Nuclear Energy

[AlbinoClock]

We'd be better off combining solar, wind, and friction-based generators. Why hack open an atom when there's energy all over the place?

[Marlin Clock]

I also really like dams.

Damns aren't really all that environmentally friendly.

It's because of this phenomenon called "heat pollution"
You see, certain fish and aquatic animals can only life comfortably in colder waters, because oxygen is much more soluble in cold water. When water goes through hydroelectric damns, it heats up the water, and then dispenses it into the river below. This changes the water temperature and makes it harder for the fish to live.

We'd be better off combining solar, wind, and friction-based generators. Why hack open an atom when there's energy all over the place?

Solar and wind just don't have the energy yield that nuclear already gives us.

[PirateClock]

i want my car to run on lighting

[Al Sharpton ☻]

Nuclear Children are Happy Children
 

[zl]

I don't see the point of nuclear energy.  A nuclear plant pays for itself in around 8 years - solar energy doesn't take more than one or two.  If it wasn't for federal subsidies, nuclear energy wouldn't be considered by good businessmen.

[Marlin Clock]

I don't see the point of nuclear energy.  A nuclear plant pays for itself in around 8 years - solar energy doesn't take more than one or two.  If it wasn't for federal subsidies, nuclear energy wouldn't be considered by good businessmen.

Solar is impractical, it takes gigantically large spaces to power communities, just like wind. Nuclear creates a large amount of energy and relatively less space.

[zl]

Solar is impractical, it takes gigantically large spaces to power communities, just like wind. Nuclear creates a large amount of energy and relatively less space.

except for all the space needed to dispose of/hide the waste?

[CubeMelonClock]

The waste is my biggest concern. Sure, a little here and there might not be an issue, but if you are talking about making nuclear energy something huge, then it adds up to be a big problem -- one with effects that can't be predicted or that haven't been considered, just like many other environmental issues we've seen in our world.

Another issue that bothers me is that many plants don't seem to have any sense of responsibility. My friends dad worked at a nuclear plant at one point, merely as a janitor, and he was telling me about how his particular plant would cut a lot of corners. For instance: in his plant, there are two sets of steam pipes, clean and radioactive. The estimated cost to inspect the pipes was $93,000; however, the fine for not inspecting the pipe system was only something in the range of $20,000. So they took the fine, just simply because it was less costly. What ended up happening then was the radioactive steam ended up contaminating the clean steam through faulty pipe work.

I believe that at least two important steps must be made before nuclear power becomes mainstream: 1. Figure out a safe and effective way to manage/recycle waste and 2. have the plants run and operated by those that don't stand to gain from cutting corners.

[DiscoBallClock]

Solar is impractical, it takes gigantically large spaces to power communities, just like wind. Nuclear creates a large amount of energy and relatively less space.

No one mentioned power plants. Just build houses with solar panels included. Adding to all the other reasons Zombie Lincoln, Albino and CubeMelon said, there's still the fact that, as I said, you don't need power plants to make power, which can be beneficial to apply not only to houses, but to portable devices that are electricity powered.

[CubeMelonClock]

Nuclear waste is not a problem. Nuclear waste is not radioactive sludge tossed into barrels and dumped into the desert. Nowadays, most nuclear power plants use as much uranium as possible. Which general only leaves small uranium pellets to be stored.

Most of which is stored into something like this:



And stored 1000's of feet underground in various other storage compartments. They are maintained regularly by engineers, toxicologist, and other such affiliates of nuclear waste and radioactive materials. By no means are they simply forgotten about in the desert.

I'm not at all convinced by what you are saying. Firstly, it is clear that these little pellets add up

"The fuel in all U.S. power reactors and the large majority worldwide consists of solid pellets of uranium oxide, enclosed in thousands of long cylindrical fuel rods. One-third of the fuel is removed at intervals of about 18 months. Unless this spent fuel is reprocessed, it becomes the waste, remaining in this solid form throughout all subsequent transfer and storage. During the past decade, the 103 operating U.S. reactors have annually discharged something in the rough neighborhood of 2000 tonnes of fuel. By about 2010, the cumulative discharges will reach the planned Yucca Mountain capacity of 63,000 tonnes of commercial spent fuel."

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/2006/january/article1.html

So we aren't talking about just a couple pellets a year, and if nuclear power becomes widespread, then those numbers just grow and grow.

And storing the waste in the way you are talking about isn't what is always what is done, and even if it is, it's not at all a long term solution. I would think that would be clear because this shit lasts for a LONG ass time, and continued production of it just compounds the amount. SO firstly, there is no way to keep up with that storage space and maintain it as safely as you are trying to convince us it is over time.
And secondly over time we have no way of knowing if these facilities will still be intact, it doesn't seem at all farfetched to believe that these sort of storage facilities would just be up and abandoned/forgotten over the course of thousands of years.

and with shit like this going on in the heads of the people deciding what to do, I'm not entirely convinced we currently have what it takes to handle the responsibility.

[zl]

http://www.earthpolicy.org/Updates/2008/Update78.htm

A short article discussing the uneconomical aspects of nuclear power.  I don't know if that source is reliable - if any of you know something wrong with the figures in that article, I'd be interested to hear about it.

