Page 1 of 3 [ 47 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

minervx
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Apr 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,155
Location: United States

01 Jun 2012, 7:02 pm

The merits of nuclear power greatly outweigh those of oil (soon to be extinct) and solar power (not cost effective due to subsidies).

I'm suspecting people will say Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island, but please do your homework before you solely rely your opposition on those (fallacious) arguments.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

01 Jun 2012, 7:51 pm

minervx wrote:
The merits of nuclear power greatly outweigh those of oil (soon to be extinct) and solar power (not cost effective due to subsidies).

I'm suspecting people will say Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island, but please do your homework before you solely rely your opposition on those (fallacious) arguments.


The latest generation of nuclear reactors is far safer than the prior generation of light water reactors. Breeder reactors eliminate the problem of waste and thorium reactors eliminate the problem of producing bomb-grade by products. Also thorium is plentiful and there is enough for a thousand years. Why which time we may get decent batteries to make solar and wind production feasible for main line power supply.

ruveyn



VIDEODROME
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2008
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,691

01 Jun 2012, 8:01 pm

I have a lot of concerns about nuclear waste storage but in some ways I can see that it is still potentially the better solution.


Also I wonder if to make that work we'd have to rethink transportation. I'm not that sure about electric cars at this time.



shrox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,295
Location: OK let's go.

01 Jun 2012, 8:02 pm

Nuclear power, love it.

The waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant, a by-product from burning coal for electricity, carries 100 times more radiation into the surrounding environment than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

01 Jun 2012, 8:02 pm

VIDEODROME wrote:
I have a lot of concerns about nuclear waste storage but in some ways I can see that it is still potentially the better solution.


Also I wonder if to make that work we'd have to rethink transportation. I'm not that sure about electric cars at this time.


Breeder reactors produce virtually no radioactive waste.

There will still be heavy metal to dispose of but that is a much more manageable problem.

ruveyn



spacebrain
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jan 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 162

01 Jun 2012, 8:15 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium#Supply
85 year supply

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_pow ... rgy_source
3000 year supply

As it stands at this moment.. We've got about a century to figure out fusion, then only 3000 years to figure out space travel. We need to knuckle down people.



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

01 Jun 2012, 8:23 pm

ruveyn wrote:
minervx wrote:
The merits of nuclear power greatly outweigh those of oil (soon to be extinct) and solar power (not cost effective due to subsidies).

I'm suspecting people will say Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island, but please do your homework before you solely rely your opposition on those (fallacious) arguments.


The latest generation of nuclear reactors is far safer than the prior generation of light water reactors. Breeder reactors eliminate the problem of waste and thorium reactors eliminate the problem of producing bomb-grade by products. Also thorium is plentiful and there is enough for a thousand years. Why which time we may get decent batteries to make solar and wind production feasible for main line power supply.

ruveyn


even the most conservative estimates put supply well beyond a thousand years for the us alone, and that is taking the rising demand into account(as far as that is possible, we always underestimate these things)

on a global scale its even more abundant

@ spacebrain the 3000 year mark is only for reactors that use lithium, few of the designs we are trying to get to work use lithium, they use deuterium and tritium instead, something we can get form water.
and even then
Quote:
lithium from sea water would last 60 million years, and a more complicated fusion process using only deuterium from sea water would have fuel for 150 billion years.[39] To put this in context, 150 billion years is close to 30 times the remaining lifespan of the sun.[40]


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


spacebrain
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jan 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 162

01 Jun 2012, 8:41 pm

Oodain wrote:

even the most conservative estimates put supply well beyond a thousand years for the us alone, and that is taking the rising demand into account(as far as that is possible, we always underestimate these things)

on a global scale its even more abundant

@ spacebrain the 3000 year mark is only for reactors that use lithium, few of the designs we are trying to get to work use lithium, they use deuterium and tritium instead, something we can get form water.
and even then
Quote:
lithium from sea water would last 60 million years, and a more complicated fusion process using only deuterium from sea water would have fuel for 150 billion years.[39] To put this in context, 150 billion years is close to 30 times the remaining lifespan of the sun.[40]


Right now reactions using deuterium are implausible because they require too much energy to initiate the reaction and the output energy will not, theoretically, outweigh the cost of the input.



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

01 Jun 2012, 9:05 pm

spacebrain wrote:
Oodain wrote:

even the most conservative estimates put supply well beyond a thousand years for the us alone, and that is taking the rising demand into account(as far as that is possible, we always underestimate these things)

on a global scale its even more abundant

@ spacebrain the 3000 year mark is only for reactors that use lithium, few of the designs we are trying to get to work use lithium, they use deuterium and tritium instead, something we can get form water.
and even then
Quote:
lithium from sea water would last 60 million years, and a more complicated fusion process using only deuterium from sea water would have fuel for 150 billion years.[39] To put this in context, 150 billion years is close to 30 times the remaining lifespan of the sun.[40]


Right now reactions using deuterium are implausible because they require too much energy to initiate the reaction and the output energy will not, theoretically, outweigh the cost of the input.


deuterium tritium reactions are feasible and i should have clarified.

tritium isnt that hard to make it does require nuclear reactors however,

but the whole point was that nuclear energy from thorium will last for thousands of years and after that we still have several million years of lithium based fusion, nowhere near the 3k year mark(might be true for nuclear alone)

i agree with the sentiment that we should use our knowledge to engineer ourselves a better future and there is little point in waiting.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


BobinPgh
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 355

02 Jun 2012, 4:11 am

Shouldn't this thread be in the Computers, Math and Science forum?

Anyway, I read that the problem with the thorium reactor is that the coolant is salty and corrosive. Perhaps someday a reactor could be made kind of like a crock pot maybe? For now, we will probably see more pressurized water reactors like the Westinghouse AP1000. After Fukushima I don't think any utility would want to buy a GE boiling water reactor. GE does make PRISM which uses a sodium as a "heat transfer medium". The first PRISM reactor will be in England to help consume the UKs plutonium stockpile.

