Nuclear Power is NOT a Magical Godsend
Posted on: July 1, 2008 - 3:54pm
Online
Nuclear Power is NOT a Magical Godsend
...I'm tired of people suggesting, 'Oh - in the future, we'll just go nuclear!'
This assertion is naive and ill-infromed. Nuclear power plants burn uranium to provide power, and uranium is no more renewable than coal or gas. The U.S. alone would require an absurd number of the largest possible nuclear power plants in order to meet it's current energy demands (I believe the figure I last check was somewhere in the neighborhood of about 8,000 such plants); doing this and burning U-35 in them would deplete the world's uranium supply in very short order, and then we'd be back to square one.
You're gonna wake-up in a smoothie, Mutha' Ucker.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
You don't "burn uranium". Uranium undergoes induced fission reactions inside the reaction vessel which initiates more fission reactions and releases energy to heat water to make steam to turn a turbine.
Scientia potentia est
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda
When people talk of nuclear power, they could be referring to either nuclear fission or fusion.
Fusion may be able to quench the world's energy demand. However, no one has ever been able to make it work here on Earth except, of course, as a nuclear weapon. Damn those stars up there in the sky, mocking us with their displays of nuclear fusion.
Science does not replace god. It simply demonstrates that gods are not required.
"...I'm tired of people suggesting, 'Oh - in the future, we'll just go nuclear!" ~ Kevin
- I hear ya, but I think the potential and therefore pursuit of converting even non-radioactive matter into energy will eventually render significant results.
Progress ??? "Lithium Reactors"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power#Waste_management
_______________________________________________________
I am a dreamer, imagining the yet unknown mysteries of matter/energy conversion.
"Teleportation" ! Well at least that of "dead" matter ..... Ahhh heck, why not ! Never say NEVER !
Go science, Mind power !
Supertramp Dreamer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41qnWBOBTV4&feature=related
Supertramp - Logical Song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEDT2RDIf1E&feature=related
It's Uranium-235 that is fissionable.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/NucEne/fission.html
Uranium-238 is the much more common "stable" isotope. It makes up like 99.3% of all naturally found uranium. When uranium is described as "depleted uranium" it means that just about all the useful U-235 has been removed, leaving behind the "common" U-238.
Science does not replace god. It simply demonstrates that gods are not required.
France was building a reactor to do this. Whatever happened with their project?
You're gonna wake-up in a smoothie, Mutha' Ucker.
Burnt. Used-up. Eaten. Depleted.
You know what I meant.
After the fission process, the uranium is of no use in generating power anymore; and the supply of uranium is no more renewable than the supply of oil.
You're gonna wake-up in a smoothie, Mutha' Ucker.
"those stars up there in the sky, mocking us with their displays of nuclear fusion." Tom
- Hey, it's god saying "see the light, that is good" !
Soon I will be a member and will be using the name whos_the_champ. I will confirm it IS me in my first post, so no one thinks I am trying to pawn off my beliefs on someone else, lol.
Why bother doing this if I already registered? I have college in the morning and need sleep, so can't afford to wait to receive my Password in the mail, lol.
Anyways, I'm a bit taken aback... I kinda expected to find more people with my train of thought on Nuclear power here on this site.
Not that I feel you are Wrong to feel the way you do, but with all the facts out there, and with the use of critical/thorough thinking... It makes it kinda hard to refute the benefits of Nuclear power as a safe power source.
In the link provided below is some EXCELLENT information on Nuclear power, and I URGE anyone who is reading this thread to thoroughly digest the information given, use critical thinking, and then continue to debate.
This is obviously not the only piece of information out there on nuclear power, but it it a very good read, and it shows not only the value in Nuclear power, but the killing power of coal (Which we continue to use while panicing about nuclear power... which IS already safe.).
http://russp.org/nucfacts.html
Also, there was a kick ass episode of Penn and Tellers: Bullshit titled "Nukes, Hyrbids and Lesbos" in which they tackle the common misperceptions on Nuclear power.
I IMPLORE everyone to take in the info from these two sources, and not just continue on with the dogmatic beliefs of environmentalism, which is fairly often scare tactics used to herd sheep, much in the way religion does. (To understand why I throw out such a "Bold" declaration on environmentalism, ALSO watch P&T's Bullshit on "Environmental Hysteria", also on youtube.)
----------------------------------------------------------------
So I'm gonna make an ass out of us both and assume you all read through that page... Has it changed anyone's opinions?
I have long held the beliefs that this country--- this WORLD would be a MUCH better, happier and healthier place if Scientists... Actual, truth seeking scientists were in charge, and not the religious nuts that are today.
And yes, I'm throwing it out there now: I equate Environmentalism to bearing MORE than a striking resemblance to religion, and possibly even a new religion...
No one in this thread argues that it is unsafe. The fact is that the world's small supply of Uranium-235 will not meet our future energy needs. There ain't enough uranium 235 to make it a viable alternative to coal and fossil fuels. Nuclear fission will not be good enough for the future!
Nuclear fusion holds some promise if we could figure out how to mimic the voodoo that Sol (our fusion reactor in the sky) does so well. Many scientists say that the technology is still decades away.
Science does not replace god. It simply demonstrates that gods are not required.
Fusion power has been achieved. It's been achieved and reproducable since at latest 1997 when JET (Joint European Torus) achieved about 16MW of fusion power for about one second. A new, international tokamak, ITER (the one set to be built in France) is beginning construction right now (ITER Schedule). It is supposedly going to be able to produce 400MW of fusion power for about six and a half minutes when it comes online in 2018. ITER and CERN (LHC) have signed a cooperation agreement so that technology, data and finance can be shared. What ITER will be capable of could be one of the most important steps to feasible and sustainable fusion power. It will potentially be one of the most important experiments to have been conducted.
