Nuclear energy

[Belgian General]

(first of all, sorry if this is the wrong forum ö)

Pro or contra nuclear energy? Is it realistic yet to abolish nuclear energy? Are we ready to switch to green energy completely? What do you think?

Greetings.

[Acco]

Pro or contra nuclear energy?

I'm pro-nuclear energy but I can change my mind.

For a variety of countries, nuclear power is the way to produce power independently and nuclear power goes unaffected by trade embargoes. And according to a University of Stanford study, fast breedor reactors have enough potential to power we humans for billions of years. Yes, billions. This makes it quite sustainable.

Sun, tides or wind, whatever you believe is better, cannot be controlled to provide base-load power or peak-load power when it is needed. The problem is that they diffuse nature meaning there has to be duplicate resources of electricity, tides etc in storage on a very large scale.

In terms of cost, I quote the 2008 World Nuclear Association: "Nuclear energy is, in many places, competitive with fossil fuel for electricity generation, despite relatively high capital costs and the need to internalise all waste disposal and decommissioning costs. If the social, health and environmental costs of fossil fuels are also taken into account, nuclear is outstanding."

Wait...what about Chernobyl? This occured because of the critical design flaws of the Soviet Union and a flawed operation of one of the reactors. However the lesson was learned and large improvements went under way in the West and other nations. However, the one key flaw was the Soviet Union using graphite moderation in the plant design, this was disastrous however graphite moderation has never been used in any commerical nuclear plant in the West. Even in the 1950s they denied graphite moderation as unsatisfactory and Chernobyl presents very little connection to a possible example in the West.

But wait...what about Three Mile Island in the U.S.? Well, the reactor experienced a partial core meltdown however the reactor vessel and containment building blocked radiation and very little radiation seeped out, and for the amounts that did there was no impact on the enviroment and several studies have found no increase in cancer rates in the area.

[Time Commander Bob]

We need more nuclear energy if anything. Wind, solar and hydroelectric aren't yet sufficient to meet the demands of the industrialised world and are situational rather than "on demand" as it relies on factors beyond our control. Plus heavily nuclear dependent countries like France wouldn't be able to survive without it

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

Nuclear power, has to be the future of electrcity provision, there is no other viable alternatives.

to put it simply

[PacSubCom]

Renewables, fusion, hydrogen economy. End of discussion.

[Hounf of Culan]

Renewables, fusion, hydrogen economy. End of discussion.

Not really, nuclear power is far and away the most efficient and cheap energy production method available now. No other form of energy production can even attempt to challenge the efficiency of nuclear power. Its not even that dangerous or hard to store the waste.

[Sphere]

No other form of energy production can even attempt to challenge the efficiency of nuclear power

Naw, it still uses a steam turbine system to produce electricity. Which is about 30% efficient, not all that different from coal. Those huge cooling towers simply spill out the other 70% of the energy generated as heat. The real difference is one pound of uranium can produce the same amount of energy as 200,000 pounds of coal.

[Hounf of Culan]

Naw, it still uses a steam turbine system to produce electricity. Which is about 30% efficient, not all that different from coal. Those huge cooling towers simply spill out the other 70% of the energy generated as heat. The real difference is one pound of uranium can produce the same amount of energy as 200,000 pounds of coal.

That is true, but the energy yield of uranium overcomes any of the shortfalls in the steam turbines making it the most productive and cheapest form of energy available.

[Musthavename]

Pro. Currently, we don't have anythihng that can produce as much Energy (as reliably) as Nuclear Fission. And as coal / oil / gas are running out quickly, we need something else. Renewables arn't at the level required at the moment. Hopefully in the future they will be, but I don't want rolling blackouts whenever the wind doesn't blow or sun doesn't shine. Wave power, hydroelectric power, geothermal power are all fine, it's just Nuclear power is better imo.

Hopefully Fusion will be viable in the not to distant future. Until then, Fission's our best bet.

[Sphere]

And as coal / oil / gas are running out quickly, we need something else.

Peak coal is a few hundred years in the future by anyones account. Peak oil/gas is probably going to happen in the next decade or so.

[Playfishpaste]

Nuclear energy is a type of green energy...so you can't really be pro or against it in the means you displayed in the op.

[C-Rob]

I want a nuke plant in every region, supplying the entire world. Screw every otehr kind of power. We have Nuke power right now, we should be using it to its fullest. Even if the small possiblity is there of hte immediate area aroudn it will explode. IF we dont' have water in an area for the plant, simply build an aquaduct to get it there! The Romans built them. We can deffinately do it easily.

[Morkonan]

[quote=Belgian General;4038023](first of all, sorry if this is the wrong forum ö)

Pro or contra nuclear energy? [quote]

I'm pro-nuclear. There just isn't any more available or effective means to produce the power that we need to continue growth. (World)

Nuclear is safe. The reactor designs of today are nothing like they used to be. Today, even small portable plants, the size of a minivan, are being built for to provide power and hot water to remote locations: (ex:http://www.newscientist.com/article/...er-plants.html) Some are even being shipped to help third-world countries as they don't have the infrastructure to bring power to remote villages.

There IS a problem with the nuclear fuel cycle in larger reactors. And, there CAN be a risk of a country trying to weaponize its sponsored nuclear reactors. However, with the current stewardship programs, the dangers can be minimized and oversight is strict. Spent fuel can't go "missing" and a comedy of errors would have to take place for someone to weaponize without someone else finding out.

