[QUOTE=Timebomb575;28586727]What the hell are you talking about? Most fuel rods last for around 3-6 years before they have to be replaced and disposed of, and the U-235 needed to make up these fuel rods only comprises .72% of the amount of Uranium on Earth.
If you think we have a billion years of nuclear fuel left, you are sorely mistaken.[/QUOTE]
Thorium is a lot more plentiful, and a lot better at using as a power source. We have tons of power.
[QUOTE=MIPS;28586761]ITT: PRO and ANTI nuclear advocates fight eachother and nuclear apocalypse STALKER fans join the brawl too.
[/QUOTE]
For the record Im not anti-nuclear, but I just dont see it as a good permanent solution.
Mind you its much better than many of our current systems, but it does inherently carry some danger with it, in addition to the issues of fuel disposal and long-term fuel availability.
[img]http://filesmelt.com/dl/189998_200492769969917_100000275875636_769778_3958171_n.jpg[/img]
I blame Homer-san.
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;28586804]For the record Im not anti-nuclear, but I just dont see it as a good permanent solution.
Mind you its much better than many of our current systems, but it does inherently carry some danger with it, in addition to the issues of fuel disposal and long-term fuel availability.[/QUOTE]
well, we have tons of fuel. We have a lot of uranium and a lot of thorium, not to mention we've theorized seed reactors which can essentially enhance the life of a reactor plant by quite a lot.
as for a way to dispose of it, we're working on it. There's the deep drilled tunnel in the states which is probably the best way we've figured out so far, but beyond that, we'll get it eventually.
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;28586727]What the hell are you talking about? Most fuel rods last for around 3-6 years before they have to be replaced and disposed of, and the U-235 needed to make up these fuel rods only comprises .72% of the amount of Uranium on Earth.
If you think we have a billion years of nuclear fuel left, you are sorely mistaken.[/QUOTE]
Except you can use 238 for a lower output.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28586851]well, we have tons of fuel. We have a lot of uranium and a lot of thorium, not to mention we've theorized seed reactors which can essentially enhance the life of a reactor plant by quite a lot.
as for a way to dispose of it, we're working on it. There's the deep drilled tunnel in the states which is probably the best way we've figured out so far, but beyond that, we'll get it eventually.[/QUOTE]
Breeder reactors have potential, but the practice of just storing spent nuclear fuel simply isn't sustainable. And even if you do manage to find a good way to cleanly dispose of it, you still have the inherent (albeit minimal, as shown by the events in Japan) danger of of a fission reactor.
Im just saying I would rather see advances in renewable energy (Solar, geothermal, wind, etc) or nuclear fusion than I would nuclear fission.
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;28586952]Breeder reactors have potential, but the practice of just storing spent nuclear fuel simply isn't sustainable. And even if you do manage to find a good way to cleanly dispose of it, you still have the inherent (albeit minimal, as shown by the events in Japan) danger of of a fission reactor.
Im just saying I would rather see advances in renewable energy (Solar, geothermal, wind, etc) or nuclear fusion than I would nuclear fission.[/QUOTE]
Well then you better start building some of those that work on a bigger scale, and works everywhere in the world.
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;28586768]While I agree with you on most of your points, I feel obliged to ask what you are basing this statement on.[/QUOTE]
That 90% of what constitutes as 'nuclear waste' is low level (in most cases about as radioactive as tea or coffee.) 10% is intermediate and high level, the stuff that is actually a concern. The amount of high level waste that has been produced by most plants, even after 30+ years of operation is small enough in volume to be stored in on-site vaults, and we'll have enough permanent storage sites to last many decades or even centuries. (A 1GW plant will produce about enough intermediate and high level waste to fill an average family home, over a 30 years of operation.) And on top of this, breeder reactors can be used to transmutate the majority of nuclear waste into less harmful isotopes. Not currently common, but a practical technology.
My statement of claims being exaggerated depends on what you've read or seen about nuclear waste, and whether you think the advantages of nuclear power are worth this disadvantage, which as you've probably guessed, I do :v:.
By the way, I also don't believe nuclear to be a permanent solution, by which I mean I would like to see the majority of the world's energy generation coming from nuclear happen sometime soon, but I would hope it wouldn't be our main power source in a century or two.
[QUOTE=Crimor;28586998]Well then you better start building some of those that work on a bigger scale, and works everywhere in the world.[/QUOTE]
Plenty of places in the world use those things. Hell, localized solar/wind power is very common in third world countries or out of the way areas that dont have the infrastructure for larger power plants.
And yes, the capacity of these things is currently limited in most first world countries (though renewable energy can and does supplement current infrastructure) , but that's why I would like to see [B]advances[/B] in them.
[editline]13th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=petieng;28587052]That 90% of what constitutes as 'nuclear waste' is low level (in most cases about as radioactive as tea or coffee.) 10% is intermediate and high level, the stuff that is actually a concern.[/QUOTE]
Source?
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;28587106]Plenty of places in the world use those things. Hell, localized solar/wind power is very common in third world countries or out of the way areas that dont have the infrastructure for larger power plants.
And yes, the capacity of these things is currently limited in most first world countries (though renewable energy can and does supplement current infrastructure) , but that's why I would like to see [B]advances[/B] in them.[/QUOTE]
I agree that we're gained some major ground on wind/solar generators, but it's still far away from being effective and stable.
[QUOTE=petieng;28587052]
By the way, I also don't believe nuclear to be a permanent solution, by which I mean I would like to see the majority of the world's energy generation coming from nuclear happen sometime soon, but I would hope it wouldn't be our main power source in a century or two.[/QUOTE]
I feel somewhat the same. It could make a good short term solution, but then the current problems like disposal and general danger would just be magnified if it became our main source of energy. I suppose the ideal situation would be a slight increase in the use of nuclear power (possibly to replace major power plants) alongside an increase in fully renewable sources.
[editline]13th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Crimor;28587169]I agree that we're gained some major ground on wind/solar generators, but it's still far away from being effective and stable.[/QUOTE]
Yes and no I suppose. On a large scale and with our current infrasturcture, these things currently aren't capable of sustaining us. Hence why I would support nuclear fission in conjunction with renewables as an interim solution.
On a small scale however, micro-scale (IE: solar panel arrays/windmills on a roof or in a yard) solar and wind power generation is perfectly capable of supporting even us power hungry Americans in many situations (Obviously space is an issue in dense urban areas, but still). Ive seen plenty of homes operating off the grid entirely (one of my professors even gives extra power back to the grid).
