Nuclear Power

[physicsman09]

With today's economy and the outrageous price of oil, many people believe that we should have new energy sources such as solar or wind. While they are all well and good, there is no possible way that solar power and wind power can meet the demand for all of our energy needs.

My biggest problem with them is:

Solar: What happens when it's cloudly? No power for today?

Wind: What happens when it's not windy? No power for today?

Everyone is complaining about how we need to "change" our source of energy, they continue to look for new sources, but unfortunately they don't see that the answer has been staring them in the face for the past 30 years.

Nuclear power is the best source of energy currently availble, it is capable of meeting our energy needs, it's cheap, efficient, and safe. There are just over 100 operating Nuclear power plants in the USA, and they provide 20% of our power. Also, Uranium is much cheaper than oil, even after the enrichment. One pellet of uranium that undergoes fission can produce as much energy as 35 boxcar loads of coal, proving Nuclear power to be efficient, and there are safety mechanisms in place to ensure the upmost safety of the plants workers and the people in the surrounding community.

Everyone complains about the "energy crisis" but for some reason they refuse to consider nuclear.
If everyone could take a few minutes out of their lives and look at how positive the benifits of nuclear are, our "crisis" would be solved.

[Gunter45]

Seeing as how there are plans drawn up for dozens of plants across the country, I wouldn't say that the issue isn't being ignored.

Either way, I think the biggest area we need to focus on is energy storage. We could have a great source of on-tap energy if we could harness off-peak production of wind and solar and use them when we need them. As it stands, a lot of the production is wasted.

A combination of nuclear and renewables is the best solution for the moment until we can wean off of it. The ideal solution is developing more efficient solar panels so that your site and fuel concerns disappear.

[KeithHybrid]

If I may play the devil's advocate...

Indeed, nuclear energy seems to be the most viable option, but what will happen after we've used up uranium? Also, what is being done to insure that we don't have a meltdown crisis?

[Gunter45]

At 7/15/08 03:18 PM, KeithHybrid wrote: If I may play the devil's advocate...

Indeed, nuclear energy seems to be the most viable option, but what will happen after we've used up uranium?

That's really not even a concern. We have enough uranium to last us for an incredibly long time.

Also, what is being done to insure that we don't have a meltdown crisis?

Because this isn't Soviet Russia 30 years ago and we'll actually have qualified people running the latest technology? Current reactor technology can go without coolant for days, even weeks, without risking a meltdown, and that's even if the operators could willingly do that, which they can't.

Nuclear reactors are incredibly safe and clean. The only opposition is what to do with the waste. That's not even a monumental concern. True, it's not absolutely perfect, but the health effects are far overshadowed by what coal plants belch out.

Of course, the perfect solution would be something that doesn't involve hazardous material or having to mine for fuel. That's why I feel that, as it grows more and more viable, solar is becoming the clear energy source of the future.

[Earfetish]

What about how it's a commodity that will necessitate more world trade, and we'd be better off being self-sufficient as far as energy production goes? On a global level?

devil's advocate

[hrb5711]

At 7/15/08 03:18 PM, KeithHybrid wrote: If I may play the devil's advocate...

Indeed, nuclear energy seems to be the most viable option, but what will happen after we've used up uranium? Also, what is being done to insure that we don't have a meltdown crisis?

The chance of a meltdown happening with today's technology is so low, you have a better chance getting killed by a coconut falling on your head than you do of seeing a meltdown happening. How many meltdowns have happened in the US??? Zero.

Stop listening to the bias BS about nuclear reactors. Do some research, then form your own opinion. And it will take us a long long time to use up uranium, especially now since some countries can recycle spent rods and reuse them in certain nuclear plants.

Nuclear makes the most sense.

[Al6200]

At 7/15/08 02:31 PM, physicsman09 wrote: With today's economy and the outrageous price of oil, many people believe that we should have new energy sources such as solar or wind. While they are all well and good, there is no possible way that solar power and wind power can meet the demand for all of our energy needs.

True, I hate how solar and wind are wanked so far out of proportion.

Solar: What happens when it's cloudly? No power for today?

Wind: What happens when it's not windy? No power for today?

With a big enough grid, you could just get power from another part of the country.