[CubeMelonClock]

Yeah, I see what you're saying, and I pretty much agree with you, I was just saying I'm not so sure the nuclear waste side of what you were saying is so safe/well thought out as you were presenting it. I mean, it's just that you said "nuclear waste is not the problem..." and I was just saying "well, I dunno about that..."

Ultimately, I just don't know much about nuclear power/nuclear waste, which is why I simply say I'm not convinced that it is ethical/safe/whatever -- I'm not just jumping on it and saying "NUCLEAR WASTE!! CHERNBYL!! AAAAA TOXIC SLUDGE BLARGHGH."

Mainly, solar panels individually placed on the roof, specifically the middle and sides. The only downside in most peoples opinion is how ugly they are. My sympathy towards how garish they might look verses how efficient they are is quite limited.

Solar Panels, heat storing sidings, energy efficient furnaces, etc. can almost entirely reduce a persons heating and electrical need completely

I think this pretty much. Solar + (other misc sources) + nuclear supplement as needed, may be a manageable option. I am just of the opinion that if the question posed in this thread is "should nuclear power become the world's main form of energy," (maybe it isn't) then I say, no, not at all because on that large a scale we don't know what will happen and going into it without knowing what we are doing is dangerous and silly. But I do like the idea of self sufficient housing, that's pretty appealing.

[Kombucha]

i want my car to run on lighting

1.21 gigawatts?!

[SilverCherryClock]

Wow, something I finally agree with you on.
I see no reason why an infinitely renewable, non polluting energy source should go to waste because a couple people are afraid of farfetched disaster stories and the fact that a shoddy Soviet shitcan of a plant blew up 20 years ago. Don't you think we're capable of building safer nuclear plants than Ukranians in 1977?

Canada has the worlds largest Dam.

China does actually, but the principle is the same.

[RomanClock]

Damns aren't really all that environmentally friendly.

ok?

I don't see the point of nuclear energy.  A nuclear plant pays for itself in around 8 years - solar energy doesn't take more than one or two.  If it wasn't for federal subsidies, nuclear energy wouldn't be considered by good businessmen.

I would prefer solar over nuclear EXCEPT because of its unreliability, inefficiency, and it actually costs way too much (it only seems feasible because it gets even MORE government subsidies, don't quote me on this though, I'm not entirely sure about the amounts of subsidies).
One reason I like dams and nuclear plants because they take a small amount of space (dams you could argue about that from water back up) and produce massive amounts of reliable energy for relatively cheap. (Coal and Natural gas are the best at this time though)

2,000 tonnes/year

You realize that's hardly anything? That means each plant only produces about 20 tonnes, which can easily fit in one 20' container!

[zl]

(it only seems feasible because it gets even MORE government subsidies, don't quote me on this though, I'm not entirely sure about the amounts of subsidies).

I've been looking for any sort of source for that claim.  Everything I've found shows nuclear subsidies to be much, much higher than solar subsidies - but I don't fully trust any of the figures that I've seen.  The highest estimate of solar subsidies was still lower than the lowest estimate of nuclear subsidies.

I'd be happy to see any source you could find saying otherwise.

[Solenoidclock]

I met a nuclear chemist from a university up in the Permian basin last month; he said he helped build a reactor that used Thorium. I was thrown off when I heard this because I wasn't even sure that Thorium was fissile. I later learned it wasn't, but you can pop a few neutrons into it and get fissile Uranium. Th reactors are incapable of runaway, around 50% efficient at producing electricity, and almost all of the byproducts are in demand. There is a related process that chops the radioactive byproducts down to thirty years, and you can reprocess other radioactive byproducts (plutonium mainly) in the same reactor with a few mods.

[Loki Clock]

because of its unreliability

The Sun is as reliable as it gets.

[RomanClock]

I've been looking for any sort of source for that claim.  Everything I've found shows nuclear subsidies to be much, much higher than solar subsidies - but I don't fully trust any of the figures that I've seen.  The highest estimate of solar subsidies was still lower than the lowest estimate of nuclear subsidies.

I'd be happy to see any source you could find saying otherwise.

See, I don't know about corporate level subsidies, and I doubt you'd be able to find reliable sources for those (at least not without a lot of searching). I'm mostly going off of individual level subsidies, such as installing our own. Normally an installation could cost tens of thousands, but it's reduced dramatically from subsidies and rebates.
http://256.com/solar/ (click economic details tab)
Though, I can't be certain of subsidies at the corporate level.

The Sun is as reliable as it gets.

You're right, its the Earth that's not reliable.
Night time
Cloudy days
Rain
Snow
Dust (must be constantly cleaned for best efficiency)
Needs direct sunlight (has to be facing the sun)
Basically anything that can block sunlight.

[zl]

See, I don't know about corporate level subsidies, and I doubt you'd be able to find reliable sources for those (at least not without a lot of searching). I'm mostly going off of individual level subsidies, such as installing our own. Normally an installation could cost tens of thousands, but it's reduced dramatically from subsidies and rebates.
http://256.com/solar/ (click economic details tab)
Though, I can't be certain of subsidies at the corporate level.

haha, well yes I'd agree solar panels have better subsidies for individuals than nuclear power plants.