Nuclear Power

[FoBoT]

w0w

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_reactors/reactsum.html

interesting

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_reactors/superla.html

 

[Sukhoi]

Originally posted by: DLeRium
Question: How much nuclear material do we have? I mean we always hear how oil will run out within 100 years at its current rate of usage, and as for nuclear material?

I was told by my prof during an intro nuclear engineering class I took a year ago that we only have something like 200 years of actual uranium. However when you start considering the reactors that can use the radioactive byproducts there is a whole lot more fuel. Essentially enough we don't have to worry about it.

 

[NuroMancer]

One issue with Nuclear power is scalability.
They have issues ramping them up to cover demand at peak times.

Thus I think a good hybrid of water and Nuclear is a good solution.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Sukhoi
I was told by my prof during an intro nuclear engineering class I took a year ago that we only have something like 200 years of actual uranium. However when you start considering the reactors that can use the radioactive byproducts there is a whole lot more fuel. Essentially enough we don't have to worry about it.

I would hope that by well before that time, fusion would be commercially viable. Fusion sounds like the ideal power source. A virtually inexhaustible fuel supply, the potential for immense amounts of power, and a minimal environmental impact. There's still the one small problem: recreating a stable smidgen of the sun's core here on Earth.

I would like to see more breeder reactors. I think the concern about weapons proliferation as a result is unfounded. If the government really wants to make weapons, they're going to get them regardless. So we might as well use the breeders to reprocess the "spent" fuel. Result: more energy per given quantity of uranium, and less waste. What's left to complain about?

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: NuroMancer
One issue with Nuclear power is scalability.
They have issues ramping them up to cover demand at peak times.

Thus I think a good hybrid of water and Nuclear is a good solution.

That's an issue when 100% of your nation is relying on nuclear power, but how much of the US is powered by nuclear? Not much. If you had 70% of the nation on nuclear, you can ramp the rest using your fossil fuels or whatever other energy sources you have

 

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: NuroMancer
One issue with Nuclear power is scalability.
They have issues ramping them up to cover demand at peak times.

Thus I think a good hybrid of water and Nuclear is a good solution.

here in az i dont see many coal burning stations, but i dont really go looking for them either. i have worked on the mesquite power plant due south of palo verde nuclear plant tho, as well as a couple APS steam plants that supplement with solar power. while palo verde is a solid generating station, youre right. they dont cover demand very well when needed. thats also why you use those as the benchmark for "normal" and have a few good steam places to bring up when needed.

im not a power specialist, i did the telemetry system and logic for the wells that feed the steam plant. they arent all near water, some are in the desert where you have to dig a ways to get water for them.

 

[OVerLoRDI]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: FoBoT
whatever is cheapest , if nuclear is cheaper than coal fired plants, then build them. if coal is cheaper, use up the coal first

Finally a voice of reason. I nominate for head of department of energy.

good luck getting passed the envirowacko lobby.

True, but even so I wouldn't support more coal power plants even if they were cheaper.. unless clean coal technologies are implemented with them. Otherwise coal power plants are disgusting and incredibly damaging to the environment.

That being said I think more nuclear power plants should be built to replace oil and natural gas plants and clean coal technology should be heavily researched and implemented.. especially since we (The United States) have epic amounts of coal.

 

[ColdFusion718]

Originally posted by: Matt2
Somebody needs to hurry up and create Cold Fusion.

My mom and dad took care of this task about 26 years ago.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: ColdFusion718
My mom and dad took care of this task about 26 years ago.

More like cold, er, sploosion, so to speak.

Though if it was cold, someone wasn't doing something right.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: OVerLoRDI

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: FoBoT
whatever is cheapest , if nuclear is cheaper than coal fired plants, then build them. if coal is cheaper, use up the coal first

Finally a voice of reason. I nominate for head of department of energy.

good luck getting passed the envirowacko lobby.

True, but even so I wouldn't support more coal power plants even if they were cheaper.. unless clean coal technologies are implemented with them. Otherwise coal power plants are disgusting and incredibly damaging to the environment.

That being said I think more nuclear power plants should be built to replace oil and natural gas plants and clean coal technology should be heavily researched and implemented.. especially since we (The United States) have epic amounts of coal.

I thought oil + natural gas power plants burned cleaner than coal? Or maybe that's my Sim City 2000 yelling at me.