The real problem with solar and wind is how little power they generate. I mean, just think about this intuitively. A large nuclear reaction is a VIOLENT EXPLOSION. In contrast, no one thinks "OMG there's wind over there I'm going to die" or "OMG the sun has so much energy I'm going to explode", but for good reason, people would be scared of a nuclear bomb.

There just isn't a lot of energy in sunlight and wind, so the plants have to be HUGE to produce anything near what a small nuclear reactor produces.

Everyone is complaining about how we need to "change" our source of energy, they continue to look for new sources, but unfortunately they don't see that the answer has been staring them in the face for the past 30 years.

The average American sees a nuclear power plant as a machine that turns people into Zombies. Look at old Simpsons episodes and you'll know what I mean (heck, originally Mr. Burns was just the manager of the nuclear power plant).

Nuclear power is the best source of energy currently availble, it is capable of meeting our energy needs, it's cheap, efficient, and safe. There are just over 100 operating Nuclear power plants in the USA, and they provide 20% of our power. Also, Uranium is much cheaper than oil, even after the enrichment. One pellet of uranium that undergoes fission can produce as much energy as 35 boxcar loads of coal, proving Nuclear power to be efficient, and there are safety mechanisms in place to ensure the upmost safety of the plants workers and the people in the surrounding community.

Agree 100%.

Everyone complains about the "energy crisis" but for some reason they refuse to consider nuclear.
If everyone could take a few minutes out of their lives and look at how positive the benifits of nuclear are, our "crisis" would be solved.

Not quite. There's still the issue of how we get the power into our cars. Yes, there are electric cars, but the affordable ones that go 30 mph would get curbstomped on American highways where cars frequently go over 70 mph.

At 7/15/08 03:32 PM, Earfetish wrote: What about how it's a commodity that will necessitate more world trade, and we'd be better off being self-sufficient as far as energy production goes? On a global level?

It's economically feasible to extract uranium from seawater.

[GunnerX86]

Nuclear power is the best of the best.

[killa-teddy]

I think this could help with the toxic waste
This might not be the best link but it was the first thing on google.

[AniMetal]

I honestly think i'd prefer a world based off hydro, wind and solar power over using oil, gas, coal, uranium for energy.

Cheaper for the country to install, a lot less waste and polution created, little or no danger if somethign went wrong, most countries will become self-sufficient, less taxes for the common folk, also don't forget about the Ozone and all that jazz.

Lol devil's advocate

[birdwing]

Honestly, people are putting to much thought into wind, solar, or hydro energy and improving one over the other and deciding which one to use.

The only affective way would be, to build plants that would harness all three sources of energy at ounce.
Cloudy days tend to be windy so the wind farms on the plant would make up for it, and there tends to always be more wind near the ocean because of the lack of obstacles for the wind to go around so again its not that unreasonable.

The plants would just need to be built near the ocean or running bodies of water, and have both wind farms surrounding then and solar panels can be placed in the spaces between the fans due to the way the fans have to be placed.

(the fans are staggered with large spaces between them so that they all catch the wind. Which leaves a lot of open wasted area... so I say put solar panels there.)

Wind and solar farms due almost no damage to the environment if built properly, and animals can adapt to the fans being in the area.

[IETFB]

Nuclear power is certainly the best bet we have at the moment. Wind, hydro and solar are all well and good, but they simply aren't efficient enough to sustain current energy usage. Contrary to popular belief, nuclear power is incredibly safe. People cite Chernobyl, but forget the technology have improved remarkably over 20 years. Not to mention the disaster was in Soviet Ukraine, which is considerably poorer than the UK, USA etc.

However, fission isn't and shouldn't be the future of our energy generation. We should consider it a place holder to help wean us off fossil fuels and divert more funds to fusion research. Fusion is to fission as fission is to fossil fuels - many times more efficient, and with more plentiful and easily accessible fuel.

[Elfer]

FACT: Every single nuclear power plant ever built has suffered catastrophic failure greater than or equal to Chernobyl in magnitude.

FACT: A nuclear meltdown is exactly the same as the detonation of a nuclear weapon.

FACT: Nuclear plants leave radioactive waste that is deadly until the end of time, while coal-fired plants leave no pollution at all, as the fuel used is completely destroyed.

