|
|
|
|
|
| Nuclear Power? Should we revist the concept?
Posted: 7/3/2008 2:04:24 PM | Nuclear power is the safest form over all. Technology is also being developed to recycle and reuse spent nuclear pellets. I hear only 5% if the potential is used, because contaminants lower the efficiency, and need to be replaced.
Also 3 mile island resulted in zero deaths, so I think that says alot about our saftey standards when things do go wrong. | |
|
| Nuclear Power? Should we revist the concept?
Posted: 7/3/2008 5:07:43 PM | Practically speaking, Nuclear WILL be part of the energy mix for the next few decades. My gut tells me it's not a good thing to generate waste whose hazards will outlive the containers it's stored in based on faith that someone else someday will come up with a better solution, but I recognize that the major energy squeeze is just now getting started, so some compromises are going to need to be made.
I honestly don't know how concerned to be about nuclear. I'd love to know the answer to this question:
Suppose wherever we store this waste is somehow compromised a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand years from now. How much risk does that pose? Would the danger zone be a few feet, a mile, ten miles, more? And what specific dangers are we talking about? I just don't have a firm grasp on how nasty nuclear waste is. The answers I get tend to be either "don't worry about it" or "it's a big deal", but I'd like some more detail if anyone has it to offer.
I do anticipate that ultimately renewables will be the answer, but know that we've still got a ways to go to make that practical on a universal scale, and won't likely have those answers as soon as we'd like. As governments face tough decisions in the immediate future I'm sure Nuclear will be one of the applications we'll put to use.
I'm not likely to be around to see it, but it would be interesting to fast forward fifty years and see how we manage energy then. I'm betting it will be different than any of us can imagine now.
Dave | |
|
| Nuclear Power? Should we revist the concept?
Posted: 7/3/2008 5:50:11 PM | | Another question I'd like answered is why can't we just shoot it up into space and let it burn up on reentry? The atmosphere burns stuff up pretty well. Or we could shoot it at the sun? I will admit I don't know too much about this sort of thing, but fire gets rid of alot of things so wouldn't more fire get rid of more things? | |
|
| Nuclear Power? Should we revist the concept?
Posted: 7/3/2008 6:33:30 PM | Heating radioactive elements doesn't destroy them. They may vaporize, they would be dispersed in the atmosphere, and you would widespread radioactive contamination. Anyway, launching stuff into space is insanely expensive, much cheaper to seal it in thick stainless steel containers and store it in deep salt mines.
Look up the following link from my previous post.
The pros of nuclear power have been addressed, these are the cons:
http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html#power
The nuclear industry, like so many others dealing with hazardous, toxic materials, has been less than forthcoming with regard to its safety record, which has hampered efforts to regulate and improve safety. I don't believe the penalties imposed have been anywhere near severe enough, in light of the dire consequences of decades of lies and denials. | |
|
| Nuclear Power? Should we revist the concept?
Posted: 7/4/2008 6:02:58 PM | I think that a proper, centralized (as in, not just any corporate fiasco that can afford the facilities) nuclear program would be great for North America. It would create so many jobs, and would generate tremendous support for scientific research and education. Not to mention the fact that it could provide a platform for many other "green" automobile technologies (hydrogen cell engines, etc.)
However, the extraction, refining and manufacturing process involved in such a plan would require some serious input from our respective governments. Physically, mentally and financially. I'm talking billions upon billions, here.
In order to get enough fuel out of the ground to compete with big oil, we would have to start digging some seriously huge holes. So, it wouldn't be all good for the environment.
We'd also have to institute a much higher standard of safety and security regulations for the production, trade and use of uranium/plutonium. Those materials aren't exactly the most "user friendly" things in the world. And, I wouldn't want to turn my back on some of the users, either. I'm not talking about terrorists, either. I'm talking about profiteering entities who have a history of cutting corners.
I would be all for a new nuclear program in North America. But, in order to do it properly, there will need to be some major changes in both government, and business circles. But, that's another thread in itself. My point is that I have faith in the technology. The people, however..... | |
|
| Nuclear Power? Should we revist the concept?
Posted: 7/7/2008 12:41:24 AM | | Newsflash. The answer to your question, "should we revist the concept" has already been answered. Core samples have been taken, license process underway and a contruction company named for two new reactors in Texas. | |
|
| Nuclear Power? Should we revist the concept?
