[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28586514]What's wrong with nuclear power?[/QUOTE]
It's not all it's cracked up to be and that a realistic energy policy uses a mix of everything?
tidal power would be fine but as all power sources, there's going to be an issue with it.
ideally,(IMO) we would have a strong reliance on nuclear power, supplemented by geothermal energy and tidal/wind/hydro all to some degree. But most would be on the most reliable of them, nuclear, you would just be able to fill the gaps with the rest.
hell, we should just start thorium reactors soon.
[editline]13th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;28586618]It's not all it's cracked up to be and that a realistic energy policy uses a mix of everything?[/QUOTE]
bad timing on your post considering what I posted after this
[editline]13th March 2011[/editline]
and how is it not all it's cracked up to be
[QUOTE=doonbugie2;28586284]Hydro power.[/QUOTE]
You've seen what happens when there's a failure that leads to an explosion at a safe Nuclear power plant.
What about at a Hydroelectric dam?
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65D_E5SQqbo&feature=related[/media]
Yeah. Much safer.
and as petieng pointed out in another thread, wind power is even worse than I implied.
[QUOTE=petieng;28586663]I agree that advances in renewables would be great, but because they're currently not up to the job.
Stuff like geo-thermal, hydro and solar power is great if you have the right geography or weather conditions, which very few places do.
Wind on the other hand, is pretty awful. A "20MW" wind farm will produce 20MW of electricity at full load, but the power generation is proportional to the velocity cubed, meaning most of the time they're producing nowhere near that. In the winter their production is made worse by the fact they have to consume energy to power the heating filaments that stop the mechanisms freezing. The concrete foundations for one wind turbine are huge and the CO2 released from creating that concrete can take the turbine many years to pay back.
Even hydro isn't that great. Building hydroelectric dams is going to dramatically effect settlements and ecosystems up and down stream.
All methods of power generations have their drawbacks, but nuclear is the currently the best solution, with lower carbon emissions than hydro and wind and huge energy output. Nuclear waste is the largest problem, but it's problems are, in most cases greatly exaggerated. If we wait around for some 'silver bullet' technology with no drawbacks, we'll be waiting a long time, and screw up the climate in the process.
Also, here's some CO2 emission data for different power generation methods. [url]http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn268.pdf[/url][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28586809]and as petieng pointed out in another thread, wind power is even worse than I implied.[/QUOTE]
The last sentence of your quote is what's most frustrating. At least in the US, we're looking for the perfect energy source, but in the meantime we aren't moving to something better like nuclear so we're stuck on coal and other fossil fuels.
"Welp, nuclear isn't perfect, so lets keep on pumping out CO2 lads."
Even though nuclear is a million times better.
Fuck you, nuclear power is the current and the future.(unless we discover something better)
Wind turbines are junk and water ones need to be located at specific places.
It's either a bit of risk or paying for electricity more than gas.
This is not Chernobyl, which happened because they didn't bother to reduce the load.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28586514]wind turbines aren't very efficient, take up huge swaths of land/ocean and aren't entirely pollutant free to run. And i've heard of the change in wind patterns they cause being quite negative.
And I know of the place you speak, and that's not possible to build everywhere.
[/QUOTE]
And they are loud, VERY LOUD.
I have stood at the bottom of a single wind turbine and was unable to have a conversation with the person standing next to me, I would hate to be in the middle of a proper wind farm.
Other than the risk of meltdowns due to human stupidity and bad design, isn't another problem with nuclear power the waste? Or do modern reactors not throw out an incredible amount of radioactive crap? I'm all for nuclear power, it seems to be the only one that would actually last. People who are against it rarely seem to have done their research properly and are going off hyperbole from tabloids when something does go wrong.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;28587839]Other than the risk of meltdowns due to human stupidity and bad design, isn't another problem with nuclear power the waste? Or do modern reactors not throw out an incredible amount of radioactive crap? I'm all for nuclear power, it seems to be the only one that would actually last. People who are against it rarely seem to have done their research properly and are going off hyperbole from tabloids when something does go wrong.[/QUOTE]
I think waste is still a big problem, I think a lot of it is reprocessed however.
lol @ people posting hydro and wind power as viable energy replacements to nuclear.
it's hilarious how little you people know.