It's a FACT.

[FUNKbrs]

At 7/16/08 02:11 PM, Elfer wrote: FACT: Every single nuclear power plant ever built has suffered catastrophic failure greater than or equal to Chernobyl in magnitude.

FACT: A nuclear meltdown is exactly the same as the detonation of a nuclear weapon.

FACT: Nuclear plants leave radioactive waste that is deadly until the end of time, while coal-fired plants leave no pollution at all, as the fuel used is completely destroyed.

It's a FACT.

You're funny.

In the blue helmet kind of way, that is.

People tend to forget that nuclear waste and nuclear fuel ARE THE SAME THING. Guess how you enrich uranium? BY EXPOSING IT TO RADIATION, EXACTLY THE KIND OF RADIATION NUCLEAR WASTE PRODUCES.

Also, in a nuclear power plant THERE IS NEVER AN EXPLOSION. EVER. NEVNENENENENENENEEEVERVEVEREEVEREER. It's like a big microwave that boils water to generate steam just like a coal fired plant.

IT'S LIKE A BIG MICROWAVE, NOT A BIG BOMB YOU STUPID FUCKING HIPPIES DIDIDIDIDIDIEEIEIDDIEIDEIDIE

You don't see people turning green from microwaves, do you? NO. Also, radioactivity glows BLUE in reactors. RADIUM glows green, and was commonly used in clocks until the nuclear industry discovered it would give you cancer AND it killed Madame Currie.

There's no big barrels of evil green gloop, no giant explosions, NO SMOKE. Those big towers? They're water COOLING towers. That stuff coming out of the top is STEAM, not smoke. Those towers make it so water used in the plant can be returned to the streams and rivers it came from, the same down to tthe TEMPERATURE it was taken from.

Oh, and if you mention either wind or solar power, you're just a fucking retard and should be shot. Wind and solar BOTH pollute and destroy wildlife, they just haven't been used widely enough for it to be obvious. Wind turbines chop up birds CONSTANTLY, and the chemicals they use in solar panels are downright dastardly.

Nuclear. It's not A solution. It's THE solution.

[Gunter45]

At 7/16/08 02:47 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: You're funny.

In the blue helmet kind of way, that is.

Did someone forget to put on their sarcasm hat for the field trip?

[jamboreen]

Wind Generation actually does more Damage to the enviroment than is actually told about, even though the negative effects are lower than Fossil fuel alternatives.

Enough sunlight hits the earth in an hour to power all of humanity for a year.

I think solar is a strong canidate for energy production, what about all those deserts that have droughts lasting 100's of days, pack some solar panels in their, store the energy, ship it out.

[Gunter45]

At 7/16/08 03:53 PM, jamboreen wrote: I think solar is a strong canidate for energy production, what about all those deserts that have droughts lasting 100's of days, pack some solar panels in their, store the energy, ship it out.

The latter two points are the catch. We have to develop energy storage and transportation. Of course, perfecting the cells themselves is going to be what's really going to make it viable. On-site energy that's more powerful during peak use, what's not to love? Storage is still a concern, of course, but it's not as essential for individuals as it would be for a centralized energy production site.

[FUNKbrs]

At 7/16/08 03:02 PM, Gunter45 wrote:

At 7/16/08 02:47 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: You're funny.

In the blue helmet kind of way, that is.

Did someone forget to put on their sarcasm hat for the field trip?

Nope. I caught the sarcasm. My anti-hippy rant was only on that post because... well, I didn't want to double post, and I hate hippies.

[bcdemon]

For all the pro-nuclear folks:

What do we do with all the waste? And don't just go by todays standards, imagine nuclear reactors taking over the energy sector, then imagine the amount of waste that would create.

Do we just dig more holes?

[jamboreen]

At 7/16/08 07:52 PM, bcdemon wrote: For all the pro-nuclear folks:

What do we do with all the waste? And don't just go by todays standards, imagine nuclear reactors taking over the energy sector, then imagine the amount of waste that would create.

Do we just dig more holes?

Im pretty sure some of the Nuclear waste can be re-used, according to a poster above.

How about we send it to the sun on a rocket, its not like we don't have that option.

