What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
You and You and You. view!
youtube.com - You don't need to get a phone. You need a phone that gets you.
87 Comments
- shefftim, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15I don't think we have the time to put our 'faith' in renewables or alternatives. The main effort has to be in reducing carbon emmissions whist maintaining electricity supplies. Nuclear has had a dramatically improved safety record in the past 20 years (France now generates 80% of its electricity from nuclear). Windfarms/Solar/Tidal can't deliver the quantity we need in the timescale required. Have them as well, but they're not the main answer.
- nwily, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10All power plants are just expensive ways of boiling water. Power plants boil water to generate steam to turn turbines. Thats why anything that can be used to create heat can generate electricitiy. The only exceptions to that are things like fuel cells. And if you are thinking about internal combustion engines, the power conversion rate is dismal on those.
Oh, and there's an interesting article about how coal power plants expose surrounding communities to more radiation than nuclear.
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html - TGMD, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10No there are not. Coal is about the only other form of readily availble fuel (we have enough in the United States alone to last 900 years) but It's really really dirty It makes Nuclear power seem like a day in the park.
- shazam, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9That's why we need to look at all of them at the same time. Alternative energy sources used in tandem is quite possibly the only way we will achieve oil independence.
There is no "silver bullet" here, but does doesn't mean we can't have faith that we can solve the problems facing us today. - p9s50W5k4GUD2c6, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12"I need more power, Scotty!"
- edzieba, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Enriching fuel for nuclear weapons and fuelling nuclear power stations (and even fast breeders) are two ompletely different kettles of fish. It's cheap (yes, older designs are expensive due to the lack of forethought in the area of decomissioning), safe, and clean (using a combination of HPWR-type and breeder reactos, most of the long-term waste is used for power, and the short term can be used for simple heating whilst it's activity dies down).
Renwable sources (the name is technically a nisnomer, but we'll let that slide for now) cannot provide the constant high levels of power that nuclear can. Not that they can eventually be used to generate a significant fraction of power, but they are NOT a sole solution. - loveandrockets, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I like the new Pebble Bed technology. It's almost impossible to have an accident. It eliminates the water and therefore eliminates the waste-water. And the design itself is inherently stable.
There has been so many years of FUD that people hear nuclear and freak out. It can be done safely. - TGMD, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7It is true that we haven't yet found an applicable use for the waste (or a good enough way to get rid of it) but its a common misconception that nuclear power plants develope massive amounts of waste. Nuclear power plants give off little waste in comparison to coal, natural gas, oil, etc etc. We would have to build million of nuclear plants for over thousands of years before the waste becomes a real problem.
I personally believe our short term future could be in nuclear fission but our real future for energy demands could be in Nuclear Fussion (only if those pesky scientists could figure it out!!) - TGMD, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"uh, yes there are:
Hydroelectric for one.
Solar and wind, when used together can produce alot of power.
and the one few people think about... geothermal."
First Hydroelectric is a good idea but its only a good for certain areas and situations (and you forget you need localized power generation, New York can't power california economically).
Second: Solar and Wind: Solar and wind in tandom might produce enough electricty to supliment a community or even power a small community. But both aren't good for large communities because they require too much space. Furthermore they are both really expensive to setup and maintain (someone needs to service the 100,000 solar panels and wind turbines, COSTS TOO MUCH)
Third: Geo-Thermal and only be used saftly in certain areas (very few areas will support it saftly in the US) and even then you come to the problem of getting the energy to where it needs to be (there are no thermal vent near New York and you can't make on safely)
Here's some links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cells
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power
I'm not an expert but I did look at the material and it doesn't look feasable on the large scale. I could be wrong just show me information to the contray. - bchang, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Nuclear Power is actually being pushed really hard in Canada. There are a bunch of new plants being built and ad campaigns explaining how great it is.
- 16x9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4> incubusnb asked: Why Nuclear? there are other readily availiable forms of power"
Yes there are. And I agree with you that we should and must pursue these other forms of energy. But I have three arguments, if I may...
1) Most analysts believe that it will be a long time before we (in the U.S., anyway) can build enough nuclear power stations to supply a respectable percentage of what we use. And this is assuming that we put some serious effort in this direction. But here's the got'cha: many of these analysts feel that it will take even longer to achieve this same goal using "alternative" (non-nuclear) forms of energy generation.
