Nuclear Power

[Tetsuo_Shima]

Alrite. In light of the anniversary of Chernobyl, Im interested to find out the stance that you people take towards nuclear energy (thats the power station kind, not bombs). Do you feel that the sheer danger of nuclear holocaust or radiation leaks makes it far too risky to handle? Do you think that its benefits outweigh its environmental (and global) threats? Or are you still swithering on the ol' fence?

Im at work just now, so I cant (be bothered) typing out my view in full at the moment, Ill just say Im pro-nuclear.

 

[Gopha]

Im partly for it, but not In an over populated area as there could be a major disaster, but it will be needed.
Even though I prefer this new neat idea (not THAT new)
http://uekus.com/The_Global_View.html

Will add a screenie later, I jut think renewable energy sources will be better especially the linked energy source

 

[Ronin Storm]

I support nuclear power, as a concept, though I also support renewable or non-combustive fuel sources as a preference. I don't believe we've got the infrastructure (yet) to manage our rapidly growing energy requirements, however, on just "alternative" energy generation.

Nuclear power clearly has its dangers and nuclear waste is a poorly managed problem (concrete containers dropped into the ocean is not a suitable disposal method, in my opinion). However, nuclear power is not responsible for radical carbon emissions and, when managed and implemented well, can be as safe as anything else.

Chernobyl, if I remember correctly, wasn't exactly well maintained...

Don't the Japanese use nuclear power exclusively?

 

[Fi$hy]

When properlly controlled, nuclear power is one of the most efficiant and enviromentally friendly fuel sources IMO

Unlike a fossil fueled power station, nuclear power doesn't release any waste (until the fuel stock is depleted) so no nasty plumes of smoke going off into the atmosphere.

Secondly, as many isotopes have massive half-lifes (hense why Chernobyl is a problem for the next 100,000 years or so) whilst technically a fossil fuel, nuclear fuel is a lot less depleatable than traditional fuel reserves.

Finally, Chernobyl was the result of a dodgy design structure (I'll explain if anyone's interested) and thus a reactor built without this inherant flaw is remarkably safe.

 

[Gopha]

All to do with the Granite rods wasnt it fishy?

 

[Fi$hy]

Yeah, the problem with chernobyl:

Unlike many other reactors, the control rods which are used to slow or speed up the reaction were made out of graphite.

In the chernobyl reactor, when the control rods were initially inserted, the reaction would speed up for a couple of seconds before slowing down (due to the rods displacing the coolant) obviously this isn't a major problem when the reactor's running at a normal speed.

However at Chernobyl, the reactor was being used in a drill, which resulted in it being deliberatly being run faster than usual. When the call came to slow down the reaction, the control rods got inserted. Unfortunetly because the reactor was already running fast, the couple of seconds of increased reaction (and heat) due to the insertion of the rods, was too much for the structure of the rods.

Thus due to the reactor running too hot for a couple of seconds, the control rods buckled due to the heat produced. Thus they could not be fully inserted, resulting in the reactor continue to run at too high a speed, which then heated up the water coolant, causing a steam explosion.

 

[Piacular]

Holy cow!

I thought I'd be one of the few that supported nuclear power, not one of the many .

 

[Taffy]

Will add a screenie later, I jut think renewable energy sources will be better especially the linked energy source

Technically not a renewable energy source, as you have to mine the uranium, so it will run out eventually. I prefer other means of generating energy, but I suspect that nuclear power is going to be a neccesity in the future.

The UK Government had better make up its mind soon, as a Russian company wants to buy British Gas. Finish later, dinners ready

 

[Nanor]

I'm not against nuclear power. I just don't think there's a need for it when there are so many other things, Hydro, Wind, Solar etc.

Ofcourse it's efficient, but it's dangerous, and I for one, would rather not take the risk of another Chernobyl when there are in-exhaustable sources of cheap, non damaging to the environment sources for electricity out there.

 

[Gopha]

Technically not a renewable energy source, as you have to mine the uranium, so it will run out eventually. I prefer other means of generating energy, but I suspect that nuclear power is going to be a neccesity in the future.

The UK Government had better make up its mind soon, as a Russian company wants to buy British Gas. Finish later, dinners ready

I was talking about my link, the Hydrokinetic underwater turbines

Seems only us youngens pick the renewable energy resources

 

[Pestcontrol]

I'm in favour of Nuclear power. There are still misconceptions however. Were the world leaders come to the same conclusion, and only build terrorist-safe uranium reactors, the world's supply of uranium ore would deplete as quickly as the other fossil fuels do. Plutonium and breeder reactors are the only viable large scale long term solution, with the fuel supply virtually limitless.

