Nuclear Energy!

[Danny Ocean]

And yes it's a finite resource but we don't have a ton of alternatives do we? Solar, wind, whatever else you try just doesn't have the raw power to replace coal and oil.

Yes they do, you just need a lot of them. There is a plan in the works for an EU-spanning power grid supported by covering a huge chunk of the Sahara in solar panels. So, you never know.

 

[BonsaiK]

I was wondering what other Escapists thoughts were on nuclear energy. Have questions? Post em' here and see if anyone can answer them.

I think it's a good sustainable source of energy. I think it should be combined with other clean sources of energy to make as much clean energy as possible. Of course the threat of a meltdown is always there, but with advancements in nuclear reactor technology the threat is minimal. The only thing better than nuclear is fusion!

So, what are your thoughts?

Well it's not "clean" for a start, it's probably the least clean energy source known to mankind. Firstly there's the problem of where to put the waste. People who say "it's not much" sing a different tune quicksmart when their backyard is suggested as the dumping ground, or when a nuclear power plant gets built across the street from the school their kids go to. The shit lasts for hundreds of thousands of years. You can't blast it into space because what if it blows up in the atmosphere. You can't bury it without having to then dig it up again and reseal it and bury it again to stop it from leaking into the soil and fucking everything up. You can't just leave it lying around because eventually some asshole is going to grab some of it to make a dirty bomb or whatever:

I could care less if it's "green" but it's cheap and we can bury our nuclear waste in caves in Afghanistan we think terrorists are hiding in.

Chances are they'll dig it out and make radioactive IEDs out of it.

Then there's the problem of decommissioning the reactors which is a big, massive, HUGE deal. I'm not going to get into what a massive huge deal this is, as others have covered that off, but you could do some research if you want to find out more.

Then there's the fact that nuclear reactors use a lot of other resources in their running. Resources which of course get exposed to radiation. Like... water. Think about the implications of that for a moment.

Solar-thermal energy (NOT to be confused with solar voltaic, which is crap) kicks nuclear power's ass anyway. It basically does the same thing without any radioactive nasties at all.

 

[FolkLikePanda]

I say give it the green as long as I don't live anywhere near it and the waste maybe we could use it in BOMBS! GLORIOUS BOMBS THAT CAN BE LAUNCHED FROM ANYWHERE ON THE PLANET AND HIT ANY TARGET! THEN WE WOULD BE FEARED AND BE A SUPERPOWER ONCE AGAIN MUHAHAHAHA! Or we could just blast it into space and have the Martians deal with it.

 

[Fellwarden]

And yes it's a finite resource but we don't have a ton of alternatives do we? Solar, wind, whatever else you try just doesn't have the raw power to replace coal and oil.

Yes they do, you just need a lot of them. There is a plan in the works for an EU-spanning power grid supported by covering a huge chunk of the Sahara in solar panels. So, you never know.

Those plans are quite interesting, but if memory serves, when I read about them, the field of solar panels they were planning would produce massive amounts of electricity, but still far from enough to support Europe. I wonder if it may have been 1/4 of Europe's current power consumption it could cover. And that giant field would not come cheap. But the Sahara is definitely big enough for sufficient amounts of solar panels to cover at least Europe's power needs, if not Africa as well, possibly even parts of Asia. We could really use more efficient solar panels though. As of today, the absolute majority of energy hitting a given panel just becomes heat we can't use.

EDIT: After reading a post that was posted before I posted this (and thus I had not read it before I posted this), I correct myself somewhat.
If this field of solar panels are intended to be solar thermal energy thingies (brain is shutting off), then what I said about most of the energy dissipating as heat can be ignored, as STE is much more efficient concerning how much of the solar energy it actually captures.

 

[BonsaiK]

And yes it's a finite resource but we don't have a ton of alternatives do we? Solar, wind, whatever else you try just doesn't have the raw power to replace coal and oil.

Yes they do, you just need a lot of them. There is a plan in the works for an EU-spanning power grid supported by covering a huge chunk of the Sahara in solar panels. So, you never know.

