NASA Scientist: Nuclear Power Prevents More Deaths Than It Causes
83 replies, posted
[QUOTE=proch;40134316]Thing is, there are theoretical sources of energy that are superior in almost every aspect over nuclear energy. The one aspect that still has to be worked on is it's efficiency. Nuclear Power is the power of now, but not the power of the future.[/QUOTE]
I don't think so.
Nuclear power will have to do until we can manage fusion reactors somehow
Can't wait until fusion power replaces all forms of power in 2035 and we pay $0.01 a Kw/h.
Germany is making a mistake by shutting down their nuclear plants.
[editline]2nd April 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=ultra_bright;40134372]Can't wait until fusion power replaces all forms of power in 2035 and we pay $0.01 a Kw/h.[/QUOTE]
Fusion power will not be available for the public for a long time.
ITER is just the start. Things like this need time.
I really don't understand why we're stuck with the same sources of energy we've been using since the turn of the last century. You'd think that along with our communication technology, transportation technology, and our many other technological advances, that we'd pull our heads out of our asses and re-revolutionize our industry with nuclear power. It's far more superior, efficient, safe, and versatile than any other fuel source. A downside is waste storage, but that's why we have the Moon! Earth's own trash bin that we for some reason never use.
[QUOTE=Insulator;40134464]I really don't understand why we're stuck with the same sources of energy we've been using since the turn of the last century. You'd think that along with our communication technology, transportation technology, and our many other technological advances, that we'd pull our heads out of our asses and re-revolutionize our industry with nuclear power. It's far more superior, efficient, safe, and versatile than any other fuel source. A downside is waste storage, but that's why we have the Moon! Earth's own trash bin that we for some reason never use.[/QUOTE]
Waste storage isn't even that much of a problem. People just make it out to be one.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository[/url]
Also, nuclear waste isn't some glowing barrel of goo either. It's this:
[img]http://www.posiva.fi/files/133/polttoainepelletteja.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=ultra_bright;40134372]Can't wait until fusion power replaces all forms of power in 2035 and we pay $0.01 a Kw/h.[/QUOTE]
Here's a quote from Michio Kaku's book "Physics of the Impossible", it explains the issue pretty good.
[QUOTE]Fusion will not completely solve Earth's energy crisis anytime in the near future; Pierre-Gilles de Gennes, French Nobel laureate in physics, has said "We say that we will put the sun into a box. The idea is pretty. The problem is, we don't know how to make the box." But if all goes well, researchers are hopeful that within forty years ([I]Book was published in 2008[/I]) the ITER may provide electricity for our homes."[/QUOTE]
I think the next big step is switching to thorium reactors because thorium has lower half-life and is more abundant then uranium. Also, it doesn't produce weapons-grade uranium which is a plus.
Nuclear power is great and if it weren't for the general misconception that nuclear powerplants are giant poisonus concrete pillars filled with green poison that can explode if someone gets over the fence, every country in europe and the western world would use them
One of the biggest issues are that we stick to using resources that may seem nice, but longer term isn't worth it. If we focus on doing this, the more enviromental solutions won't come as quickly.
Heck, our cars wouldn't be using the same fuel as we do today if it wasn't for money.
[QUOTE=booster;40134553]Here's a quote from Michio Kaku's book "Physics of the Impossible", it explains the issue pretty good.
[quote]Fusion will not completely solve Earth's energy crisis anytime in the near future; Pierre-Gilles de Gennes, French Nobel laureate in physics, has said "We say that we will put the sun into a box. The idea is pretty. The problem is, we don't know how to make the box." But if all goes well, researchers are hopeful that within forty years (Book was published in 2008) the ITER may provide electricity for our homes."[/quote]
[/QUOTE]
They should focus Facepunch, we are very well vested in everything involving boxes.
One of the main problems with Nuclear Power's slowing acceptance by the public in the United States is that neither of our main political parties fully support it. The left-wing is pushing for solar, wind, geothermal... All good, but not good sources of lots of power. The right-wing is advocating coal, oil, natural gas. Lots of power, but more pollution (I know a lot of coal plants don't output much in the way of pollutants anymore, but they still output more waste product than nuclear or any "green" energy source, and unlike Nuclear, you can't re-use your waste to produce more energy.
Couple that with a mass hysteria around nuclear energy, environmental regulations that only serve to cripple the proliferation of nuclear plants (Many states have laws that ban the construction of new plants...), and a pressing focus on short-term goals and needs, and you've got a society that is completely inhospitable to the development of such a promising solution to our energy needs.
I live near one of the nation's largest and most well-known nuclear plants, as well as a major testing bed for new reactor technologies, the Oak Ridge National Laboratories in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Some of the stuff they're doing there is really promising, including their work with Molten Salt reactors. They've also pioneered many of the major failsafes that prevent our Gen 3 reactors from the meltdowns that plague older reactor designs. It's a really interesting place, and worth a visit and tour* if given the chance.