Posted: 7/7/2008 9:05:19 AM | Texas is probably the best example of any place to look at energy issues as a whole. It has the most wind generation of any state and is rapidly expanding its population of the bird wackers. One new expansion is even planned off shore. Texas has already discovered that even its vast areas of wind farms produce more fickle supplies than expected leading to a near shortfall last February and causing more attention to be turned to nukes. Note that Texas, is not on the same grid as the rest of the US and cannot purchase excess from either the western or eastern US grids. The latest issue concerns transmission facilities to collect the wind power and take it to the population centers. It's estimated that will cost $6 billion and will face issues of "not in my back yard". One interesting irony is a wind turbine factory I often drive by used to be an oil drilling rig factory. Speaking of wind energy, technically, the largest sailing craft every to sail the seas are oil platforms. Huge sails are hoisted on the platform legs to help propel them to their destinations to save towing fuel costs. Oh those evil Texas oil companies.
In the mean time, licensing has begun for two new nukes in Texas. The communities that already have nukes are the ones most eager to add the new ones. The approval process is expected to take 10 years and cost $50,000,000 before anything gets built. The existing nukes in Texas are some of the newest in the US but have been around for decades. Just think that they came on line long before the first PC.
In the near term, Texas will use its coal and nuke plants with natural gas fired peaking plants to get most of its electrical energy. For the most part, Texas does not suffer from ecowacko's and tends to have a better collective knowledge of energy production as well some of the most successful wildlife conservation facilities in the country. The off shore oil facilities have proven to be excellent artificial reefs boosting sealife populations and improving fishing. Perhaps the off shore wind farms will do the same. What impact will all these wind farms have on the weather patterns?
One issue Texas faces is a seldom discussed side effect of the ethanol boondoggle. The cyclic nature of fuel crops result in surges of nutrients flowing into streams, lakes, and eventually the sea. These nutrient surges result in algea blooms that die when the surge ends. The decaying algea starves the water of oxygen killing virtually all water life and releasing huge amounts of CO2 and methane, a "green house" gas 6 times as effective at IR absorption as CO2. The dead zones around river mouths are accelerating their growth as a result. Nukes look much better by comparison. | |
|
| Nuclear Power? Should we revist the concept?
Posted: 7/7/2008 12:17:45 PM | FYI:
France is now powered primarily by Nuclear Power. They shut down their last Coal power plant a few years ago.
It will happen in the US, it'll just take a while longer. | |
|
| Nuclear Power? Should we revist the concept?
Posted: 7/7/2008 9:07:06 PM | Intresting, I live in Texas most my life and in a GOP type state I would of never guessed, wow I am living in Washington State, a blue state and we are still trying to improve our energy quotas. But I will say it again, you gotta reeducate the youth and people who didnt grow up learning how to duck and cover and was told how evil the Nuclear Plants are after Chernoble.
Man its hard, Some members of my family used to build the early model plants and said they would never support the use of such energy after they saw how the workers would get drunk and then work on the plant (building it, not running it) telling about how it was soooo terrifying to work on the plants the construction workers would have go have alot to drink to get themselves in gear. But that was close to 40 years ago.
Also, when people scream about how green energy is the way of the future and with all the water bobers, wind mills, and water turnbines, just how much energy would that produce given we made a hard invest on such energy instead of using nuclear power? | |
|
| Nuclear Power? Should we revist the concept?
Posted: 7/8/2008 7:27:48 AM | | Well, the post about Texas was actually pretty good. Except that they neglected to mention the same plan about building the nuke plants included a plan to add enough windmills to power literally 3/4 of the state's electrical needs. There was a great story about it on NPR yesterday morning. Now, I agree wholeheartedly that we need to reeducate people about nuclear power. We as a nation are still terrified of it from the cold war and it really doesn't make much sense. But nukes alone cannot solve this problem. | |
|
| Nuclear Power? Should we revist the concept?
Posted: 7/8/2008 8:39:42 AM | The reality is that there is no single solution to our need for energy just as there is no single food for humans. Let's vist a few topics.
1. Fusion. Its a tough problem because of the difficulty of combining hydrogen in its various isotopes and then getting the energy out. On the positive side, no pollution or radioactive waste. There ares still some new ideas on how to acheive it that have not been tried including one of my own. Another possibility involves fusion with helium 3, a byproduct of solar flares that could be described as incomplete fusion needing one small step to release the energy. All that needs to be done there is complete the reaction to generate the power. Unfortunately, our atmosphere prevents the earth from having any recoverable concentrations of He3. The surface of moon has such concentrations and my rough calculations indicate the entire energy demand of mankind could be supplied by approximately 2200 lbs per year. The head of China's moon colonization program estimates that could be acheived by three shuttle returns per year. As long as we as a society trust mankind's ventures into the future to celebrities (when not in rehab) and lawyer-politicians, don't expect any technological progress. Space programs have been reduced to entertainment for the most part but what should we expect from a celebrity obsessed society?