Those plans are quite interesting, but if memory serves, when I read about them, the field of solar panels they were planning would produce massive amounts of electricity, but still far from enough to support Europe. I wonder if it may have been 1/4 of Europe's current power consumption it could cover. And that giant field would not come cheap. But the Sahara is definitely big enough for sufficient amounts of solar panels to cover at least Europe's power needs, if not Africa as well, possibly even parts of Asia. We could really use more efficient solar panels though. As of today, the absolute majority of energy hitting a given panel just becomes heat we can't use.

The plans for solar power in the Sahara are solar-thermal, not solar-voltaic. Solar panels are not relevant, they won't be used in the Sahara proposal at all. A solar-thermal power plant uses mirrors to reflect the sun's rays onto a central point to generate heat which is then used to heat up water to produce steam from which electricity can then be generated.

 

[SpecklePattern]

decommissioning is a big problem as is what we do with waste that'll be problmatic for hundreds of thousands of years.
it is very much a "well we don't have to deal with that problem yet" industry.

i'm not against it but i hate the idea that it becomes a "jobs a good'un" solution.

we should look to tap better sources such as certain high power renewables like geothermal & deep ocean currents and sink loads of development into fusion. all three of these could pay off in a massive way if the technology fell into place.

Nah. It's someone elses problem. Problem is that we are in the need of energy NOW, not when we might have something. Humans are smart but stupid. We have nuclear power so nobody cares what it does, we just use it. Naturally it would be smarter to research new technology, but like I said. So I guess I am pro-nuclear. And renewable energy sources are nice but they just don't cut the power right now. And I believe, never, as they are so small things in motion and it is not that efficient way to produce power.

This is basically the just of what I was trying to say. When I said sustainable, I guess what I really meant was "Just as good as coal or [insert fossil fuel here]." That being said, Canada and Australia would have a field day...

Which is why nuclear power is not the solution to our energy problems. We should be investing in advancing power sources that are sustainable over a long period of time. Nuclear power is finite. Relying on it will just delay the problem. I don't get why people think it's so great.

I, like many others might think it is great. But great in the way that it is the only thing we can efficiently use in our ever rising demand of power. Great way to produce power, but thats it.

 

[RooftopAssassin]

I was wondering what other Escapists thoughts were on nuclear energy. Have questions? Post em' here and see if anyone can answer them.

I think it's a good sustainable source of energy. I think it should be combined with other clean sources of energy to make as much clean energy as possible. Of course the threat of a meltdown is always there, but with advancements in nuclear reactor technology the threat is minimal. The only thing better than nuclear is fusion!

So, what are your thoughts?

Well it's not "clean" for a start, it's probably the least clean energy source known to mankind. Firstly there's the problem of where to put the waste. People who say "it's not much" sing a different tune quicksmart when their backyard is suggested as the dumping ground, or when a nuclear power plant gets built across the street from the school their kids go to. The shit lasts for hundreds of thousands of years. You can't blast it into space because what if it blows up in the atmosphere. You can't bury it without having to then dig it up again and reseal it and bury it again to stop it from leaking into the soil and fucking everything up. You can't just leave it lying around because eventually some asshole is going to grab some of it to make a dirty bomb or whatever:

I could care less if it's "green" but it's cheap and we can bury our nuclear waste in caves in Afghanistan we think terrorists are hiding in.

Chances are they'll dig it out and make radioactive IEDs out of it.

Then there's the problem of decommissioning the reactors which is a big, massive, HUGE deal. I'm not going to get into what a massive huge deal this is, as others have covered that off, but you could do some research if you want to find out more.

Then there's the fact that nuclear reactors use a lot of other resources in their running. Resources which of course get exposed to radiation. Like... water. Think about the implications of that for a moment.

Solar-thermal energy (NOT to be confused with solar voltaic, which is crap) kicks nuclear power's ass anyway. It basically does the same thing without any radioactive nasties at all.

Literally everything you just said was solved 35 years ago

Storing it? Salt mines. Look it up.

Radioactivity? Doesn't contaminate water at all, looks like your the one that needs to do research.

 

[Necator15]

I'm vehemently in favour. The Chernobyl and Three Mile Island incidents happened because the engineers decided to fiddle around with the reactor on manual control. In order to make weapons-grade plutonium.

That was patriotic stupidity, not unreliable hardware. I'd still be much more comfortable with fission reactors, though. Those could save the world.