*A lot of the older stuff is declassified, and they offer several different guided tours of the facilities. I was able to take a look at the old enrichment facilities (Or the "U", as it's called. It was demolished late last year.) last time I was there, really informative and interesting trip.
[QUOTE=Killervalon;40134682]One of the biggest issues are that we stick to using resources that may seem nice, but longer term isn't worth it. If we focus on doing this, the more enviromental solutions won't come as quickly.
Heck, our cars wouldn't be using the same fuel as we do today if it wasn't for money.[/QUOTE]
Actually we use coal and oil because they are absurdly energy dense and relatively easy to transport and use, they're stable and they're not gonna detonate at the drop of a hat.
That's also not taking into account the fact that oil is a ludicrously good chemical feedstock too.
If I was in charge of energy spending I'd dump money into researching cheaper solar, and incentives for solar-leasing companies like SolarCity. Then I would push for the construction of a few LFTR plants and slowly phase out older power sources starting with coal and then oil. There would be programs in place to help former employees of coal/gas plants to either retire, or retrain. I would keep coal and oil mining at its current rate, so that we could sell it to others for extra funds until we have built up the new infrastructure to a point where it can hold itself up.
I see a future where every building has its own solar system, all selling excess to the grid. With LFTR supplying excess energy where needed.
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;40135048]Actually we use coal and oil because they are absurdly energy dense and relatively easy to transport and use, they're stable and they're not gonna [b]detonate at the drop of a hat.[/b][/QUOTE]
Neither is the 238 isotope of Uranium, the one commonly used in nuclear reactors. In fact, in that form, it's just as stable as coal or oil. (And it doesn't produce arsenic as a byproduct!)
[QUOTE=Ishwoo;40133171]Aren't modern ones pretty much guaranteed to never cause a meltdown[/QUOTE]
I believe it has about an 87%-98 1/2% success rate.
[QUOTE=woolio1;40135079]Neither is the 238 isotope of Uranium, the one commonly used in nuclear reactors. In fact, in that form, it's just as stable as coal or oil. (And it doesn't produce arsenic as a byproduct!)[/QUOTE]
I was meaning some other ones we've had suggested like hydrogen and early super capacitors and shit, I know nuclear's safe, I'm a supporter of it, it's just that crude is just way too good to give up just now.
[QUOTE=ultra_bright;40134372]Can't wait until fusion power replaces all forms of power in 2035 and we pay $0.01 a Kw/h.[/QUOTE]
I hate to be a downer but.. energy companies will find ways to still charge us an arm and a leg for energy, regardless of how little it costs them to produce.
[QUOTE=booster;40134381]Germany is making a mistake by shutting down their nuclear plants.
[editline]2nd April 2013[/editline]
Fusion power will not be available for the public for a long time.
ITER is just the start. Things like this need time.[/QUOTE]
Have you seen this? [url]http://www.dvice.com/2013-2-22/lockheeds-skunk-works-promises-fusion-power-four-years[/url]
[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;40134544]Waste storage isn't even that much of a problem. People just make it out to be one. [/QUOTE]
It's not as easy as you think. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorleben#Gorleben_long-term_storage_project[/url]
[QUOTE=UnrealDiego;40135613]It's not as easy as you think. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorleben#Gorleben_long-term_storage_project[/url][/QUOTE]
I'm still not entirely sure why we don't use breeders at most power plants. They take waste, and turn it back into fissile material, while producing energy. It's a brilliant technology, and it has virtually no waste products of its own... The waste product is fuel!
No need to store things long-term, just re-enrich your spent fuel and use it again and again forever, or until it decays entirely into whatever uranium decays into.
but the lady with the tinfoil hat said nuclear power is making us infertile and that the jews were occupying palistine and....wait i see a pattern here,
ya there exists a culture of distrust of scientists, even if they are 100% right, it just takes one person to strike down the science, same thing has happened with vaccines, there still is the belief that they cause autism when infact the only study that pointed that out was faked,
politicians also get in the way of science, as the mounting pile of radiative waste is a testament to it, the scientists propose a repository to safely store the spent nuclear fuel, and a re-enrichment facility to reprocess the waste, but politics get involved and the repositorys get canceled because of political pressure, and the re-enrichment facility is too expensive to test and build so that gets cut too, causing a political minefield to cross to get through anything
[editline]2nd April 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=woolio1;40136138]I'm still not entirely sure why we don't use breeders at most power plants. They take waste, and turn it back into fissile material, while producing energy. It's a brilliant technology, and it has virtually no waste products of its own... The waste product is fuel!