2) No form of energy generation is without a downside. People living near wind-farms (and sometimes not all that near to wind-farms) complain about the ever present noise. And if it's bugging the people, think about what it might be doing to the other living things in the region. Furthermore, I've read that huge wind-farms and oceanic wave-farms, and they'd have to be huge and numerous to have any real impact on our power needs, might cause environmental damage due to the unavoidable reduction in wind/wave energy.
3) Modern nuclear plant designs are very safe and as close to "melt-down proof" as can be achieved. Also, it is possible to design plants to so they use much (MUCH) more of the available fuel. Of course this has the advantage of getting more value from a given volume of fuel, plus the waste products are far less dangerous and need be safely stored for hundreds of years rather than thousands of years.
--- --- ---
One more reminder, incubusnb, that I am very much pro alternative forms of power generation. It's just that I have the opinion that moving to nuclear power on a far greater scope is our best shot at saving ourselves and our planet.
By the way, I'm sorry that some people modded-down your comment. I don't understand why people insist on modding-down well thought-out comments simply because they disagree with them. - Amnesia10, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Whilst nuclear can solve a lot, solar, tidal and wind can solve a lot of the intermediate problems, though reduced consumption along with renewable's is what is needed in the short term.
- rageguy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The affects of burning fossil fuels and trashing the environment will be far more reaching than those of storing the small amounts of nuclear waste. Not to mention burning these fuels is completely unsustainable.
Currently the environmentally friendly, renewable sources of electricity cannot fill the immediate demand.
Let me put it another way, say you want to run a "New York city". Current estimates suggest that you would need to put a solar panel on nearly every roof and supplement it with a bit of wind power. It sounds like a sweet deal until you look at the size of a 8 acre nuclear power plant facility next to the entire cities worth of solar panels. Suddenly the economics of it don’t seem so good.
Someday with work and refinement and years of building the alternatives may be able to produce the energy required at a rate that is economically viable, however this is not something we can afford to sit around and wait for. The governments and the people of the countries around the world will demand a smooth transition with minimum cost and change in lifestyle.
The damage caused by greenhouse gases is happening right now and it needs to be stopped in the quickest way possible, and nuclear power can fill the vacuum immediately.
Currently 20% of the United States is already powered by nuclear power plants, that 20% alone saves the environment from nearly 200 million metric tons of green house gases per year that would have been produced if that was coal or oil. Because the amount of nuclear waste produced by the average plant is so low and primarily because there is no permanent home yet for it, most plants still have all the spent fuel that they have ever used stored on the site.
The nuclear waste issue is a big problem but its not as big as some people think, nor is it insurmountable. Why not take the notch up from 20% nuclear power to 90% nuclear power?
It would cut nearly a gigaton of yearly green house gas release and would have an immediate global impact. It would give us time to go into damage control and develop and deployt the large-scale alternate energy methods.
I agree nuclear power is not the ultimate solution, but in the mean time it could save us all. - Arramol, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"uh, yes there are:
Hydroelectric for one.
Solar and wind, when used together can produce alot of power.
and the one few people think about... geothermal."
With current technologies, these sources do not provide adequate power, and certainly not adequate COST-EFFECTIVE power to replace existing energy sources. - TGMD, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4They don't get it from Corn based ethanol (Corn based ethanol takes more energy to make then it gives off) They are using sugar based ethanol. The reason why you see Corn based ethanol so much in the US is because corn is our stable crop and they have a significant power base. Not to mention we don't have to land to grow enough sugar to replace our fuel needs, maybe to suppliment a little but even then It's very little.
We would have to dedicate essentially every spare peice of land to ethanol-crops in order to get even close to the amount we need. - jbenson2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Can you believe this bozo said in the article "Nuclear wastes pose no serious engineering problems."
What planet did this guy come from? - fabiopsousa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3are you comparing the energy supply from Brazil with France?
... that's the point!
and... m not that sure about those 100% - ZerozenOnes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You will always be able to count ou us... to let you starve EH !
