26 Aug
Nuclear Energy - Your opinion (please read)?
I was talking to a friend a few days ago, we always get philosophical when we discuss. We end up talking about energy consumption and what we should do about our CO2 problem.
My vote was on Nuclear energy. Its clean, its effective, and its safe. (explanation will follow for the ones who doesn’t know)
My friends first reply was: Chernobyl.
I spend 1½ hour trying to explain to the guy that Chernobyl was made and run by a state who was in money problems, and who’s philosophy was: Quantity over Quality. Needless to say he didn’t take it to heart.
I talked to a few other people since then, and it always comes down to people being afraid of irrational things when it comes to nuclear energy. So are just against it cause they don’t know any better.
We all know the problems with CO2, but only very few actually knows the truth of nuclear energy.
Building the reactor is actually relatively cheap (relatively).
Running it is so cheap you wouldn’t believe it.
It provides way more energy the any other correct method of energy extraction, compared to price/space required to run and build.
It has ZERO and I repeat, just to be sure you noticed. ZERO emissions. No CO2, not green house gases, no NOTHING. The big towers you see with all the smoke coming out of it, is WATER vapor. And no it doesn’t become contaminated.
The nuclear waste that is produced by the power planets, is relatively small. Atm they are building a repository for long term storage in several countries, most noticeably the U.S.A’s nevada facility. Once completed it will be able to store the waste SAFELY indefinitely, and can store so much of it, that U.S.A won’t have a problem with their waste for another 500 years (if I recall correctly). That means the next 500 years, we can run the current power planets without having to think about the waste. Once those 500 years has passed, and the place is filled, we close the gates, and leave it there for the 10.000 years it’ll take for it to become safe. More over, its estimated to take about another 50-80 years to make fusion a viable energy source. Once that happens, we won’t need fission, as fusion will produce anywhere from 25-50 times the energy a fission plant produces.
And the best thing, fusion will only require helium, and the waste product will be hydrogen.
Personally I’ll take a cavern full nuclear waste while we get fusion/geothermal energy viable, then a very bad case of global warming resulting in a lot of lost land mass (to the sea), and with several places on the planet, where the environment is uninhabitable.
Whats your opinion?
P.S. excuse any spell mistakes (missing words, repeated sentences), its a problem of mine, and I can’t correct them until I have forgotten what I have writen.
Starship Captain: You understanding of CO2 as not being harmful is nonesense.
Have a look at Venus. That planet is PROOF that too much CO2 makes a planet warmer. Warmer planet = more violent weather, ice melting, bad for animal life, and I could go on.
However, we humans will have died off long before we can do anything even remotely close to Venus of course, but its still proof.
CO2 = Green house gas. saying anything but is laughable as best
Dana: I didn’t know that :O
However I’d still say that it makes more sense to spend some more until we have viable options, then contiue as we do.
Nick: As for storage, i think I cover that as well I could. Its not a problem.
As for terror attacks. Well we can’t live our lives and thinking about terrorism all the time. It is a very real threat, but that shouldn’t be enough of a reason to contiue on a path that will hurt the world, and humanity in ways you probably can’t even comprehend.
Furthermore, the french has such sophisticated nuclear power planets, that if you aimed a plane at it, blow a bomb, or someone hit the emergency buttom (I assume that have that), the computer controlling the fission will keep the reaction stable, while dumping the core into a hurt chamber, where nothing short of a tomahawk could get to it.
I have only been able to find information on this on the discovery channel, so if it isn’t holding water, I apologize for giving false information.
Posted by Dana1981, Master of Science on 26.08.09 at 7:47 pm
I agree that most peoples’ concerns about nuclear power like safety and radioactive waste aren’t really major issues.
Where I don’t agree with you on cost. A single nuclear reactor costs about $8 billion to build, for one thing. The decommissioning costs are also massive, which many nuclear cost estimates fail to take into account. Once you factor in all the costs of a nuclear plant over its lifetime, it ends up costing on the order of 20 cents per kWh, which is more than many renewable options like wind and solar thermal, which don’t have the concerns about safety and radioactive waste and have lower CO2 emissions.
A good resource on the subject here:
http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/04/an-introduction-to-nuclear-power/
Posted by andrewjoseramos on 26.08.09 at 7:47 pm
I completely agree with you. I’ve always known the benefits of nuclear power but many others seem to be more worried about certain aspects of it because they’re not too educated about it.
If we would switch over completely to nuclear power, our world would be a much better place to live in.
Posted by Nick on 26.08.09 at 7:47 pm
Nuclear Energy is certainly a viable energy option choice; however, you must also think of the alternate environmental effects of nuclear practices. I am not talking about Global Warming/Climate Change (whatever it is called these days) but rather the storage of nuclear rods and other byproducts of radioactive materials. Radon causes some pretty harmful effects that are not efficiently taken care of as of today.I am not nearly educated on fission or fusion as you are, but from what I DO understand, it will be pollutionless and easily renewable with minimal environmental effects. I support you and your argument, but as with everything, you must be open to understand and respect the other opinion.