2. Fission. Been around a while and scary. The celebrity crowd, when not out partying (did they remeber their underwear?) lead the charge against them. Its too much like the scifi movies. Nasty waste problem although variations can effectively produce their own fuel in the form of breeder reactors. No real fuel limit exists but the created fuel is also more easily converted to fission bombs. If interested, I can explain why but but glazed over eyes is not the point. The difficult issue concerns politics more than technology. How do we power third world dictatorships without them killing massive numbers of people with the bombs they can make?
3. Coal is dirty but there is lots of it and its cheap. Its carbon footprint and ecological impact overall is the highest of all "fossil" hydrocarbon fuels.
4. Oil is just behind coal in the dirty and carbon footprint signature. It continues to get more expensive and the dominant supplies are controlled by governments with little regard for personal freedom.
5. Methane or natural gas. Actually there is quite a lot of it. There used to be so much that it was in the way of oil and was vented. Now they drill for it but the easy stuff is mostly gone. It is by far the cleanest of the hydrocarbons and to some extent, its renewable. There are working methane recovery projects at many landfills. Many fleet vehicles use it as its cleaner and probably cheaper than oil products but storage and refueling are more dangerous and the vehicle range is limted. In some ways, it has similar problems to hydrogen as a vehicle "fuel" just less so. I put the word fuel in quotes for hydrogen vehicles as its not really a source of recoverable energy but an energy storage scheme. If a methane fuel cell can be developed, the entire energy picture could change very quickly. Recovery of waste generated methane, such as your lawn grass clippings, could power your house and car. In the area of fossile sources, methane hydrates on the ocean floor are vast but will require technological development. Methane is going to be with us a long time. Don't look for much advancement though as the technologies to develop and deliver it come from the likes of those "evil" oil people who are disfavored by the celebrities and lawyer-politicians.
6. Biofuels encompass lots of variations. Mankind has used wood for fuel for eons. Diesel from cooking and vegetable oils is cute but not viable for massive use. The real disaster is the current methanol mandated boondogle created and promoted by the celebrities and lawyer-politicians. I guess they think its good because they drink a lot of it when not in rehab because of drinking it. The demand for source crops have resulted in higher food prices and virtually eliminated excesses previously used to relieve third world famine. The president of India called the alcohol mandates a crime against humanity. The crop cycles produce nutrient surges in rivers and streams that flow to the sea. The result are algae blooms that soon die and decay when the nutrient surges end. The decay starves the sea of oxygen thus killing almost all sea life in the area. This year, the dead zone in the gulf of Mexico from the Mississippi alone is expected to be over 79000 square miles. A side effect of the decay are massive releases of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere. The methane is six times the IR absorber (green house effect) as CO2. The high density of CO2 in the water also kills the coral reefs that provide an ecosystem for much of the sealife on this planet. The celebrities, lawyer-politicians, and technically incomptent press that work hand in hand with them blame the reef killing CO2 on man's burning of hydrocarbons. The incredible stupidity is bewildering. About the only place left where sea life and fishing in the gulf is flourshing is around the off shore oil platforms that have formed new reef ecosystems. Oh those evil oil companies. On alcohol's positive side, it might be possible in the future to create alcohol fuel cells. The reason's for doing that are yet another opportunity to glaze over eyes but in general, such a development would be very good.
7. Wind power is a growing source of energy and will be for some time. The bird wackers are sprouting up everywhere but its a fickle source with high transmission costs. Without a viable massive energy storage technology, it has its problems. There are no fuel costs but we don't know what impact terrawatts of turbines will have on weather patterns. I am guessing it could be the equivelent of some mountain ranges on weather patterns. Nothing is free.
8. Solar power looks great until you do the math. The technology is advancing but slowly although it is favored by the celebrities and lawyer-politicians as they aren't skilled in math. Only by recent advances have solar cells reached efficiencies where the energy they produce in their expected life is a little more than the energy to make them. Like wind, they have energy storage issues. As they get better, look for more deployment largely because of artificial economic benefits created by celebrities and lawyer-politicians. Few people, including engineers, know much about the physics and resulting limitations on efficiency that result. Yet another opportunity to glaze over the eyes with mundane and tedious explanations.
9. Hydro, tidal, ocean currents etc. are kind of like oil in that there are limited locations where it can be utilized and most have been used. The environmental impact can be wide ranging. The celebrities and lawyer-politicians are pretty fickle about them.
Did a miss anything significant? | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