- 81v3d07g0d, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's a shame that so many are so misinformed on this issue. Nuclear power isn't as dangerous or as environmentally damaging as most of you think. France uses nuclear power quite extensively without much problem, why cant we? The only thing that Americans have done wrong in the past is not using the uranium to its full potential, and getting rid of it before it was truly depleted. I am not saying its safe, I am not saying its good, just that it is better than a lot of other things.
People need to look into this kind of thing, remember silicone breast implants? How long after was it figured out that they weren't harmful in any way, I wonder if all those women why sued the manufacturer gave the money back? My point is that we can make mistakes, and maybe we made one about nuclear power. - Rosco, on 10/12/2007, -1/+31.21 gigawatts? Great Scott!
- TGMD, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So in canada they force you to mine for uranium? Oh OH!!!! Let me guess the American Government forces you to mine for it!!!
In all reality Canada is one of the US's biggest suppliers of Uranium and as far I can tell (Internet Research) I can't see one human rights abuse, In fact all the information I'm seeing says that Canada uses a very modern mining technique (as you would expect for a 1st world nation) and treats its workers very well. - ZerozenOnes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2 I am a big fan of self sufficiency as far as power goes. Small private generators running on renewable ressources, depending on what is the most convenient for your location, to power our individual houses and then large centrals for infrastructures.
I definitely think that nuclear is an avenue we need to explore. We just need to figure out a way to dump all that radioactive waste in space outside of the earths orbit.
I read somewhere that by allocating ten percent of its output to a large scale mass driver (fancy railgun), each plant could self sufficiently dispose of all its waste. This and all the other cheap payload lifting methods we have thought of so far are not mature technology, but the energy crisis might just be the driving force we need to complete the necessary research. I believe it is clearly worth it, cuz when we have that one figured out my friends, power is going to be an issue on the past, plain and simple. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think for what these plants pay for solid waste disposal, they could all afford to keep putting them on rockets and shooting them far, far away from earth. Who knows, maybe the waste will create life by nailing some lifeless rock and inspiring the bacteria there to mutate.
- ZerozenOnes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You Can Du It Too With Candu !
- Rickler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I believe I read somewhere that a 5 person family will create a test tube of nuclear waste each year from a nuclear power planet. As compared to 38,325 pounds of coal burned each year from a coal power plant... that's 21 pounds of coal a day for each person!
Really, which is worse; containing the small amount of pollution or pumping a huge amount of pollution into the atmosphere? BTW coal has sulfur in it, and sulfur oxide is poisonous! - Rickler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Slightly wrong, Brazil makes there ethanol from their surplus of sugar cane. Sugarcane is much more efficient then corn for making ethanol.
- eross77, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2We now have newer technologies for reprocessing (and re-using) the waste such that when you finally have used up all the useable fuel there is very little extremely long term waste. You still need to store it on the order of a 100 years or so, however. Not great, but much better and doable.
- saska, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1As long as you believe there isn't any need, you are helping drive us to the point where we'll desperately need it and we won't have enough time to develop it.
- montiff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Take it easy boss.
I'm just repeating what i heard from CBS's 60 minutes. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I skipped all the posts because I imagine nobody knows about the 6 to 10 new nuclear plants currently in the late planning phases in the US. I believe 5 of them will be in Texas and the rest will be in other states with 'extra' land. We are definitely on track to building alot more nuclear facilities in the next decade. It's just being kept kinda quiet since nuclear power gets a bad rap in the public's eye, even though about 60% of electricity used in the US today comes from nuclear plants.
- Llan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ah nothing like 60s propaganda article style...
- Twango, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ridicule is always the last refuge of a ***** arguer.
- jaikar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I always wonder why people in the States can't get this issue cleared. Oil is not only gas, and not only power station fuel. Stop looking at the monitor and take a panoramic view of the place you're in, then name the things that oil doesn't play a role in, aside from the energy related dependency.
- kodak543, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I dont know if nuclear power will take off any time soon, the cost is much greater to construct a nuclear plant over a coal plant, and on average usually take much longer to build, and right now with cheap coal prices and high uranium costs, I doubt we're gonna see any time soon. There just isnt any need, id like to see it plus it sure is a hell of a lot cleaner (inside and outside) than a coal plant (I work in one :| )
- gonzo1773, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Current generations of nuclear reactors are a lot more efficient and produce less waste than old school plants. Coupled with the nuclear "recycling" efforts (re-igniting the waste and scrubbing the by-products) the actual unusable potions of the waste are greatly reduced (something like 3% of the original amount of material). And that portion is not as harmful as 1st stage waste, and has a much shorter half-life.