As for the claim that nuclear energy emits NO pollution, just water vapor, I believe that is false. Nuclear energy does not DIRECTLY emit CO2 but due to construction and use, it IS emitted, just less than, say, coal, could ever dream of.
Another part of nuclear energy you may be overlooking is the security of the facility, not only from overuse or "money problems" but from active terrorists. If Osama Bin Laden had flown the 9/11 planes into a Nuclear Facility, that would have caused more damage than a steel building falling. Radiation would leak into the atmosphere and spread as quick as the wind, infecting everyone.
Keep these issues in mind and prepare for these attacks the next time, as they may not be issued last time.
Posted by Starship Captain on 26.08.09 at 7:47 pm
It gets better. Most of the problems with nuclear energy are the result of 30 year old superstitions brought on by Hollywood movies like Silkwood and China Syndrome. Chernobyl happened because they cut corners when the reactor was built, not because of the danger of nuclear energy.
We all know CO2 is not a greenhouse gas nor is it responsible for causing the weather or climate to do anything. It is an inert gas that is part of the global food web.
Japan, France and other countries recycle and reuse spent fuel rods, so waste would be even less. The reason we bury nuclear waste instead of recycling it is more political than it is neccesary. Screw the lobbyists, save the money, use the material.
Most of the costs of building a nuke plant are to buy off and get around the legal and environmental superstitions of a nuke plant. This is why they cost so much to build and take to so long to do so.
If we could supply our own energy with nuclear energy, we could produce more jobs, and sell off the energy to improve the economy.
Also, the safety record of Nuclear power plants is phenominal compared to other industries.
Edit: The notion of CO2 causing the weather to change is bull! The temperature has to increase before CO2 does, CO2 does not cause a rise in temperature. But according to the global warming enthusiasts, supposed global warming causes weather to even out, not get more severe.
This is because the temperature between a warm and cold front is evened out. Besides, we’re having another mild if not cooler than normal Spring with three frost warnings this season. Global warming is false! But I don’t want to hear any whining about global warming when we get a thunderstorm.
Posted by bravozulu on 26.08.09 at 7:47 pm
Dude, I pretty much agree with you on the nuclear stuff. I doubt they will have fusion working that soon though. You mixed up the hydrogen and helium. Helium is produced. Some isotope of hydrogen would be the fuel.
"Starship Captain: You understanding of CO2 as not being harmful is nonesense.
Have a look at Venus. That planet is PROOF that too much CO2 makes a planet warmer. Warmer planet = more violent weather, ice melting, bad for animal life, and I could go on.
However, we humans will have died off long before we can do anything even remotely close to Venus of course, but its still proof.
"
The warming on Venus is not comparable to Earth. Venus has a hundred times denser atmosphere and the CO2 is 3000 times more concentrated. The higher pressure also increases the spectrum that it absorbs at. That still isn’t nearly enough to account for the warming. They are much closer to the sun. There is a gas in the atmosphere that actually absorbs heat directly from the sun and that is sulfuric acid. Rather then penetrating to the surface to warm up the surface and radiate warmth, the atmosphere is warmed up directly. That isn’t the greenhouse effect. The combined greenhouse gases then have greater effect since they would absorb all heat in those narrow frequencies that CO2 absorbs in less than a meter. About 8 percent of the IR frequency is all that is absorbed but there are other gases that contribute to the greenhouse effect. How are you going to compare that to the Earth where the warming happens on the surface and not in the atmosphere. They are completely different mechanisms.
Posted by Richard on 26.08.09 at 7:47 pm
“It has ZERO and I repeat, just to be sure you noticed. ZERO emissions. No CO2,..”
Water vapor is a green house gas and water in all it’s forms are responsible for 90+ of the “green house" effect.
"CO2 = Green house gas. saying anything but is laughable as best"
And we have had much higher CO2 levels in the middle of an ice age, to say that CO2 is the only thing responsible for global warming is laughable, even if you assume the IPCC numbers are right, that man is responsible for 25% of the CO2 increase since the industrial revolution and that the temperature has increased by 0.78 c and assuming that ALL that temperature increase is caused by CO2 than man is responsible for at best 0.195 c increase.
“Once those 500 years has passed, and the place is filled, we close the gates, and leave it there for the 10.000 years..”
10,000 years can you name the location of anything man made that is that old? Yes we have cave paintings that are over 32,000 years old, but can you tell me what they mean? Also it was only by accident that the painting were preserved that long, just how are you going to warn people of the future? Which language do you propose to use, maybe you’ll warn them with cartoon pictures? Yep that’ll stop them, just like the warnings on the pyramids stopped us.
“More over, its estimated to take about another 50-80 years to make fusion a viable energy source”
That’s assuming they can make it work at all, maybe they can maybe they can’t I’m old enough to have heard many a promise that within the next 20 to 50 years will have x, and in most cases it doesn’t happen.
Posted by Bob on 26.08.09 at 7:47 pm
Fusion reactors may be available in another 20 years.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/fusion-reactor.htm/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_reactor
You forgot to mention the next generation of mini nuclear reactors. They have no moving parts and are much safer than current designs.
http://www.physorg.com/news145561984.html
http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/