptake, can no longer be used as fuel we have no real way to get rid of it. While it can't produce any usable energy it is still producing very dangerous levels of radiation and can't be properly disposed of.
I'm not saying that I'm completely against nuclear power, but its risks should be taken into account.

 

[TheWonko]

Fun fact about nuclear radiation: You get more harmful radiation from eating a banana than you do from living within a mile of a properly-maintained nuclear plant.

 

[Dr. Cakey]

50% of the people who posted on this thread did not get the point of it.

You
The very highest current theoretical yield of solar cells is about 28-ish% for example, and solar cells are a major source of renewable energy. If only we could get that to 100%. Probably won't happen for another gajillion years, though. SCIENCE IS HARD.

Isn't a 28% yield actually pretty good? But yes, science is hard.

 

[TheWonko]

You
The very highest current theoretical yield of solar cells is about 28-ish% for example, and solar cells are a major source of renewable energy. If only we could get that to 100%. Probably won't happen for another gajillion years, though. SCIENCE IS HARD.

Isn't a 28% yield actually pretty good? But yes, science is hard.

28% is fantastic. For a solar cell. It's still not very much energy though (which is why solar fields are so large (side note: a nuclear reactor the size of your average solar field will produce something like 500% more energy. And, nuclear plants work at night too). And, unfortunately, because of that pesky little thing called the First Law of Thermodynamics, the best we'll ever get out of solar cells is put at about 50%.

 

[Kopikatsu]

50% of the people who posted on this thread did not get the point of it.

You
The very highest current theoretical yield of solar cells is about 28-ish% for example, and solar cells are a major source of renewable energy. If only we could get that to 100%. Probably won't happen for another gajillion years, though. SCIENCE IS HARD.

Isn't a 28% yield actually pretty good? But yes, science is hard.

For solar cells? Yeah, 28% is AMAZING. We could only get up to 15-ish%...what? Four years ago? But as far as a reliable power source? 28% is shoddy. Needs to be much higher.

 

[TheAmazingHobo]

Let me stop you right there. Chernobyl can not be used as an example of what nuclear plants can do, it happened because of the shit job creating the place and the shit job maintaining it. There is no plant now that would be allowed to be made without the safety precognitions Chernobyl should of had. Chernobyl was a giant fuck up that never should of happened and never will happen again. So never use it as an example of "Oh nuclear power caused this" ever again, thank you.

So we can´t cite Chernobyl as an example of the dangers of nuclear power being handled poorly, because it was actually caused by nuclear power being handled VERY poorly..... thanks for clearing this up.

I´m actually in favor of nuclear power (though much more in favor of heavily investing in research aimed at making nuclear power redundant), but you can´t just walk around declaring such events irrelevant because the people in charge were morons.
Because according to my very conservative estimate, morons will remain a problem on this planet for QUITE some time.

 

[DracoSuave]

Please, contain yourselves gentlemen. The fact is that nuclear energy is hands down, far and away, THE safest form of energy production.

Windmills and solar panels don't blow up chum.

They can and have. Windmills can be blown quickly enough that their bearings seize up, and some forms of solar power plants can destroy the tower of the unit if the sunlight is too strong.

I was refering to weapons of mass destruction... you know... the OTHER thing nuclear reactors make.

 

[Loop Stricken]

It is incredibly expensive to launch things into space. The recently retired shuttles cost roughly $450,000,000 to launch, and carry a payload of 26,786 kg. There is around 2,721,000kg of high level nuclear waste generated per year in the US. To launch this to orbit, let alone to The Sun, with current technology would cost around $47,000,000,000 per year. This is of course a very rough estimate, with possiby unreliable data, but illustrates the difficulty of doing so.

In the long term, this cost could be reduced by developing better ways to deliver the payload, but that in itself will be incredibly expensive. The money could be better spent researching new fuel sources such Fusion.

Or a space elevator.
Manufacture the waste disposal ships in space, negates the cost of getting the shit into orbit.

 

[Jodah]

The only viable method we currently have for an immediate energy switch is Natural Gas. It produces far less pollution than coal or oil and the US has absolutely massive quantities of the stuff.

People will not support nuclear power for quite some time. After Chernobyl and the near disaster at the Japan plants, most people don't want a nuclear plant anywhere near them.

 

[Jerubbaal]

So, you mean nuclear power? That's not actually renewable, at least not in the absolute sense. I like nuclear and would like to see more of it, nut I'm not sure what your post is getting at.

 

[FreakSheet]

Colonel eh? I knew he was hiding more than some herbs and spices...

... wait, kernal?

... oh...