Nuclear technology has improved a lot, and never was very unsafe to begin with, unless you're a communist regime skimping on safety and conducting experiments in a production reactor. There are now even designs that are inherently safe (the pebble reactor).

Long term storage of waste is a problem, but not one that cannot be overcome. Something may be radioactive for long, it's still very little on geological timescales. I doubt it would do much if you toss it in a deep portion of the sea, either. The sea is so great, that even if containment were to fail, you wouldn't notice an increase in radiation, and radiation does not penetrate so far in water.

That leaves security - nuclear material falling in the wrong hands is a very major threat, securing everything is possible, but drives up cost.

Renewables are nice, but still expensive, hard to scale, and they cannot be regulated. 150% capacity in wind turbines won't help if there is no wind, long distance transport is impractical, expensive and not very efficient, and storage of electric power in (sodium-sulphur) batteries is also impractical at the required power levels.

I think global warming may become the biggest challenge of the 21st century, and as such, nuclear power is the easiest way to significantly reduce CO2 production.

Oh, and there should be more money for fusion research.

Also, while oil and gas may be limited, there's still plenty of coal. Not that we want to use that, but still, it isnt running out so fast.

 

[Piacular]

Long term storage of waste is a problem, but not one that cannot be overcome. Something may be radioactive for long, it's still very little on geological timescales.

I doubt it would do much if you toss it in a deep portion of the sea, either. The sea is so great, that even if containment were to fail, you wouldn't notice an increase in radiation, and radiation does not penetrate so far in water.

*holding back rant*

Firstly, uranium has been around since the geological timescale began. It's a natural mineral and is always radioactive.

Secondly, dumping radioactive waste into the sea is dangerous. There are no barriers to stop contaminated water from spreading around the globe. Why do you think radiation doesn't travel as far in water? Maybe because it's absorbed easily by it! Besides, why dump it in the sea when you can give it all to China .

Oh, and there should be more money for fusion research.

Tokamak for the win!

 

[Tetsuo_Shima]

Ok, most of you have covered everything before Ive gotten a chance to post :/ but anyway... Im in support of nuclear power. Fair dos, its dangerous if not correctly handled or disposed of but when given due attention and thought, I dont really see any better way of power production. Lets look at the alternatives.

Coal/Oil fired power stations? Burning fossil fuels isnt exactly helping the atmosphere. The CO, CO2 and sulphur deposits that are released produce greenhouse effects, acid rain etc. Which, in time, will produce far worse effects than a radiation leak miles below the surface of the ocean. Especially coal. Coal has a lot of suplhur contained within if it isnt very pure. Sulphur mixes with rain in the atmoshpere, sulphur is acidic making the pH of the rain lower = dead trees and wildlife, damaged buildings etc. Also, weve all seen the pictures of beach graveyards where tankers have spilled there load of oil, nasty stuff. Finally, oil stocks will have depleted completely within the next century or two; coal, faster still.

Natural gas-fired stations? Not much wrong with burning natural gas environmentally-wise, but natural gas is even more scarce than oil and coal. Gas is estimated to be depleted within the next thirty or so years, which is rather worrying. Especially since the British government have commisioned the construction of several new gas-fired power stations.

Solar plants? Not everywhere in the world has enough sunlight to produce the amount of electricity required, and trying to supply it from hotter countries would result in massive power loss in the cables.

Wind generators? Dont produce nearly enough power, would require vast farms to produce the electricity, and good gusts of wind are not guaranteed. Also have to take into account the NIMBY effect. (Not In My Back Yard)

Wave/tidal generators? Have a massive impact on in-shore marine life, preventing schools of fish and others from accessing beaches. Dont produce a convincing amount of power either.

Hydro-dams? Potentially way-of-life endangering ( the Aswan Dam in Africa had a large effect on the River Nile, resulting in loss of fertile farmland and throwing hundreds of thousands of dependant people into poverty) and also, large, powerful rivers are hard to come by these days.

Firstly, uranium has been around since the geological timescale began. It's a natural mineral and is always radioactive.

Secondly, dumping radioactive waste into the sea is dangerous. There are no barriers to stop contaminated water from spreading around the globe. Why do you think radiation doesn't travel as far in water? Maybe because it's absorbed easily by it! Besides, why dump it in the sea when you can give it all to China

Firstly, uranium itself (in its natural form) is actually quite stable. You can hold it safely in your hand without any worry of radiation. Its once you make the nuclei collide and the nuclear reaction starts that you need to worry.