Actually, Chernobyl had unreliable hardware too. This came up in one of my physics classes a couple years ago. The engineers building the reactor were given a deadline that they couldn't possibly safely meet, and at the time, if they said they couldn't meet it, they would've been fired and the developers would have hired a new, less ethical team.

I was wondering what other Escapists thoughts were on nuclear energy. Have questions? Post em' here and see if anyone can answer them.

I think it's a good sustainable source of energy. I think it should be combined with other clean sources of energy to make as much clean energy as possible. Of course the threat of a meltdown is always there, but with advancements in nuclear reactor technology the threat is minimal. The only thing better than nuclear is fusion!

So, what are your thoughts?

Well it's not "clean" for a start, it's probably the least clean energy source known to mankind. Bullshit, coal reactors are far more pollutant Firstly there's the problem of where to put the waste. People who say "it's not much" sing a different tune quicksmart when their backyard is suggested as the dumping ground, or when a nuclear power plant gets built across the street from the school their kids go to. Irrelevant, and largely not possible. Nuclear plants need a lot of space surrounding them, mostly for cooling towers or pipelines for other forms of cooling. They're also very private areas. The shit lasts for hundreds of thousands of years. Try billions, and this is because of how slowly it decays. The truly dangerous material will decay in a matter of about two weeks (I-151). You can't blast it into space because what if it blows up in the atmosphere. If you're talking about it like it's basically a nuke in the atmosphere, it's not possible. You need about 25kg comprised of 99% U-235 to get the runaway fission reaction required. Otherwise it's irrelevant, because all of that slow decaying material will be so spread out, it would be as if it almost naturally occurred. You can't bury it without having to then dig it up again and reseal it and bury it again to stop it from leaking into the soil and fucking everything up. You can't just leave it lying around because eventually some asshole is going to grab some of it to make a dirty bomb or whatever. Why the hell would they do either of these? The former is dumb because there is technology on the way that will make this waste usable again, and the latter is just irresponsible, and when you're talking about anything with the word nuclear attached, most developed countries will tread extremely lightly.

Then there's the problem of decommissioning the reactors which is a big, massive, HUGE deal. I'm not going to get into what a massive huge deal this is, as others have covered that off, but you could do some research if you want to find out more.This is your only really valid point. They are damned expensive and difficult to decommission.

Then there's the fact that nuclear reactors use a lot of other resources in their running. Resources which of course get exposed to radiation. Like... water. Think about the implications of that for a moment. Do you have any idea how the reactors work? The only water that gets exposed to any radiation is the water in the reactor, which is rarely ever taken out, and when it is, it is treated with extreme caution and not released into the environment. Largely what happens is the water I just mentioned is heated because of the fission reaction, and the heat is transferred through convection to metal pipes containing entirely clean water, then conduction through the pipes into that water, which evaporates into steam to power a turbine. That water is released to the environment, slightly warmer than usual, but otherwise unchanged. In fact, if the water is released directly into the ocean (Much like Seabrook, NH's power plant), then the places where this warm water is released actually become absolutely filled with life. Plants and algae love the warmth, and fish enjoy the plants and algae. Now the power station has to monitor these fish, just in case, but to date the radiation levels in these fish have been negligible, if they're there at all.

Solar-thermal energy (NOT to be confused with solar voltaic, which is crap) kicks nuclear power's ass anyway. It basically does the same thing without any radioactive nasties at all.Right up until we have a cloudy day, then oops, guess there's no power

The bold are my response, but I figured you'd guess that.

 

[BonsaiK]

I was wondering what other Escapists thoughts were on nuclear energy. Have questions? Post em' here and see if anyone can answer them.

I think it's a good sustainable source of energy. I think it should be combined with other clean sources of energy to make as much clean energy as possible. Of course the threat of a meltdown is always there, but with advancements in nuclear reactor technology the threat is minimal. The only thing better than nuclear is fusion!

So, what are your thoughts?

