Nuclear Power - if you are against it tell me why

[Czar]

<< Solar isn't a practical alternative, and neither is wind power. >>



It is a practical alternative, not completely but both solar and wind power is sufficent to suply homes and offices, bigger plants are needed for factories and other high energy demanding places.
Wind and solar power technology is being improved each year by a great deal.

 

[charrison]

Czar,

Solar is not practical because it is cost prohibitive for the amount of power it produces. The best solar cells are around 15% effecient. The costs is extremly high for extremly low output.

 

[ManSnake]

If only cold fusion was true...

 

[N8Magic]

Ripped from here


<< From 1944 to the late 1980s Hanford produced plutonium for nuclear weapons, using a line of nuclear reactors along the river. Cooling water from the river was piped through the reactors, and then fed back into
the river. Spent fuel rods from the reactors were dissolved in nitric acid to separate out the plutonium. Enormous amounts of highly radioactive and chemical waste were generated in the process. Since the
production of plutonium ceased, Hanford?s only mission has been cleanup. >>



Harvey,

But this has nothing to do with power generation. This has to do with nuclear weapon production, and it was years ago. Methods have changed.

Comparing this to a nuclear power installation isn't really relevant. Nuclear power generation does not involve extracting the plutonium from the waste, which is what caused the subsequent pollution of the area.

 

[GagBag]

someone really needs to invent cold fusion....

 

[N8Magic]

<< someone really needs to invent cold fusion.... >>



... or stop vilifying the "evil" nuclear power.

 

[Czar]

charrison

true but there are othe forms of using solar energy. Like one project is that you have a football field full of mirrors that are directed to reflect the sun to a tube that has lots of cheramic tubes, the energy from that heats the air and the air turns a generator. The energy from a single plant like this could produce energy enough for an entire neighborhood.

Also there is this test about putting solar cells in roads so that the read itself is one giant solar plant.

And then there is this french car that runs of both hydrogen and solar energy. The hydrogen is used to light up a lightbulb that acts as an artificial sun and then there are solar cells around that light bulb that produce energy for the car. (think it was hydrogen)

Development in this is so fast that its unbeliable.

 

[Czar]

<< Comparing this to a nuclear power installation isn't really relevant. Nuclear power generation does not involve extracting the plutonium from the waste, which is what caused the subsequent pollution of the area. >>


That is what nuclear recycling plants do, there is plenty of need for those. Getting rid of nuclear waste is a bigger problem than building a nuclear power plant and keeping it secure.

 

[Harvey]

Charrison << Solar is not practical because it is cost prohibitive for the amount of power it produces. The best solar cells are around 15% effecient. >>

Only if you think small and take a static view. This link on wired.com reports,

<< At the InterSolar conference in Freiburg, Fraunhofer showed two solar-powered prototypes: a Casio palmtop computer and a Siemens mobile phone. Solar modules with efficiency rates of about 20 percent power both devices. >>

If we assume that photovoltaic solutions can and will be made more effiicient, by their nature, they lend themselves to distributed generation. For example, each building in a relatively small area (a few square blocks) can have photovoltaic cells on the roof and be connected to a small area grid. That saves a lot of transmission losses, as well. Obviously, there is more to this than just solar power, since you have to provide a system that works during darkness, as well.

Direct photovoltaic conversion is not the only way to harness solar power. Solar "farms" that focus the sunlight from a large area to heat a water tank to generate steam to drive turbines is another method. This is done, now, at Solar 1, in southern California.

We are stuck with nukes for the short term, but we do not need to look to them for the future. We have made enormous gains in the efficiency of current solar energy concepts and in developing new ideas to do much better. I believe we should be directing our research and development as far away from anything as dangerous as nuclear power. If we continue, we will run out of places to store the waste[/b]. The more we throw things away, the bigger away gets, and the closer it gets to here. :Q

 

[Cyberian]

<< Many Nuclear Power Plants take more power to BUILD and DECOMISSION than the power they produce in their lifetime. Fact is stranger than fiction.

Knowledge is power. Arm yourselves. >>


And sometime money too.
See LILCO-Shoreham

 

[N8Magic]

<<

<< Comparing this to a nuclear power installation isn't really relevant. Nuclear power generation does not involve extracting the plutonium from the waste, which is what caused the subsequent pollution of the area. >>


That is what nuclear recycling plants do, there is plenty of need for those. Getting rid of nuclear waste is a bigger problem than building a nuclear power plant and keeping it secure. >>



Yes, you are correct, BUT, these nuclear recycling plants are not releasing their waste effluent into a river, which is what caused the pollution problem in Hanford.