Secondly, dumping radioactive waste in the sea is relatively safe. The water absorbs the radiation, yes, and transforms it into heat energy which dissipates safely.

Giving it to China isnt exactly a super idea either. Itd probably end up coming back to us in a cruise missile. The main reason North Korea wants to build nuclear power stations isnt to power the lives of its people, but to harvest the radioactive waste which can be processed into a weapon. Oh, and yes I know the China idea was sarcastic

 

[Ronin Storm]

I had to go and do some research to figure out the deal with uranium and radiation poisoning, having had some conflicting views.

The radon, which is produced by the uranium, and not the uranium itself has been shown to be the cancer causing agent.

(Source @ Wikipedia)

That's a risk when mining uranium.

Looking further down that same article:

Radiological effects are generally local because this is the nature of alpha radiation, the primary form from U-238 decay.

and...

Uranium can enter the body when it is inhaled or swallowed, or under rare circumstances it may enter through cuts in the skin. Uranium does not absorb through the skin, and alpha particles released by uranium cannot penetrate the skin, so uranium that is outside the body is much less harmful than it would be if it were inhaled or swallowed.

So, as Tetsuo says, uranium is actually "quite" safe, as long as you're not sniffing it, eating it or rubbing it in open sores.

 

[Loki]

I think that many of you are forgetting the fact that nuclear power stations still require fuel, and that the output from the plant should exceed the costs of commissioning and decommissioning. Estimates of nuclear fuel availability include Uranium that has to be recovered from the oceans, and it has been demonstrated that with current technologies this produces an energy deficit (costs more than it produces). Excluding this source means that we have an estimated 20 years remaining, or the life cycle of this generation of reactors, and whilst MOX can be used it will only extend this by a few years.

I should qualify this by saying that I am not a raving lunatic green activist and that I agree that nuclear power could have been a clean source of power, but the nuclear industry has had its chance. The politics and scandal associated with this energy source means that it cannot be trusted. Finally I think there is the issue of risk. Nuclear without a shadow of a doubt is the most hazardous form of power generation, and adding to this the fact that accidents can lead to quite catastrophic consequences results in a question mark as to whether we can accept the risk.

Heterogeny of power generation linked to hydrogren storage is the only answer, that linked to decoupling power generation from local political boundaries. Imagine a world in which productive nations in the temperate zones, purchase or trade for power generated in the equatorial regions. Perhaps a one world government might be the answer.

 

[elDiablo]

Think about what you said about the output of a power generator has to be more then the cost of refining the resources for it (both input and output), and I remembered this from my reading a while back. I found that Tesla had some GREAT ideas, and I think that if he is correct, we really should look into them. I mean, a fuelless electricity generator? Hello?!

Still, just thought I'd post this one in quickly

Edit - Before anyone says, yes I know perpetual motion is impossible, etc. This device doesn't work on that principle. It uses the earth, and natural phenomena.

 

[UArch]

in my opinion its not a case of "how much energy you can produce" but "how much energy you should use" and i think way too much energy is being wasted, we use more energy than we ever really need, i think people should start by making more energysaving devices which dont suck so much power when they dont need to, lightbulbs are a prime example,

i have a big chunky torch, it uses two 1.5v aa batteries, it lasted about a week and now its a dim yellow, i have a single LED keyring light which runs on a small 3v watch battery and its lasted for months, and its still 10 times brighter than the torch ever was even when new...so what purpose does the silly lightbulb in the torch serve apart from wasting energy and being inneficient? the same applies to many other things today

personally im not bothered about nuclear power, i know the benefits when its used properly, but to me its more a matter of cutting down on the energy we currently use more than creating more of it, we just need to stop being such nasty bloodsuckers =D

 

[UArch]

speaking of tokamaks, heres an intresting little java applet thingy http://w3.pppl.gov/~dstotler/SSFD/

my highest score was 70.14...it took me about 60 tries

 

[thatbloke]

speaking of tokamaks, heres an intresting little java applet thingy http://w3.pppl.gov/~dstotler/SSFD/

my highest score was 70.14...it took me about 60 tries

HA! you lose sucka! I got a score of 74.43 with the following values:

Spoiler

21.28 Megawatts
2.16 Plasma Density
13.69 tesla

 

[UArch]

oh really, well shortly after i got 87