I believe the US and Russia are having far more trouble dealing with the leftover radioactive material from decommissioned nuclear weapons than they are for any waste that Nuclear power stations produce.
Nuclear power is very useful, but I still think that greater efforts should be made with thorium reactors, which is still a nuclear fuel mind you.
[quote=Wikipedia]Rubbia states that a tonne of thorium can produce as much energy as 200 tonnes of uranium, or 3,500,000 tonnes of coal[/quote]
[quote=Wikipedia]According to Australian science writer Tim Dean, "thorium promises what uranium never delivered: abundant, safe and clean energy - and a way to burn up old radioactive waste."[16] With a thorium nuclear reactor, Dean stresses a number of added benefits: there is no possibility of a meltdown, it generates power inexpensively, it does not produce weapons-grade by-products, and will burn up existing high-level waste as well as nuclear weapon stockpiles.[16] Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, of the British Telegraph daily, suggests that "Obama could kill fossil fuels overnight with a nuclear dash for thorium," and could put "an end to our dependence on fossil fuels within three to five years."[14]
The Thorium Energy Alliance (TEA), an educational advocacy organization, emphasizes that "there is enough thorium in the United States alone to power the country at its current energy level for over 1,000 years." [17] Reducing coal as an energy source, according to science expert Lester R. Brown of The Earth Policy Institute in Washington DC, would significantly reduce medical costs from breathing coal pollutants. Brown estimates that coal-related deaths and diseases are currently costing the U.S. up to $160 billion annually."[/quote]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium#Thorium_as_a_nuclear_fuel[/url]
I love how the media misinforms people, there's no proof of this "explosion". Only a picture of smoke coming out of the plant which could be the engineers releasing the pressure as said in the article HumanAbyss posted.
The situation is in good hands and even if there's a meltdown, it won't do anything bad since there's a whole lot of containment measures.
[QUOTE=Second-gear-of-mgear;28585663]Pavarotti, Kab2tract, and POLOPOZOZO all drive a Prius.[/QUOTE]
I don't see how someone's automotive choice is relevant to this. I don't know much about Prius', but I'm pretty sure they are efficient, what's wrong with that?
I hate seeing the nuke industry get bad publicity.
[QUOTE=Murkat;28585469]It's just too bad it has that tiny risk of a malfunction that could lead to a devastating meltdown. :smith:
Doesn't mean it's likely though, of course. Seeing Fukushima's attempts to fix it goes to show that we've come a long way since Chernobyl.[/QUOTE]
Chernobyl was caused by incompetence, not fail safes failing. They shut off all the fail safes.
As I stated on the last news thread about nuclear energy. We've had 2 to 3 incidents with nuclear power in the history of its use. There are at least 50 more incidents with coal and fossil fuels within that same period.
[editline]13th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=bootv2;28587912]yeah this, the only thing preventing me from fully going for nuclear energy(or believing in or however you want to call it) is the possible extensive waste[/QUOTE]
I beleive they have discovered a way to reuse nuclear waste as another form of fuel for power plants.
[QUOTE=ze beaver;28588340]I love how the media misinforms people, there's no proof of this "explosion".[/QUOTE]
:colbert:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjx-JlwYtyE[/media]
Before and After:
[img]http://images.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNews/img2/20110313/800_ap_before_after_nuclear_buidling_110312_430241.jpg[/img]
Looks like an explosion to me.
Bear in mind though that this was a gaseous explosion outside of the reactor itself, just contained within the building. The reactor is safe.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;28587839]Other than the risk of meltdowns due to human stupidity and bad design, isn't another problem with nuclear power the waste? Or do modern reactors not throw out an incredible amount of radioactive crap? I'm all for nuclear power, it seems to be the only one that would actually last. People who are against it rarely seem to have done their research properly and are going off hyperbole from tabloids when something does go wrong.[/QUOTE]
They put out an amount of waste orders of magnitude less than any other form of non renewable energy; the only issue is you've gotta put it somewhere secure and sealed for a long time to decay without fudging the environment.
It's the difference between a shot of vodka and three pints of beer
[QUOTE=DaveP;28589214]They put out an amount of waste orders of magnitude less than any other form of non renewable energy; the only issue is you've gotta put it somewhere secure and sealed for a long time to decay without fudging the environment.