No need to store things long-term, just re-enrich your spent fuel and use it again and again forever, or until it decays entirely into whatever uranium decays into.[/QUOTE]
that would involve building new powerplants, which require crossing a minefield of political red-tape to build, no new nuclear powerplants have been constructed since the early 1980s
>>no shit sherlock
[QUOTE=mblunk;40133075][img]https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-bJO0Tne4J6I/UVskZryLlCI/AAAAAAAAJs0/Ni4YREbjK5k/s600/W3512.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
Zomg
It actually glows? Awesome
Cherenkov radiation, basicly ionized plasma forming around the reaction, also it mean your receiving a fatal dosage of radiation, as described by those who worked at los alimos and had nuclear accidents
[editline]2nd April 2013[/editline]
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6b/Cerenkov_Effect.jpg/473px-Cerenkov_Effect.jpg[/img]
they should make it blue in video games instead of green...
[editline]2nd April 2013[/editline]
not sure how it ever got the green glow in pop culture to begin with
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;40136437]Zomg
It actually glows? Awesome[/QUOTE]
That's Cherenkov radiation, caused by something moving faster than the speed of light in a medium(in that case, water).
[editline]2nd April 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sableye;40136491]Cherenkov radiation, basicly ionized plasma forming around the reaction, also it mean your receiving a fatal dosage of radiation, as described by those who worked at los alimos and had nuclear accidents
[editline]2nd April 2013[/editline]
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumEffect.jpg/473px-Cerenkov_Effect.jpg[/img]
they should make it blue in video games instead of green...
[editline]2nd April 2013[/editline]
not sure how it ever got the green glow in pop culture to begin with[/QUOTE]
You're thinking of Bremsstrahlung radiation, AKA braking radiation. It happens in fusors and particle accelerators when something dumps energy by colliding with something. In the case of a fusor, some of the light emitted is braking radiation caused by the atoms hitting the electrostatic grid, slowing them down, and also damaging the hell out of the grid.
idk bout that but [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation[/url]
took the pic straight from that page
[QUOTE=DarkSiper;40133203]nothings guaranteed in life, look at the recent plant that went down in japan..
If the right measures are taken, they are pretty safe, even the old ones we have across the US.[/QUOTE]
Yeah that totally had nothing to do with a bigfuck tsunami wrecking its shit.
[QUOTE=OvB;40135070]If I was in charge of energy spending I'd dump money into researching cheaper solar, and incentives for solar-leasing companies like SolarCity. Then I would push for the construction of a few LFTR plants and slowly phase out older power sources starting with coal and then oil. There would be programs in place to help former employees of coal/gas plants to either retire, or retrain. I would keep coal and oil mining at its current rate, so that we could sell it to others for extra funds until we have built up the new infrastructure to a point where it can hold itself up.
I see a future where every building has its own solar system, all selling excess to the grid. With LFTR supplying excess energy where needed.[/QUOTE]
Talking about solar energy, I find it funny that more countries don't use it. A good example could be Australia. A massive country with plenty of sunshine and space for solar power plants. Yet we still mostly rely on coal power plants.
It isn't like Australia can't afford it anyway, with the mining and such.
[QUOTE=mblunk;40135611]Have you seen this? [url]http://www.dvice.com/2013-2-22/lockheeds-skunk-works-promises-fusion-power-four-years[/url][/QUOTE]
This is news to me, I want to stay optimistic, but this is a tough promise to keep.
Can't wait to see the results though.
[QUOTE=Animosus;40139454]Talking about solar energy, I find it funny that more countries don't use it. A good example could be Australia. A massive country with plenty of sunshine and space for solar power plants. Yet we still mostly rely on coal power plants.
It isn't like Australia can't afford it anyway, with the mining and such.[/QUOTE]
Well, you know solar panels aren't nearly as expensive today as they were five years ago. In fact, China's got factories producing piles of the things for as cheap as $100 a panel. The problem... Is that that's China. And, being China, we've actually induced dumping laws (and sanctions within) that prohibit importing Chinese-made solar panels into the United States because you're not legally able to dispose of them in the United States.
So we're stuck with the $1000+ solar panels made here in the Good Ol' US-of-A... Because being made in America justifies the higher price tag?
[QUOTE=woolio1;40140116]Well, you know solar panels aren't nearly as expensive today as they were five years ago. In fact, China's got factories producing piles of the things for as cheap as $100 a panel. The problem... Is that that's China. And, being China, we've actually induced dumping laws (and sanctions within) that prohibit importing Chinese-made solar panels into the United States because you're not legally able to dispose of them in the United States.
So we're stuck with the $1000+ solar panels made here in the Good Ol' US-of-A... Because being made in America justifies the higher price tag?[/QUOTE]
Quality control justifies the higher price tag. If there's one thing China is known for, it's not quality; it's quantity. That and the high price of having a manufacturing business in the US.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.