Well it's not "clean" for a start, it's probably the least clean energy source known to mankind. Firstly there's the problem of where to put the waste. People who say "it's not much" sing a different tune quicksmart when their backyard is suggested as the dumping ground, or when a nuclear power plant gets built across the street from the school their kids go to. The shit lasts for hundreds of thousands of years. You can't blast it into space because what if it blows up in the atmosphere. You can't bury it without having to then dig it up again and reseal it and bury it again to stop it from leaking into the soil and fucking everything up. You can't just leave it lying around because eventually some asshole is going to grab some of it to make a dirty bomb or whatever:

I could care less if it's "green" but it's cheap and we can bury our nuclear waste in caves in Afghanistan we think terrorists are hiding in.

Chances are they'll dig it out and make radioactive IEDs out of it.

Then there's the problem of decommissioning the reactors which is a big, massive, HUGE deal. I'm not going to get into what a massive huge deal this is, as others have covered that off, but you could do some research if you want to find out more.

Then there's the fact that nuclear reactors use a lot of other resources in their running. Resources which of course get exposed to radiation. Like... water. Think about the implications of that for a moment.

Solar-thermal energy (NOT to be confused with solar voltaic, which is crap) kicks nuclear power's ass anyway. It basically does the same thing without any radioactive nasties at all.

Literally everything you just said was solved 35 years ago

Storing it? Salt mines. Look it up.

Radioactivity? Doesn't contaminate water at all, looks like your the one that needs to do research.

Salt mines. I looked it up, seems that it's not as simple as it looks on paper:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/2010/07/photogalleries/100708-radioactive-nuclear-waste-science-salt-mine-dump-pictures-asse-ii-germany/

Radioactive contamination in water, looked that up too, seems to exist:

http://www.canada.com/health/Radioactive+waste+contaminating+Canadian+water+supply+Report/2246580/story.html

 

[Jark212]

Nuclear is a great way to go, when following regulations put into place by the EPA it's pretty much impossible for anything to go wrong. The only realistic problem is the disposal of the Nuclear waste, in which case we have a massive secure underground storage facility just waiting...

 

[Oldmanwillow]

I don't claim to know much about nuclear energy. However, from what I learned from my Environmental science class, I believe it is not the solution to our energy problems. Nuclear energy will eventually run into the same problem the oil currently has; it is not a sustainable resource. Eventually, nuclear power will not be a viable resource due to a lack of raw materials. So relying on it to solve our energy problems would be foolish to say the least. That's not even touching all the other issues that arise when you consider the handling and disposal of the different byproducts of nuclear reactions.

I'm not saying we should dismantle nuclear power plants. I'm just saying that thinking it can magically solve our energy problems means you're not thinking about the long term. I'd rather invest in energy sources that will be sustainable for a longer period of time.

the perfect energy source. did you know it creates no pollutants, makes less than a barrel of waste in 2 months, and all of its depleted uranium is recycled? Its an awesome energy source.

The perfect energy source would be one that produces no pollutants whilst being sustainable in both short and long term. Nuclear energy, from what I know, is neither of those.

There is enough material for Nuclear energy to last at least 200 years (this estimate is including population growth) during this 200 year time if we cant figure out how to control fusion than we dont really deserve cheap power. Fusion is still a long ways off and anyone that tell you other wise is just a dreamer. fission works after being built its diet cheap and produces a lot of power. with the breeder reactor it burns up all the waste (even storing in yucca mountain is just as an acceptable) other form of green energy is dependant on the location it is used (cant use solar power in alaska) and is expensive (solar panels are really expensive and will likely never be a reliable source of power).

Nuclear power is the future and people need to stop being wimps about it.

 

[MagicMouse]

Its ridiculous that we don't have more nuclear power here in the states. Considering that France is doing just fine with theirs.

Right now we need more Fission and more research on Fusion, which would be the ultimate energy source.

 

[spartan231490]

I'm for it to an extent, it is a good source of energy, but the threat is really high. Yeah, they have a very low chance of having an accident, but if they do, it's gonna be a bad one. Also, what are the potential dangers of putting one in an earthquake or hurricane risk zone. If you can't do that, it isn't really practical for much of the US.

 

[oooooooooooooooooooooooooo]

I think it's a good sustainable source of energy.

Nuclear energy has a waste output, and is therefore not a sustainable energy source, which pretty much sums up my thoughts on it.