It's the difference between a shot of vodka and three pints of beer[/QUOTE]
Incorrect metaphor! :eng101:
[QUOTE=subenji99;28588975]:colbert:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjx-JlwYtyE[/media]
Before and After:
[img_thumb]http://images.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNews/img2/20110313/800_ap_before_after_nuclear_buidling_110312_430241.jpg[/img_thumb]
Looks like an explosion to me.
Bear in mind though that this was a gaseous explosion outside of the reactor itself, just contained within the building. The reactor is safe.[/QUOTE]
the explosion wasn't a nuclear one, nor a serious one. It was simply a hydrogen and oxygen rich environment with too much heat to not cause a boom. It's what happens when water breaks down.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;28587839]Other than the risk of meltdowns due to human stupidity and bad design, isn't another problem with nuclear power the waste? Or do modern reactors not throw out an incredible amount of radioactive crap? I'm all for nuclear power, it seems to be the only one that would actually last. People who are against it rarely seem to have done their research properly and are going off hyperbole from tabloids when something does go wrong.[/QUOTE]
Waste is not a problem because the transportation is safe, and where they store it is perfectly safe as well. Also, newer reactors are more advanced and can take the waste, and reuse it. I believe some in France do that.
[QUOTE=DaveP;28589214]They put out an amount of waste orders of magnitude less than any other form of non renewable energy; the only issue is you've gotta put it somewhere secure and sealed for a long time to decay without fudging the environment.
It's the difference between a shot of vodka and three pints of beer[/QUOTE]
i believe seed reactors can reuse some of that, if not all of that to keep powering on.
also, the best method of disposal so far is burying them at the bottom of a hole drilled into the depths of a mountain. Honestly, pretty good idea.
Just make a giant (nuclear powered) cannon and shoot the radioactive waste into space :smug:
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28589284]the explosion wasn't a nuclear one, nor a serious one. It was simply a hydrogen and oxygen rich environment with too much heat to not cause a boom. It's what happens when water breaks down.[/QUOTE]
Clearly you didn't read the bottom line of my post, despite quoting it.
[quote]Bear in mind though that this was a gaseous explosion outside of the reactor itself, just contained within the building. The reactor is safe.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Chrille;28589380]Just make a giant (nuclear powered) cannon and shoot the radioactive waste into space :smug:[/QUOTE]
Isn't there a ban on radioactive substances in space? Or is that just nuclear explosions?
[QUOTE=subenji99;28589414]Clearly you didn't read the bottom line of my post, despite quoting it.[/QUOTE]
no i did, was just adding on to what you said
[QUOTE=subenji99;28588975]:colbert:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjx-JlwYtyE[/media]
Before and After:
[img_thumb]http://images.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNews/img2/20110313/800_ap_before_after_nuclear_buidling_110312_430241.jpg[/img_thumb]
Looks like an explosion to me.
Bear in mind though that this was a gaseous explosion outside of the reactor itself, just contained within the building. The reactor is safe.[/QUOTE]
Wow, what an explosion. It blew the wood supports right off that building.
[QUOTE=The mouse;28585253]I hate people who oppose nuclear power, it's by far the most efficient minimal polluting energy source.[/QUOTE]
No, it only has a max of about 30% efficiency. The highest is wind power.
Nuclear power is not viable because it depends on a finite resource, produces dangerous waste products, and is not available at a small-scale level. The construction of nuclear power plants is also incredibly expensive, lengthy, and rife with setbacks. It's just not adaptable or efficient enough.
On a related note, producing energy domestically is much more effective than "importing" it from a remote plant.
I think solar power is going to become much more viable, especially with growing interest and investment in the market for solar technology. Wind power is okay, but nothing great; it should be used as a supplementary power source in regions where it is most effective (coastal regions). Wind installations are also very expensive, and current battery technology does not allow the turbines to retain energy well during downtime.
Don't get me wrong, wind is still a good investment - just a long-term one. Solar seems to have a lot more momentum, however.
[QUOTE=Pavarotti;28589452]Isn't there a ban on radioactive substances in space? Or is that just nuclear explosions?[/QUOTE]
I recall from a Bill Nye episode about nuclear power that the reason they don't try to send the waste into space is because of the risk that the launch could fail/explode, causing all the waste to leak into the atmosphere.
Of course, I saw it a LONG time ago so I may not be remembering it right. And we may have safer ways to put it in space at this point.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