Hanford was a long time ago, and it hasn't been happening since!

 

[charrison]

<< true but there are othe forms of using solar energy. Like one project is that you have a football field full of mirrors that are directed to reflect the sun to a tube that has lots of cheramic tubes, the energy from that heats the air and the air turns a generator. The energy from a single plant like this could produce energy enough for an entire neighborhood.


<<

This takes up too much real estate, someone has the keep the mirrors polished and the machines have to maintained to keep the mirros pointing in the right direction. Still too expensive for the output.




<< Also there is this test about putting solar cells in roads so that the read itself is one giant solar plant. >>


huh?



<<
And then there is this french car that runs of both hydrogen and solar energy. The hydrogen is used to light up a lightbulb that acts as an artificial sun and then there are solar cells around that light bulb that produce energy for the car. (think it was hydrogen)
>>


Talk about a gross waste of money. If have hydrogen, run it through a fuel cell. There is no need to build an eleborate contraption to waste energy to make a car move.

 

[ttn1]

Amusing how many people we see here who a re terrified of the very remote possibility of a severe nuclear meltdown.

I just have to say that you should hide in your houses and never drive a car again. Ever read any statistics on your likelihood of dying in a car accident.

As for shortsightedness, how about burning through all the fossil fuels on the planet. Maybe we should just cut down a few rain forests and make some woodburning power plants.

 

[Czar]

<< Yes, you are correct, BUT, these nuclear recycling plants are not releasing their waste effluent into a river, which is what caused the pollution problem in Hanford.

Hanford was a long time ago, and it hasn't been happening since! >>


Its being done in Sellafield, and in another place in the Uk I belive and in France. We were talking about this in the begining of this thread.

 

[UltraQuiet]

For those of you concerned about safety consider this: The US Navy has been using nuclear power aboard ships', mainly submarines, since the 1950's. The safety record is perfect. No accidents, no incidents (no runs, no hits, no errors). Perfection is possible when it comes to nuclear power.

 

[Czar]

<< This takes up too much real estate, someone has the keep the mirrors polished and the machines have to maintained to keep the mirros pointing in the right direction. Still too expensive for the output. >>


A computer takes care of pointing the mirrors in the right direction. Not sure about polishing them, but this was being recurced in a desert, but paying 2 people to polishing the morrirs is worth it. Still to expensive, no, this reqires no special materials. Imagine the desert in Arizona full with those.



<< << Also there is this test about putting solar cells in roads so that the read itself is one giant solar plant. >>
huh? >>


Roads absorb solar power, they transform it into heat, thats why roads get alot hotter than the air outside. This energy can be transfered into electricity.



<< Talk about a gross waste of money. If have hydrogen, run it through a fuel cell. There is no need to build an eleborate contraption to waste energy to make a car move. >>


It wanst hydrogen, it was methane gas (remembered now ). The way they do this is extremely efficient because there are arrays of solar cells around the artificial sun that make it way more efficient than those 20% normal solar panels produce.

 

[HombrePequeno]

I think we should put more money into fusion research. A fusion power plant would only produce 1/10 the amount of radioactive byproduct (none if you use Helium 3). The only reason fusion is going to take so long is because there's barely any money going into the research.

On the topic though, I don't mind having nuclear power plants. They're a good source of power and they're pretty damn safe.

 

[Czar]

Just to make it clear for everyone, nuclear power plants are safe but the waste they prodoce is not.

 

[Gillbot]

<< Hamburgerpimp,

Where do you get these facts? >>



I back hamburgerpimp 100%, and i get my facts from a very reliable source. I work at a nuclear plant. I have normal digits and no third eye, also no "Glowing" in strange areas

Nuclear Power is a good clean source of energy and produces little waste. The plant i worked at was one of the 1st operating stations in the US, and ALL of it's spent fuel is in a small holding cell about the size of an average homeowners pool. That isn't very much for a plant that has been running over 30 years IMHO.