 

[FoBoT]

i helped test gas turbines a plant south of Lakeland FL that uses the technology this article talks about, back in '97

GE already has an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) System that successfully converts coal into a cleaner burning energy source. Our IGCC System also makes it easier to separate carbon dioxide and emits less than half of the sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, mercury, and particulate matter that would be emitted by a traditional pulverized coal plant. Our research team is hard at work on inventing the next generation of power systems that will help convert coal into an even cleaner burning fuel.

http://www.ge.com/research/grc_2_1_3.html

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: DLeRium
Question: How much nuclear material do we have? I mean we always hear how oil will run out within 100 years at its current rate of usage, and as for nuclear material?

Depends on what you mean.

We have effectively unlimited fuel for fusion power. It's just Hydrogen. Deuterium and Tritium are just rare forms of hydrogen, but they're not hard to make in a lab.

Compared to oil, we have nearly unlimited fuel for fission as well. A tiny amount of fuel goes a long way, and we have tons of it.

 

[ric1287]

nuclear power + Hydrogen fuel production = :thumbsup:

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: NuroMancer
One issue with Nuclear power is scalability.
They have issues ramping them up to cover demand at peak times.

Thus I think a good hybrid of water and Nuclear is a good solution.

Even if you keep a fission plant at standard use (not scaling them up for peak usage), you're getting a lot more power for the fuel required than even from oil power plants. You may not be able to scale them up as much, but who cares when your output is already so awesome?

 

[Eeezee]

What we really need is better ways of storing energy. Energy storage technology really sucks.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: mooglekit
We need to get past the whole "nuclear is bad!" mentality. Think about it for just a minute: is it worse to pump huge amounts of pollution into the air that directly affects the health of those in nearby communities and may have a direct impact on the global climate, or to use a smaller number of more effecient nuclear plants that produce a smaller amount of waste that, though radioactive, can be effectively contained?

I'm often surprised more eco-advocates aren't jumping behind nuclear energy...you could eliminate so much pollution by eliminating fossil fuel fired power plants, and to think you can replace all of those plants with hydro and wind alone is naive.

No, I think you CAN meet our energy needs with wind power, if we use the jet stream. Hydro power isn't environmentally friendly.

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: Matt2
Somebody needs to hurry up and create Cold Fusion.

Its sitting on a shelf in the basement of Big Oil companies, just waiting for the day when they can no longer make a profit on oil.

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: Bateluer

Originally posted by: Matt2
Somebody needs to hurry up and create Cold Fusion.

Its sitting on a shelf in the basement of Big Oil companies, just waiting for the day when they can no longer make a profit on oil.

YEAH!!


http://www.pics.bbzzdd.com/beta/users/FoBoT/tinfoil.jpg

 

[skywhr]

Savannah GA

 

[Chaotic42]

I like nuclear. If only we had the ability to send power well over really large distances, we could build a large number of reactors in one place (somewhere that we don't mind radiation spilling into as much, like the deserts of Nevada or Massachusetts) and run lines from them to the whole country.

I'd rather see money dumped into fusion research though.

 

[ColdFusion718]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: ColdFusion718
My mom and dad took care of this task about 26 years ago.

More like cold, er, sploosion, so to speak.

Though if it was cold, someone wasn't doing something right.

Nice try, but no cigar, Jeff7.

 

[Lurknomore]

Is this the dumb nuclear thread, not the scary big-worded one in the other section?
If so, then YES, I am definitely for it.:thumbsup:

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Lurknomore
Is this the dumb nuclear thread, not the scary big-worded one in the other section?
If so, then YES, I am definitely for it.:thumbsup:

Remarkably, this thread is filled with more reasonable people than in the other thread.
Go nuclear power! :thumbsup:

Alternate solution: Giant hamster wheels. Then, we gather up all the people who think nuclear power plants can explode like nuclear bombs... (The world will be a better place for multiple reasons.)

 

[FoBoT]

we already covered the hamster wheels, we would end up wrapping them in bacon and eating them , that won't work

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: mooglekit
We need to get past the whole "nuclear is bad!" mentality. Think about it for just a minute: is it worse to pump huge amounts of pollution into the air that directly affects the health of those in nearby communities and may have a direct impact on the global climate, or to use a smaller number of more effecient nuclear plants that produce a smaller amount of waste that, though radioactive, can be effectively contained?

I'm often surprised more eco-advocates aren't jumping behind nuclear energy...you could eliminate so much pollution by eliminating fossil fuel fired power plants, and to think you can replace all of those plants with hydro and wind alone is naive.

No, I think you CAN meet our energy needs with wind power, if we use the jet stream. Hydro power isn't environmentally friendly.

How do you propose we extract energy from the jet stream?