[hrb5711]

At 7/16/08 07:52 PM, bcdemon wrote: For all the pro-nuclear folks:

What do we do with all the waste? And don't just go by todays standards, imagine nuclear reactors taking over the energy sector, then imagine the amount of waste that would create.

Do we just dig more holes?

i love how short sighted people are.

Look we haven't done any serious research into Nuclear power in about 30 years. We are basically playing catch up right now. If we start putting our money into Nuclear power to supply our energy you will see an increase in research and disposal methods.

Besides I doubt we will ever have a disposal method that we can do days after the fuel rods are spent. We will probably have something that we can do 30 or 40 years after it sits in a cast, after it breaks down to different forms of radioactive material.

We are far away from plausible Wind and Solar power, as far as capturing enough of it, transferring it, and storing it. How is all that great solar and wind power in the western states supposed to make it to South Carolina? Georgia? Louisiana? We are farther away from usable solar and wind power than nuclear power.

[MacSime]

Nobody can refute the superiority of the nuclear energy in terms of efficiency. It suffers no comparison with oil, and even less with the alternate energies like solar or wind.

As far as I know, the uranium ore reserves get us until a hundred of years, maybe two or three more times if new technologies are found. But I figure we'll have same problems with uranium that we had with petrol : geopolitic hazardous moves, etc... what's more not all countries have access to nuclear technology, and promote the extension of this technology is taking some risks if this isn't done without proper care (I obviously think about bombs).

However, the toxic wastes are not just re-usable, as I could have read here. These are subproducts of fission, it is not exactly combustible, and the retreatment process is very costly! But, we can say all the nuclear industry is costly, so it is only a little more embarrassing. We talk in effect in terms of hundreds of billions of dollars for equip a developed country.

To conclude, Nuclear Energy is really efficient, but as oil, coal, and alternate energies, there are problems, so I think that doing research in all directions, which are decreasing the oil/coal-induced pollution, nuclear, and alternates (Have we talked about hydrogen?) is benefite rather than be narrow-minded in the nuclear way. ;)

[hrb5711]

Oh I am not saying Nuclear is the only energy supply we have. I think we do need to put research into any possibilities. For the near future though Nuclear is our best option. We have the technology to build and use nuclear power now and we need to use it. But yes we do need to continue research into wind, solar, hydrogen, etc.

It never pays to put all your eggs in one basket.

[Elfer]

At 7/16/08 05:33 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: Nope. I caught the sarcasm. My anti-hippy rant was only on that post because... well, I didn't want to double post, and I hate hippies.

Don't worry bro, I know what was goin' down there.

[bcdemon]

At 7/16/08 09:16 PM, hrb5711 wrote:

At 7/16/08 07:52 PM, bcdemon wrote: For all the pro-nuclear folks:

What do we do with all the waste? And don't just go by todays standards, imagine nuclear reactors taking over the energy sector, then imagine the amount of waste that would create.

Do we just dig more holes?

i love how short sighted people are.

Why on earth would you call me short sighted? I merely asked what we were to do with all the radioactive waste that comes with nuclear energy. Right now there seems to be two options.
A: the very costly and dangerous method of re-using spent fuel like the Brits and Japanese do, or
B: Bury it 1000 feet below the surface of the earth, the US and Canadian method.

How is all that great solar and wind power in the western states supposed to make it to South Carolina? Georgia? Louisiana? We are farther away from usable solar and wind power than nuclear power.

Who's to say that the east can't have their own wind and/or solar energy? I'm thinking tornado alley would be a great place to set up some wind turbines. Not to mention all the coastal states with that nice ocean breeze. The main problem with this idea is of course, the people who live in such areas don't want to look at wind turbines while they relax on the beach.

[uhnoesanoob]

At 7/16/08 07:52 PM, bcdemon wrote: For all the pro-nuclear folks:

What do we do with all the waste? And don't just go by todays standards, imagine nuclear reactors taking over the energy sector, then imagine the amount of waste that would create.

Do we just dig more holes?

Nah, we'll just dump it in Canada.

