Discussions
Nuclear Power The Energy Source for the Future.
Posted by polybore • 6/06/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: co2, electrcity, environment, nuclear power, oil
I'm a big fan of nuclear power. If I had my way, and the cash, I'd have a nuclear power plant in my house.
Please don't mention the radiation threat, nuclear power is perfectly natural, look up at what heats the Earth, the sun is a massive nuclear reactor, it gives people cancer all the time but nobody ever suggests getting rid of it.
Lets face it for vehicles hydrogen power is the future, to get that hydrogen you need a lot of electricity.
Oil fired domestic heating is already an expensive joke. I know because thats what heats my house. Electricity is the way forward.
The French, whatever you may think of them, have there energy needs sewn up for the future 80% of their power is nuclear with zero carbon emission.
User Comments
-
Last I heard, we still haven't figured out a politically viable solution for storing nuclear waste.
I also think we'd be foolish not to explore other options. Running from one 20th-century solution to another seems a bit short-sighted to me. Why are we so afraid of innovation? -
Until they solve the waste problem I just can not support this. What about solar geo-thermal and wind? -
All the renewable power sources put together would not get close to providing enough power.
Most nuclear waste is very very low risk. People are afraid of radiation for some reason, yet happily get a significant dose every time they fly in a plane or go outside and bathe in the radiation from the massive nuclear power station known as the Sun.
The first batch of N power stations were built in the 50's, technology has come a long way since then. Its not possible to rule out a zero carbon emission source of power.-
I don't care if they'll get close or not. Without the waste issue solved, Nuclear energy is a non-starter. Solve that and things are different.
You're also assuming that only current technologies in current forms can work.
-
-
Why don't we simply ask the French about waste? They get 80% of their energy from nuclear, and seemingly have solved the "waste problem."-
Not to mention why waste all of the time, money and effort that has already went into developing nuclear energy?
I definitely think we need to use it. -
Dunno how they do it, but do know that they don't have a federal system. Their central govt. has more power than ours.
-
-
In the US there's a giant cave/mine designed for storing nuclear waste.
I'm all for it.-
But the locals don't want it. It's a complicated process to get anything approved. Moreover, the whole not-in-my-backyard thing extends beyond the issue of storage to routes to move the crap from the plants to storage.
-
What? It's in Yucca Mountains, that's hardly anyone's backyard. If anyone opposes storage in such a remote location, then they're just uneducated about the subject.
-
-
Just been refreshing my memory on the French set up. They have 55ish nuclear reactors, they bought the design for them from the US during the last oil crisis in the 1970's. They have not solved the waste issue entirely although they recycle the most radioactive waste into new fuel. Seems they send a lot of the low risk waste to Russia and the US. Clever.
This link useful info: www.spectrum.ieee.org/feb07/4891-
If I recall correctly, they also located plants to poison not just France, but also Germany, should anything go wrong.
-
-
Your house would have to have a very large moat to supply the water. Also, you would have to have lead shielding.
We are not French. Our record does not match the French or the Danes or the Japanese for nuclear power. We have a history of not doing a very good job maintaining our power plants. It is traditional for for profit power industries to cut corners in capitalist countries. We need to diversify our energy base, not switch to a single source of power.
The French run their power plants as a socialist bureaucracy with incredibly tight controls, something which would not happen in the United States.
The cost in water resources and time in building nuclear plants is huge. It takes at least 5-10 years to build a nuclear power plant. Then you have NIMBY politics to deal with. Who would want them to build nuclear power plants next to their communities.
In the same amount of time, we could have built wind farms, refurbished our hydroelectric infrastructure, built biomass pelllet cogeneration plants, solar concentration farms or towers, refurbished coal power plants with better pollution controls like Greenfuel Technologies.
I bet by the time the next major nuclear power plant is on the table 5-10 years from now, Verdant Energy will have built several tidal kinetic generation farms like the one in New York's East River. -
I would favor much more emphasis on conserving as opposed to producing. Whatever is produced, will always be used up until there is a crisis. But if people and corporations learn to waste less (yes, I am talking about one person driving in a Hummer), then we have a viable long term solution. As far as I am concerned, Gore doesn't have to travel all over the world to explain why we should conserve energy. All he needs to do, is keep is butt at home, and if he really needs to, tape a video for YouTube.-
Yes, conservation---and innovation.
-
We are not in a position to rule out any source of energy. It's going to need to be a combination of renewables and nuclear combined with a reduction in demand.
eg. here in Scotland we have Hyro Electric, Tidal generators coming on stream shortly and a huge number of wind farms. This is going to need to be underpinned by nuclear because it is impossible to predict and store when and where the power is going to come from with the renewables. When the demand on the grid goes up you can't just turn on the wind.
-
-
How about a cap and trade system for pollution. Put a value on pollution and people will figure out how to cut their waste considerably. America is a capitalist society, money talks.
If we are going to use nuclear why not nuclear gas turbines.
www.romawa.nl/aae.html-
That's a bill the U.S. Senate just killed. Meanwhile the lobbiests will use the time between now and next year to destroy whatever value the bill has.
