nuclear power

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

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: Scandinavia

11 Jun 2012, 7:39 pm

Build a containment building around the reactor. Then you can reap the benefits of power that's even cheaper than coal based power while the only thing that's released into the atmosphere is water vapor.

Joker
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

11 Jun 2012, 7:44 pm

Kurgan wrote:

I like that idea.

Rakshasa72
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Sep 2009
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 655

11 Jun 2012, 8:10 pm

AstroGeek wrote:

Rakshasa72 wrote:

AstroGeek wrote:

Oldout wrote:

When will man, the smartest being on the planet, ever learn how or try to harness gravity? It is cheap, plentiful and renwable.

It's called hydropower.

Also I think geo thermal takes advantage of the heat created by the compression of gravity in the earth's mantle. If we could somehow develope a way to drill through the earth's crust and tap in to this heat energy I think we'd be pretty set for our energy needs.

Most of the heat in the Earth's core comes from radioactive decay. Some of it is residual heat from the formation of the Earth (which was extracted, for lack of a better word, from the gravitational potential of the things forming the Earth), but I'm pretty sure that radioactive decay is the dominant heat source.

Yeah, apparently radioactivity is something like 80-90% were as gravitic compression is only 5-10%. Either way if we could somehow safely access this heat it would be a pretty good energy source.

AstroGeek
Veteran
Veteran

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

11 Jun 2012, 8:30 pm

ruveyn wrote:

AstroGeek wrote:

Oldout wrote:

When will man, the smartest being on the planet, ever learn how or try to harness gravity? It is cheap, plentiful and renwable.

It's called hydropower.

It is economical only at high head water drops which are, alas, very few and far between.

ruveyn

I wasn't talking about the cheapness or feasibility. It's just the only power source that I know of that involves gravity.

AstroGeek
Veteran
Veteran

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

11 Jun 2012, 8:31 pm

ruveyn wrote:

Joker wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

Joker wrote:

Nuclear Energy is also cheap.

Not if you factor in the cost of handling the waste safely.

ruveyn

True but it is still pretty cheap.

No. It is not. Unfortunately oil and natural gas are cheaper which is why were are burning them.

ruveyn

Waste of good chemical feedstock, unfortunately.

Joker
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

11 Jun 2012, 8:58 pm

AstroGeek wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

Joker wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

Joker wrote:

Nuclear Energy is also cheap.

Not if you factor in the cost of handling the waste safely.

ruveyn

True but it is still pretty cheap.

No. It is not. Unfortunately oil and natural gas are cheaper which is why were are burning them.

ruveyn

Waste of good chemical feedstock, unfortunately.

Not really this is a lot you can do with Nuclear energy.

AstroGeek
Veteran
Veteran

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

11 Jun 2012, 10:00 pm

Joker wrote:

Not really this is a lot you can do with Nuclear energy.

I was talking about burning oil. We can also use oil to make plastics, pharmaceuticals, among many other cool and useful things. Burning it just seems like such a waste.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

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

12 Jun 2012, 5:28 pm

AstroGeek wrote:

Joker wrote:

Not really this is a lot you can do with Nuclear energy.

I was talking about burning oil. We can also use oil to make plastics, pharmaceuticals, among many other cool and useful things. Burning it just seems like such a waste.

It is. It is bad for air quality and it is a waste of long chain polymers. It is a sin to burn oil. We should be burning ecologists instead.

ruveyn

AstroGeek
Veteran
Veteran

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

12 Jun 2012, 7:32 pm

ruveyn wrote:

AstroGeek wrote:

Joker wrote:

Not really this is a lot you can do with Nuclear energy.

I was talking about burning oil. We can also use oil to make plastics, pharmaceuticals, among many other cool and useful things. Burning it just seems like such a waste.

It is. It is bad for air quality and it is a waste of long chain polymers. It is a sin to burn oil. We should be burning ecologists instead.

ruveyn

If we're sticking with fossil fuels then surely natural gas would be the more humane source of energy? Although I suppose that technically ecologists would be biomass, rather than fossil fuels.

Joker
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

13 Jun 2012, 1:51 pm

Fossiel Fuels will not last long.

jekenai
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

Joined: 1 Apr 2012
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 70
Location: Czech Republic

20 Jul 2012, 1:02 pm

Here coal, oil and gas are more expensive then nuclear power. Coal a bit, gas quite a lot (still cheap compared to wind and solar power stations).

DC
Veteran
Veteran

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

23 Jul 2012, 10:00 am

ruveyn wrote:

Joker wrote:

Nuclear Energy is also cheap.

Not if you factor in the cost of handling the waste safely.

ruveyn

Handling the waste is very, very easy and cheap.

Dig deep hole, put the tiny amount of waste in deep hole, seal up deep hole for the next 100,000 years.

It is the politics that it make it hard, not the technical challenge.

France, which is the largest user of nuclear energy in the world (as a percentage of electricity sources) and it also has the cheapest pre-tax electricity Europe by quite a margin.

Nuclear is cheap and safe.

SilverStar
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,058
Location: Ohio, USA

25 Jul 2012, 10:24 pm

Rakshasa72 wrote:

AstroGeek wrote:

Rakshasa72 wrote:

AstroGeek wrote:

Oldout wrote:

When will man, the smartest being on the planet, ever learn how or try to harness gravity? It is cheap, plentiful and renwable.

It's called hydropower.

Yeah, apparently radioactivity is something like 80-90% were as gravitic compression is only 5-10%. Either way if we could somehow safely access this heat it would be a pretty good energy source.

Doing this safely is the big problem. Many people are getting geothermal installed around here, but what I have been wondering, is what kind of problems drilling all of these holes into the earth are causing, that we don't know about yet.

The biggest thing we should be concerned about, is using less power to begin with. With the population growth, and all of these new electrical devices coming out every day, it makes you wonder how we can sustain this.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

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

26 Jul 2012, 8:29 am

DC wrote:

The reason why nuclear energy is as expensive as it is, has to do with the legal restrictions. Whoever runs a nuclear power station will be required to have enough insurance to cover any disaster (such as happened in Japan). While the probability of an accident may be small, the cost of an accident, if it happens, is enormous. Think of Chernobyl. That used to be a thriving area.

As to disposing of the waste, the best form of disposal is no disposal. We should build breeder reactors which use the "waste" to produce even more fuel. Whatever residual waster there is can be disposed of by dumping it in the Pacific down upon the Mariana Trench, 37,000 feet deep. Seven miles of ocean water is plenty of shielding.

ruveyn

AspieRogue

26 Jul 2012, 9:06 am

The solution to nuclear waste is simple: Solidify it. The solid material can be used in nuclear batteries.

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

Jump to:

nuclear power Post Reply New Topic

nuclear power