 

[rgwalt]

<< A computer takes care of pointing the mirrors in the right direction. Not sure about polishing them, but this was being recurced in a desert, but paying 2 people to polishing the morrirs is worth it. Still to expensive, no, this reqires no special materials. Imagine the desert in Arizona full with those. >>



Oh, so now you want to take up huge amounts of "remote" landscape to power your solar cells... Ever think about the impact on the desert ecological system if you did this? I would love to see some statistics of how large of an area you would need to cover to power the state of California. Seriously, I'm very curious... We have to think about environmental impact before saying we can cover huge plots of land with solar collectors.

Really though, we can't fool ourselves into thinking that wind and solar are viable answers... They aren't, yet. Technology may very well advance to the point where we can more effectively harness solar energy, but there are no immediate solutions available. Heck, even building more nuclear plants aren't immediate solutions, but at least we know that they will provide the power we need going into this century. I'll put my money on a sure thing any day.

Ryan

 

[josphII]

<< Charrison << Solar is not practical because it is cost prohibitive for the amount of power it produces. The best solar cells are around 15% effecient. >>

Only if you think small and take a static view. This link on wired.com reports,

<< At the InterSolar conference in Freiburg, Fraunhofer showed two solar-powered prototypes: a Casio palmtop computer and a Siemens mobile phone. Solar modules with efficiency rates of about 20 percent power both devices. >>

If we assume that photovoltaic solutions can and will be made more effiicient, by their nature, they lend themselves to distributed generation. For example, each building in a relatively small area (a few square blocks) can have photovoltaic cells on the roof and be connected to a small area grid. That saves a lot of transmission losses, as well. Obviously, there is more to this than just solar power, since you have to provide a system that works during darkness, as well.

Direct photovoltaic conversion is not the only way to harness solar power. Solar "farms" that focus the sunlight from a large area to heat a water tank to generate steam to drive turbines is another method. This is done, now, at Solar 1, in southern California.

We are stuck with nukes for the short term, but we do not need to look to them for the future. We have made enormous gains in the efficiency of current solar energy concepts and in developing new ideas to do much better. I believe we should be directing our research and development as far away from anything as dangerous as nuclear power. If we continue, we will run out of places to store the waste[/b]. The more we throw things away, the bigger away gets, and the closer it gets to here. :Q >>




actually you are very wrong. solar and wind mills are one of the reasons that lead to the california energy crisis. utilities were givin big cash insentives to build solar and wind plants during the 80's, and during deregulation the utilities were stuck with these plants which DID NOT make any money for them, they were strickly a cost.



<< as far away from anything as dangerous as nuclear power >>



and you base this statement on what?? the inpeccable safety record of every plant in the US?? compare the safety record of any other type of power plant to nuclear, its not even close. as for the potential for disaster, well there really is no potential, which many people seem to be unaware of. i discussed this earlier in the thread. you seem to imply an inherent danger to nuclear plants and id really like you to explain this to me!

 

[josphII]

<< I think we should put more money into fusion research. A fusion power plant would only produce 1/10 the amount of radioactive byproduct (none if you use Helium 3). The only reason fusion is going to take so long is because there's barely any money going into the research.

On the topic though, I don't mind having nuclear power plants. They're a good source of power and they're pretty damn safe. >>



fusion energy generates waste, theres no way around it. fusion research has been going on since the 40's and i can gaurantee you its not the money thats holding it back.

 

[josphII]

<< Just to make it clear for everyone, nuclear power plants are safe but the waste they prodoce is not. >>



nuclear waste is actually very safe if you store it properly. has nuclear waste ever resulted in a persons death? No. I covered this earlier in the thread. nuclear waste is not a problem currently, how is burrying the waste in a very remote location not safe? nuclear waste = no problemo!

 

[stonecold3169]

Although it sounds like a good idea to put solar pannels into roads, there are a few problems. First of all, most roadwork is done by freelance contruction groups, so they're going to need special training, as it's now a much more difficult procedure. Second, a quarter of a mile of road costs in the neighborhood of a million dollars. I'd imagine a solar road would cost much, much more as I know what the panels on my sugar shack cost, and it wasn't pretty. Finally, the main advantage of solar panels is that they have a indefinite life if treated right. Roads, on the other hand, get worn down very quickly, and are repaved often. I'd guess that the cost to keep installing these would be far greater then the outcome from them.

If I've made a mistake, please correct me, as I think in theory it would be great.

 

[tcsenter]

<< Imagine the desert in Arizona full with those. >>

Yep, it would power Phoenix, and maybe part of Glendale, for twice the cost that it would take to power the entire state of Arizona by nuclear, hydro, or coal. While solar is getting there, it isn't "soup" yet.