If we go Nuclear we're eventually going to end up with an environmental crisis similar to that of fossil fuels. It may take hundreds of years, but it will happen. I say rather nip it in the bud and go fully sustainable.

 

[Disako]

If anyone is actually interested in the real costs of energy generation (including construction, fuel (not for wind obviously) and decomissioning (for nuclear):

Gas: 2.5-3.5 ? cents per kW/h (And rising as fuel costs rise)
Coal: 3-4 ? cents per kW/h (And rising as fuel costs rise)
Nuclear: 5.1 ? cents per kW/h
Wind: 4-5 ? cents per kW/h for a good windy site (And steadily dropping as the technology develops and economies of scale kick in)
Solar: Couldn't find figures, but from what I understand it isn't competitive yet (although as with wind the price is dropping)

So wind is actually the cheapest non-fossil fuel if you site it somewhere sensible like on the coast. Of course, what people will say is that wind power is only operating for 30% of the time since if there is no wind, there is no power. Then again, what people don't often say is that conventional power plants only operate for about 50% of the time anyway due to failures/scheduled maintenance. You probably don't want all your power plants to be wind, but you can get up to about 30% of your power coming from wind before the variability becomes a real issue, and there aren't many countries which are anywhere near that figure at the moment.

Now, the real problem with wind is that people kick up a massive fuss if you try to build a wind farm near them. People kick up an even bigger fuss if you try to build a nuclear power plant too, but since you need multiple wind farms to provide the same energy as a nuclear plant, and nuclear plants can be hidden away in a valley while wind farms need to be exposed in order to generate good energy, this is less of a problem for nuclear, which is why it's getting renewed attention from government, despite being more expensive than wind.

However, I do believe that nuclear is a better option than fossil fuels. While nuclear waste isn't exactly friendly, it can at least be contained, which is a lot harder to do with CO2. Nuclear spill = increased risk of cancer in a (very) localised area, CO2 = extreme weather, shifting climates etc. across the whole globe. Modern nuclear plants can be designed to make meltdown physically impossible, even if you decide to deliberately do something really stupid. As for fuel, reactors need very little Uranium to provide a lot of power, so we really don't need to worry about running out for centuries.

Also, I guess I should declare my interest, as I work for a renewables company

 

[BonsaiK]

I'm vehemently in favour. The Chernobyl and Three Mile Island incidents happened because the engineers decided to fiddle around with the reactor on manual control. In order to make weapons-grade plutonium.

That was patriotic stupidity, not unreliable hardware. I'd still be much more comfortable with fission reactors, though. Those could save the world.

Actually, Chernobyl had unreliable hardware too. This came up in one of my physics classes a couple years ago. The engineers building the reactor were given a deadline that they couldn't possibly safely meet, and at the time, if they said they couldn't meet it, they would've been fired and the developers would have hired a new, less ethical team.

I was wondering what other Escapists thoughts were on nuclear energy. Have questions? Post em' here and see if anyone can answer them.

I think it's a good sustainable source of energy. I think it should be combined with other clean sources of energy to make as much clean energy as possible. Of course the threat of a meltdown is always there, but with advancements in nuclear reactor technology the threat is minimal. The only thing better than nuclear is fusion!

So, what are your thoughts?

Well it's not "clean" for a start, it's probably the least clean energy source known to mankind. Bullshit, coal reactors are far more pollutant Firstly there's the problem of where to put the waste. People who say "it's not much" sing a different tune quicksmart when their backyard is suggested as the dumping ground, or when a nuclear power plant gets built across the street from the school their kids go to. Irrelevant, and largely not possible. Nuclear plants need a lot of space surrounding them, mostly for cooling towers or pipelines for other forms of cooling. They're also very private areas. The shit lasts for hundreds of thousands of years. Try billions, and this is because of how slowly it decays. The truly dangerous material will decay in a matter of about two weeks (I-151). You can't blast it into space because what if it blows up in the atmosphere. If you're talking about it like it's basically a nuke in the atmosphere, it's not possible. You need about 25kg comprised of 99% U-235 to get the runaway fission reaction required. Otherwise it's irrelevant, because all of that slow decaying material will be so spread out, it would be as if it almost naturally occurred. You can't bury it without having to then dig it up again and reseal it and bury it again to stop it from leaking into the soil and fucking everything up. You can't just leave it lying around because eventually some asshole is going to grab some of it to make a dirty bomb or whatever. Why the hell would they do either of these? The former is dumb because there is technology on the way that will make this waste usable again, and the latter is just irresponsible, and when you're talking about anything with the word nuclear attached, most developed countries will tread extremely lightly.