Oh, and nuclear power is one of the interests of mine that other people don't want to hear about. Oh, how I wish I could work for Westinghouse!



DC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Aug 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,477

02 Jun 2012, 6:30 am

BobinPgh wrote:
Shouldn't this thread be in the Computers, Math and Science forum?

The first PRISM reactor will be in England to help consume the UKs plutonium stockpile.

Oh, and nuclear power is one of the interests of mine that other people don't want to hear about. Oh, how I wish I could work for Westinghouse!


Nuclear power is a very political topic, ask Angela Merkel...

Yup the UK has insane amounts of plutonium, good job the US likes us!

Let rip with the interest, plenty of people here don't mind reactor discussions.



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

02 Jun 2012, 8:21 am

BobinPgh wrote:
Shouldn't this thread be in the Computers, Math and Science forum?

Anyway, I read that the problem with the thorium reactor is that the coolant is salty and corrosive. Perhaps someday a reactor could be made kind of like a crock pot maybe? For now, we will probably see more pressurized water reactors like the Westinghouse AP1000. After Fukushima I don't think any utility would want to buy a GE boiling water reactor. GE does make PRISM which uses a sodium as a "heat transfer medium". The first PRISM reactor will be in England to help consume the UKs plutonium stockpile.

Oh, and nuclear power is one of the interests of mine that other people don't want to hear about. Oh, how I wish I could work for Westinghouse!


while sodium is corrosive it can be engineered around, in (later) russian nuclear subs they used a ceramic coating to prevent corrosion of metal pipes and it doesnt have to function at the insane pressure levels some advanced small form factor water reactors require(read toshiba 4s for an example), making contructiion of the pressure vessel much simpler.

i even think there are some steel alloys that dont corrode under direct sodium contact, the russians used a lead bismuth mix to cool their reactors come to think of it.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


minervx
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Apr 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,155
Location: United States

02 Jun 2012, 10:22 am

the people using this forum are one step ahead, intellectually, from most people.



shrox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,295
Location: OK let's go.

02 Jun 2012, 1:25 pm

minervx wrote:
the people using this forum are one step ahead, intellectually, from most people.


¡Ay, caramba!



spacebrain
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jan 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 162

06 Jun 2012, 7:54 pm

Oodain wrote:
spacebrain wrote:
Oodain wrote:

even the most conservative estimates put supply well beyond a thousand years for the us alone, and that is taking the rising demand into account(as far as that is possible, we always underestimate these things)

on a global scale its even more abundant

@ spacebrain the 3000 year mark is only for reactors that use lithium, few of the designs we are trying to get to work use lithium, they use deuterium and tritium instead, something we can get form water.
and even then
Quote:
lithium from sea water would last 60 million years, and a more complicated fusion process using only deuterium from sea water would have fuel for 150 billion years.[39] To put this in context, 150 billion years is close to 30 times the remaining lifespan of the sun.[40]


Right now reactions using deuterium are implausible because they require too much energy to initiate the reaction and the output energy will not, theoretically, outweigh the cost of the input.


deuterium tritium reactions are feasible and i should have clarified.

tritium isnt that hard to make it does require nuclear reactors however,

but the whole point was that nuclear energy from thorium will last for thousands of years and after that we still have several million years of lithium based fusion, nowhere near the 3k year mark(might be true for nuclear alone)

i agree with the sentiment that we should use our knowledge to engineer ourselves a better future and there is little point in waiting.


I wonder how easy it is to extract lithium from the ocean. After I saw the movie Moon I was pumped to read about HE3 for energy, disappointed though, when I found it would be too hard to sift through the moons dust and extract it. But inclusive with all that was sending machinery up into space to make it a reality, lithium extrapolators could be set up right on the coast. Hail if its small enough just put them on the back of cargo ships.



AstroGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,582

06 Jun 2012, 8:33 pm

minervx wrote:
The merits of nuclear power greatly outweigh those of oil (soon to be extinct) and solar power (not cost effective due to subsidies).

Oil and nuclear power are subsidized as well you know. In Canada the company that builds nuclear power plants gets a few hundred million in federal funding a year (it's federally owned). In many countries the central government basically covers all of the insurance (that is, if there is a disaster they'll pay for the clean up). Fossil fuels get more money in subsidies than renewable energy (not on a per-kilowatt-hour basis of course, but it's still telling).

Now, that said, I'm not opposed to nuclear power. I'm quite open to building one more generation of nuclear power plants to be used until renewable energy is cheap enough and we have really good battery technology. But I'm not actually sure if it's the best bet fiscally, especially when you consider that we really don't know yet how much it will cost to dispose of all of the waste. With renewables we do at least have a fairly good estimate of the total lifetime cost. Also, nuclear can only be built in big chunks--most reactors produce at least 1GW, and even the smallest would usually produce at least 500MW (new technology has the potential to change this, but it isn't available yet). So you need to do it big with a huge initial investment. Compare that to solar or windmills where you can add a 50MW a year and steadily grow it. Finally, nuclear power plants take a long time to plan, regulate, and build. Various reports say that we really need to be cutting CO2 emissions by the end of the decade. We might just be able to manage that with nuclear if we started now, but it would be a very tight thing. Had we been more proactive and started building them in the 90's or 00s then this wouldn't be a problem. But we didn't. So we really might need something which we can build faster.

All of these are just practical problems I have with nuclear. I have no problem with it in principle for short term use (for the long term I think that it's just tidier and potentially cheaper to use renewables). If a power company feels that nuclear is the best bet for zero-emission power then they are welcome to build a nuclear power plant.