[chi-master08]

I have no problem with all of these ideas for alternative energy, it's just that if the whole world goes to one of these ideas, that idea will be monopolized by the best country. If the whole world goes to solar energy, the Middle Eastern countries will monopolize the solar power because they have less cloud coverage than the rest of the world and they could sell the excess energy to other countries in need. If it's wind power, it could be any country with a large enough open space or high enough mountain. If it's nuclear energy, than any country with nuclear capability could become dominant, but that is stupid because every country could make just enough energy for their own country. In light of those facts, I would have to say that nuclear energy would be the best way to go. But then again I could be very wrong, who knows?

[hrb5711]

At 7/17/08 01:51 AM, bcdemon wrote:

At 7/16/08 09:16 PM, hrb5711 wrote:

At 7/16/08 07:52 PM, bcdemon wrote: For all the pro-nuclear folks:

What do we do with all the waste? And don't just go by todays standards, imagine nuclear reactors taking over the energy sector, then imagine the amount of waste that would create.

Do we just dig more holes?

i love how short sighted people are.

Why on earth would you call me short sighted? I merely asked what we were to do with all the radioactive waste that comes with nuclear energy. Right now there seems to be two options.
A: the very costly and dangerous method of re-using spent fuel like the Brits and Japanese do, or
B: Bury it 1000 feet below the surface of the earth, the US and Canadian method.

Who's to say that the east can't have their own wind and/or solar energy? I'm thinking tornado alley would be a great place to set up some wind turbines. Not to mention all the coastal states with that nice ocean breeze. The main problem with this idea is of course, the people who live in such areas don't want to look at wind turbines while they relax on the beach.

I called you short sited because you are not thinking of what we will be able to do in the future. Burying it or re-using it are our only options right now. In 20 or 30 years though who knows? If we invest in the technology now we will see major advancements in the near future.

And wind turbines are not that great. While this website is bias, it does have a lot of links to legit sources. Just read up about it. http://www.aweo.org/

And like I was saying, we are still far away from having wind and solar as a viable option. We just don't have the technology yet. So we need to go into Nuclear again and continue to research wind and solar on the side.

So you are short sighted because you can't see solar and wind don't work, nuclear technology will advance much quicker right now than wind and solar, and we know nuclear is a cheap, safe, efficient means of power. Nuclear makes the most sense right now.

[bcdemon]

At 7/17/08 08:19 AM, hrb5711 wrote: I called you short sited because you are not thinking of what we will be able to do in the future. Burying it or re-using it are our only options right now. In 20 or 30 years though who knows? If we invest in the technology now we will see major advancements in the near future.

Ahh I see. So if you pose a legitimate question that means your short sighted? I was hoping to get some possible remedies, you know, further the discussion. That and I would say you are simply speculating that we will see "major advancements in the near future", unless of course you are an expert?

And wind turbines are not that great. While this website is bias, it does have a lot of links to legit sources. Just read up about it. http://www.aweo.org/

I don't remember saying wind was the way of the future, I was just curious what we are to do with the vast amounts of radioactive waste that comes with nuclear energy. That and there are tons of sites spewing the pros and cons of everything, especially 'special interest groups' sites.

And like I was saying, we are still far away from having wind and solar as a viable option. We just don't have the technology yet. So we need to go into Nuclear again and continue to research wind and solar on the side.

Soo let me get this straight. We don't have the technology to make solar and wind energy viable yet, just as we don't have the technology to dispose of nuclear HLW. But we should put emphasis on how to get rid of HLW as opposed to making solar and wind energy viable? I disagree, I would rather see emphasis on solar and wind energy, preferably built into homes and buildings.

So you are short sighted because you can't see solar and wind don't work, nuclear technology will advance much quicker right now than wind and solar, and we know nuclear is a cheap, safe, efficient means of power. Nuclear makes the most sense right now.

But solar and wind do work. They may not be able to produce the energy a nuclear reactor can, but then again, how long have we been focusing on solar and wind power for the masses? Not very. You give solar and wind development the same amount of time in research as nuclear and then see where we are. But to say it doesn't work is complete nonsense.

[evil-clown-12]

At 7/16/08 02:11 PM, Elfer wrote: FACT: Nuclear plants leave radioactive waste that is deadly until the end of time, while coal-fired plants leave no pollution at all, as the fuel used is completely destroyed.

Not till the END of time. But yeah, half life 4.5 billion is a bitch.