-
But is the political will there. Last time I checked a gallon of gas or as we would say petrol cost $4 in the US and people were not very happy. In Scotland a gallon costs $10+. Most of the price differential is due to tax, here we tax the fuel to limit its use by encouraging more economical cars and fewer journey's.
What would happen to the presidential candidate who suggested raising the price of gas to $10 in the US? The US is currently the worlds greatest consumer of energy. -
Both Obama and McCain supported the bill, so the times are changing. That said, I believe, McCain would also tack on a heavy nuclear requirement.
-
@wehireu cheers for that. I was not aware of the development of nuclear gas turbines. Good to see new technology on the nuclear front although its going to take a while to get my head round how these ones work.
-
-
Years ago, at the inception of the first nuclear power plants, the masses were assured that their bills would be reduced to mere pennies on the dollar. More propaganda for the sheeple & now Nevada's fighting a nuclear waste dump in their state.-
It has to be said that the first nuclear power stations were really for producing weapons grade plutonium, the spin about the cheap electrcity was a sly ruse. They did not really need the CO2 free power back then. Things have changed now though.
-
-
Chernobyl and three-mile island are reasons enough not to build any new nuclear power plants...Nuclear waste lasts forever and contaminates everything...There are severe birth defects occuring in Chernobyl...
Hydro electric power plants although they have ruined many of the worlds lakes and rivers are a lesser evil in that they do not contaminate the planet with radiation although they totally ruin eco-systems and some times toxic mercury pollution etc. in fish etc. We should not allow any new hydro electric projects to be built either...
The answer to powering our cities lies in the unused powers of the ocean...Surely tides and ocean currents could spin the turbines currently being used for hydro electric production.
Emerging Hybrid technologies,fuel cell technologies and electric storage technologies will produce some market driven exciting new transportation and energy products in the next few decades ironically due to the greed of the oil monopolists and colluding governments...
However I also agree with Offensive Blogger in that "Not to mention why waste all of the time, money and effort that has already went into developing nuclear energy? I definitely think we need to use it."
We should use what we have built already...Nuclear power plants profit enough to support their own research,maintenance and potential improvements...
Until the nuclear power production process can be achieved without creating nuclear radioactive waste we should not allow any new nuclear power plants to be built...-
Good points. The main problem with the existing nuclear power plants and the reason we are going to hear a lot about them in the next few years is that they are getting on for being 30, 40, 50! years old now. They must be replaced. Considering how long they have been in service and the state of technology when they were built I think nuclear power has proved itself to be safe.
-
"Chernobyl and three-mile island are reasons enough not to build any new nuclear power plants...Nuclear waste lasts forever and contaminates everything...There are severe birth defects occuring in Chernobyl..."
It would take too long to quote, so watch this:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcBoDP2nQTo
"Three mile island led to no deaths or injuries to plant workers or members of the nearby community", and it was equivalent to a chest x-ray.
And there are some nifty facts about Chernobyl as well.
I love those hippie-bashing liberals.
And yes, the plants will need to be replaced. If people want to be safe, they should allow newer and -safer- technology to replace the old one.
-
-
I have a crazy idea that the best thing which we can do in terms of money invested in energy technology is developed very advanced multi-use turbine technology, that can be used to build improved wind turbines, gas turbines, wave turbines, turbine powered cars, geothermal turbines, improved hydroelectric turbines, and similar technologies. I think one of the reasons GE is moving ahead so quickly in wind power, hydroelectric, etc. is because of heavy investment in improved turbine blade and engine technology. I also think, combined cycle concentrating solar and gas turbine technology is inevitable. I have a kind of mania about this idea. Right now, I am watching Capstone Turbine as I think it will improve in the coming years, even though it is not that great of a deal short term.
Hydroelectric power has changed considerably. Run of the River Hydroelectric Power does not require massive dams, it is also possible to distribute smaller generation stations along a river without damming the environment.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Run-of-the-river_hydroelectricity-
@wehireu I agree we need to explore every avenue to address the upcoming energy crisis. Turbines are really coming along and I too will watch with interest. Of course more efficient turbines also means more efficient nuclear energy.
-
-
@Daudleikr great youtube link. Thanks for that.
-
Nuclear power are best source for energy simple because its much cheaper compare to oils. The only thing is nuclear are much more risky than any form of energy. But, in times like this, We would rather take a risk than to maintain our needs for oils who are very high in prices today and it keeps rising day by day. Time will come that every country will use nuclear in order to save money and put more risk than keeping the old thing of energy. -
Amid heightened international interest in nuclear energy, countries are paying closer attention to a finite resource that helps to make nuclear power possible: uranium. A report released today finds that new discoveries and re-evaluations of known conventional uranium resources will be adequate to supply nuclear energy needs for at least 100 years at present consumption level.
praning5254.blogspot.com/2008/06/sufficient-supply-of-uranium-helps-make.ht... -
This could all change if concentrated magnified solar power proves to work. I've mentioned this before. There are two modular systems that could possibly make solar power cheaper than coal.
cleantechnica.com/2008/05/10/solar-power-goes-to-extremes-for-5cents-per-wa...
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