Then there's the problem of decommissioning the reactors which is a big, massive, HUGE deal. I'm not going to get into what a massive huge deal this is, as others have covered that off, but you could do some research if you want to find out more.This is your only really valid point. They are damned expensive and difficult to decommission.

Then there's the fact that nuclear reactors use a lot of other resources in their running. Resources which of course get exposed to radiation. Like... water. Think about the implications of that for a moment. Do you have any idea how the reactors work? The only water that gets exposed to any radiation is the water in the reactor, which is rarely ever taken out, and when it is, it is treated with extreme caution and not released into the environment. Largely what happens is the water I just mentioned is heated because of the fission reaction, and the heat is transferred through convection to metal pipes containing entirely clean water, then conduction through the pipes into that water, which evaporates into steam to power a turbine. That water is released to the environment, slightly warmer than usual, but otherwise unchanged. In fact, if the water is released directly into the ocean (Much like Seabrook, NH's power plant), then the places where this warm water is released actually become absolutely filled with life. Plants and algae love the warmth, and fish enjoy the plants and algae. Now the power station has to monitor these fish, just in case, but to date the radiation levels in these fish have been negligible, if they're there at all.

Solar-thermal energy (NOT to be confused with solar voltaic, which is crap) kicks nuclear power's ass anyway. It basically does the same thing without any radioactive nasties at all.Right up until we have a cloudy day, then oops, guess there's no power

The bold are my response, but I figured you'd guess that.

Really hard to reply to you when you've done the whole "bolded bits at the end" thing.

I figure a power plant that releases waste that needs to be buried for thousands of years to stop it from killing people isn't very clean. Call me crazy, and you well might, but I define that as not clean. Not that I think coal is any good either, mind you, but people who talk about nuclear power as "clean" when the waste is so toxic it needs to be sealed in concrete (or whatever) to stop it from killing people I think are a little deluded. I guess that was my point there.

Okay so I was probably wrong about the water, I'll give you that one. I still wouldn't knowingly drink that water or eat that fish though, if I had a choice. Would you?

Dirty bombs are always a possibility as long as the waste exists and people can get to it somehow. As you say, it lasts a long time. Maybe in a hundred, or a thousand, or two thousand, or ten thousand years, the political landscape will be different, and maybe one of the countries that currently has big stashes of nuclear waste stored might get overtaken by a less than wholesome bunch of people who might just decide to blow it up in the face of someone they don't like very much for kicks, or because they think their religion says it's okay, or whatever...

A rocket with a bunch of waste on board that blew up on its way to outer space would I presume have a "dirty bomb" effect. It wouldn't be the same as a "nuke in the sky", wasn't suggesting that, but it would spray the general area with radioactive stuff and that can't be good. How bad it would be I guess would also depend on other factors like how high it was, what it blew up over, wind direction, etc etc...

Solar-thermal works on cloudy days. New York is considering it. New York!
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2010/07/new-yorks-solar-thermal-plans

 

[oooooooooooooooooooooooooo]

what people will say is that wind power is only operating for 30% of the time since if there is no wind, there is no power.

Actually, the percentage is apparently closer to 70% of time, according to a studies.

 

[Kollega]

Nuclear energy is not exactly "safe", but it's not like we have a choice. It'll last us long enough before the creation of proper fusion reactors. All things considered, i'm for it, if only temporarily.

 

[Disako]

what people will say is that wind power is only operating for 30% of the time since if there is no wind, there is no power.

Actually, the percentage is apparently closer to 70% of time, according to a studies.

Wind turbines will generate some power for 70-85% of the time (depending on the site), but they only produce 30% of their theoretical maximum output, since they aren't always generating at full capacity and will occasionally require maintenance.

 

[Halceon]

We need more of it! Waste? Second cycle! More waste? Third cycle!