I think nuclear power is definatley the way to go. Despite the incedents at 3 mile island and chernobyl, nuclear power has a better safety record than, say, the airlines. (airlines average 3 plane crashes a year, nuclear power averages 1 incedient every 2 decades). - Scruffydan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1its the waste issue that bothers me.
- 0crabby0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Whatever to the promise of MHD technology from the 70's?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MHD_generator
We're still having to send most of our power through turbines generators?
If we could replace those turbines that operate at only 40 % to 60%9using combined cycles), and use MHD with an estimated base efficiency of 65 percent to ???. How many coal-fired plants could we take offline? - donaldheppner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The half-life (time it takes for the isotope to lose half it's radioactivity) for some of the by-products of nuclear power generation is over 10,000 years, which isn't that long if you consider the age of the earth, when the dinosaurs roamed, etc. -- but it's an eternity when you consider that it's five times the life-span of Christianity, and roughly 2,000 years longer than this experiment we call "civilization".
The real question is "do we have time to develop a better alternative to fossil fuels?" Will civilization be around long enough for nuclear waste to become a problem if we don't start using it today as an alternative to burning hydro-carbons? - ZerozenOnes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@dukrous
Ridiculous. Dumping radioactive waste in space is like dumping ice cubes in water. You may not be aware that space is already a highly radioactive environment. As long as you make sure your waste is not in orbit, as to not pose a colision risk with satellites and future traffic, then the risk is absolutely nill. - montiff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1My mistake "Sugar" based Ethanol.
my point is Brazil does NOT important any foreign oil. - montiff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1*import.
@ fabiopsousa
I'm comparing them both to the USA's lack of Home grown power. - Buelldozer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What a crock of crap. The first article even contains this line "Technically speaking there is more than enough uranium out there to power all the stations that are going to be built"
Hmmm, guess you should READ your own links before spreading more Nuclear FUD. - dukrous, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Dumping radioactive waste anywhere is a dangerous idea. The goal is to get public interest behind nuclear power so it becomes profitable to create more harmless and neglible nuclear waste. Eventually, we might get nuclear fission up to a near 100% efficiency.
- ZerozenOnes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1(err)
- montiff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Bengarland, please don't spam with double posting.
- Scruffydan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@eross77
100 years or so if VERY doable. do you have a link to more info on this? I have not heard anything on this, but if true it could make nuclear power VERY appealing.
thousands of years is a bit more problematic - Flyngwalrus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/26/opinion/edsweet.php
- ultrasuprgenius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The only reason that nuclear power seems like a viable option is that no one promoting it is willing to admit to the true cost.
How much will it cost to store spent nuclear materials for the next 1,000 years? 10,000 years? 100,000 years? If you consider the cost of having a single employee charged with guarding the entrance to the storage facility for the next 10,000 years adjusted for expected inflation - the salary of a single employee alone makes the kilowatt/hour expense of nuclear energy too expensive.
It is scary to think that anyone interested in profitting from nuclear energy can be so short sighted - when the half life of nuclear materials is so many generations into the future.
Nuclear energy is not the solution, it is a short-term big money maker for a limited number of corporations at the expense of hundreds of thousands of generations of humans. - ZerozenOnes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1YOu got it right there. Burning oil is an unforgivable waste. We'll figure out how to get our cars to go forward without oil, the crisis there is a falacy. Its when we cant make plastic anymore that we'll be sorry...
- dukrous, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2None of those types of power are as efficient, scalable, and portable as nuclear power. And with current waste disposal techniques, you actually have cleaner waste than what you did 20 years ago. Nuclear power is still the best source of power we have, and one that does not put any environmental drain on the planet other than the plant's footprint. Eventually, with enough interest in nuclear power, we might get the waste down to a harmless and neglible amount, but that won't happen until the population gets behind the idea.
-
Show 51 - 87 of 87 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is