Disposal can be an issue. However, we have been disposing of nuclear waste for decades. Of a more dangerous note is the great amount of medical nuclear waste (isotopes are still used) being improperly disposed of. Spent nuclear fuel is handled extremely diligently.. medical waste.. not so much..

Is it realistic yet to abolish nuclear energy?

Absolutely not. Why throw away a perfectly useful technology for no practical reason?

Are we ready to switch to green energy completely? What do you think? Greetings.

No. We simply don't have the infrastructure to support it. We're still in a non-renewable fuels cycle. We base the vast majority of our power needs on combustion which requires, mostly, non-renewable sources like coal, oil, natural gas, petroleum, etc..

However, what we need to do is make the market friendly for Green Energy. When something is profitable, people will do it. It's as simple as that. Everyone goes where the money is. If we can begin to make green energy profitable, the infrastructure will evolve to support it. Getting technology rapidly to the the market along with government and local incentives for producers of green energy will go a long way towards encouraging development. Providing things like tax incentives for purchasers of hybrid/electric automobiles will greatly help as it begins to put "green energy" into people's homes instead of limiting it to the industrial power sector. Once people are familiar with the concept, purchases and use will increase. That is important as volume is what we would be most concerned with in regards to encouraging growth in a support and infrastructure system for Green Energy.

[Skooma Addict]

Pro

[Viking Prince]

It is really a question of cost/benefit analysis. If you have a highly developed economy -- nuclear is certainly an option. If you are just now developing and need a huge growth in power generation (India, China, etc.) then nuclear is essential to the mix. That does not mean ignoring other options. The problem with most green technology is cost. Continue to develop demonstration projects for research and development. Just do not expect people to willingly pay double the going rate for power just to satisfy other people's desires for "green" energy. Also, do not expect the developing world to forgo development just because "green" energy is too expensive.

[Musthavename]

Point is, it's economically far more viable. Just look at France & Germany. France is fine for energy with all it's fission stations, Germany has to depend on the Russians not to rip their economy to shreds.

[Sphere]

Another thing to consider is that wind/solar power will never be able to power a grid on their own. Power systems are built to handle the one or two days a year when there is the highest demand. If this demand is not met there will be a black or brown out. Coal plants often have whole secondary steam loops that cost millions of dollars to build, but they only use a handful of times a year.

Without a core power source that can be highly controlled, there is no way you can keep stablility on the grid. When that peak demand day arrives, you have to be able to dial up your power 20-30% higher than your yearly average. Nuclear gives you that control, wind and solar do not.

In this way a wind/solar only system will never be competative against coal/nuclear. Sure, the price per mega-watt may become competative, but you would need 7-10 idle wind turbines for every one in use to make sure the peak demand is met.

[Belgian General]

I like how the discussion is developping so far. Great to have found a forum with people who can debate in a mature way...

Not much time to post a reaction now but will do soon!

[chamaeleo]

Remember that fissionable material, even moreso than petroleum & natural gas, is a nonrenewable resource. Once it's gone, we're looking for the next source.

Responsible waste disposal is the obvious end of the problem, but the other end is mining it. Controlling the tailings are one thing, but how can you mitigate airborn radioactive dust...especially in windy areas like NM? The Navajo nation has suffered pretty badly from radioactive poisoning (and are fervently anti-mining as a result, despite huge potential profits), and our local rivers are also slightly "hot" as a result.

All this talk of "solar/wind unable to power a grid" is not very convincing...anyone can put widgets on a roof and power their house directly. Hell, convective hot-water heating is another obvious solution to the problem of piping electricity hundreds of miles, before converting it to thermal...put a high-surface area, black-plastic reservoir on your roof, put another in your basement, strategically run pipes between the two throughout your house...voila, solar heating for free...

"We won't pay 2-3 times current rates for electricity"...riiight. Just like we wouldn't pay this increase for gasoline/heating oil/natural gas a year ago...you grumbled, but did this really hurt you? My electric bill is pitifully low for the benefits electricity has given me...I'd gladly pay 5 times current rate, if it encourages others to be more responsible about consumption and more open to alternative technologies! I still recall higher than ever energy prices 3 summers ago in LA, ubiquitous blackout warnings...and walking past stores on 100 F days that had their doors wide open, blasting strollers with 70 F, climate-controlled bliss. Quite tempting to go in, but their "advertising" made me quite sick.

Nuclear should be supplemental, no more...Sphere's correct in that we'll need occasional "injections" on peak days, and nuclear is one appropriate input.

[Viking Prince]

"We won't pay 2-3 times current rates for electricity"...riiight. Just like we wouldn't pay this increase for gasoline/heating oil/natural gas a year ago...you grumbled, but did this really hurt you? My electric bill is pitifully low for the benefits electricity has given me...I'd gladly pay 5 times current rate, if it encourages others to be more responsible about consumption and more open to alternative technologies! I still recall higher than ever energy prices 3 summers ago in LA, ubiquitous blackout warnings...and walking past stores on 100 F days that had their doors wide open, blasting strollers with 70 F, climate-controlled bliss. Quite tempting to go in, but their "advertising" made me quite sick.

The complaint is not needing to pay more because of overall pricing, but to pay more for a choice of sources. Solar and wind are not competitive with coal and nuclear. It is not a question of aggregate price.