Oh, I see no problem with upgrading so that most of our energy demands are met by nuclear power plants. Fissile material may not be exactly abundant (compared to iron), but it lasts a long time in reactors and provides enormous energy output that is virtually clean. It is, at least, more sustainable than fossil fuel and is, frankly, the best alternative we currently have. Do you have another option, Kevin, that for the forseeable future, would provide better energy output to meet current energy demands? I don't think anyone would want all of our energy to be nuclear, but if at least half of it could be, would that be so bad? I hope that by the year 2030 we have operating fusion power generators, it's something that is at least possible.
Edit: Further, not all nuclear power plants use uranium-235. Some use plutonium-239 and others still could use thorium which would require 1/300 the amount of fuel to power them. Also, CANDU reactors use unenriched (natural) uranium and uranium is 35 times more common than silver or as common as tin. A reactor that can use natural uranium would be very efficient indeed, because there is estimated to be enough uranium in the Earth for nearly five billion years worth of nuclear fission. Uranium fuel is also reprocessed and can be used again. Yeah, it will run out, but likely not long before the Earth is a burned mote in a dead solar system even at today's energy needs.
Further Edit: So, what exactly was that that you were saying again, Kevin? It would appear that the evidence is contrary to your assertion. Nuclear fission would seem to be a viable and practically sustainable source of power for ages to come. But you are right, it is not a magical god-send.
Read it [the bible] because we need more Atheists and nothing will get you there faster than reading the damn bible. Elvis never did no drugs!
*Penn Jillette
What do you think of the Pickens Plan?
When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do sir? - John Maynard Keynes
Read it [the bible] because we need more Atheists and nothing will get you there faster than reading the damn bible. Elvis never did no drugs!
*Penn Jillette
My jury is still out on Pickens and his plan is certainly not American-only in concept (though it is in practice). One thing to keep in mind is that his plan is actually a dual wind/Nat. Gas solution. As for real world examples of large scale wind-works, Denmark produces nearly 19% of its electricity from wind (3000+ MW) with moderate wind. Sweetwater, TX has 2000 and Pickens' Pampa, TX project will be 4000. That would cover 20% of the US electrical demand and free up natural gas (in Pickens theory) to use in transportation. He fully admits that it's a bridge solution. I've only just started exploring his ideas so I'll reserve judgment for now. The only explanations I've seen are basic presentations with out many details.
When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do sir? - John Maynard Keynes
Solar.
The Earth currently intercepts some arbitrary number of Pentawatts of solar energy, which remains by and large completely untapped.
My premise is also not incorrect. Nuclear power is not magical energy that just pops out of nowhere; we require non-renewable materials in order to produce nuclear power, and would need something along the lines of 10,000 nuclear plants (DG, could you help with the maths to provide a more accurate figure?) in order to feed our current energy needs. We'd bleed the planet of fissionable material in no time flat.
The project in France is very promising, but I want to reserve expectations until they actually have it built. We've proposed a similar plant up here (I'm sure you're aware of this, Thomothy), and the plans never amounted to anything.
You're gonna wake-up in a smoothie, Mutha' Ucker.
It doesn't seem to be a complicated problem. How much electricity does the human population consume daily? How much electricity can a nuclear power station output and what is the variation of outputs for different sized nuclear power stations? Take a mid-sized nuclear power plant's output and fix that as an average so the question becomes how many clones of that plant would be required to power the world. Divide the total electricity consumption of humanity per day divided by the output of a chosen power plant per day to find out how many would be needed to power the world. Then find the total net consumption of whatever radioactive isotope is being employed per day per plant, and divide the total amount left of that material in the world's ore supplies by that number to find the number of days it would last at the current rate of consumption. The math doesn't seem that hard, just find the numbers.
Scientia potentia est
Read it [the bible] because we need more Atheists and nothing will get you there faster than reading the damn bible. Elvis never did no drugs!
*Penn Jillette
Currently there are 103 US nuclear power plants that generate approximately 19% of the electricity used in the US.
See: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat1p1.html
http://www.nmcco.com/education/facts/business/perform.htm
In order to provide 100% of US electric requirements this is only about 550 plants currently not 8,000 or 10,000.
Uranium reserves are based on cost of extraction. The higher the cost the more reserves available.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/reserves/ures.html
http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/uranium.html
Nuclear power cost of actual fuel is relatively low per KWH at .10 to .20 cents/KWH. Most of the cost is in labor and capital.
Even low grade ores can be used and these reserves are still unknown as in the past it was not cost effective to utilize. As uranium is rising in price these reserves have also become profitable.
Clearly only nuclear is not the way to go. We also have 800+ years of coal which can be used to free us from dependencies on imported oil.
http://www.ultracleanfuels.com/html/about.htm
A combination of all renewable sources, wind, solar, and hydro should be developed along with nuclear and clean coal.
Once upon a time lamps were illuminated with whale oil until the black gold was discovered. It is impossible to say what the energy sources will be in the world in 100 or 200 years. Technology will advance and new methods will be developed.
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
A developing technology that may help with the coming energy demand is a something called Magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) power generation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MHD_generator
Basically heat from the power source (burning coal, nuclear fission, or whatever you having lying around) is used to move plasma. The plasma is used as the working fluid and energy is extracted from the plasma to induce currents directly, without any turbines. The remaining heat from the MHD generator can then be used by a conventional steam turbine stage. A steam turbine power plant maxes out at around 40% efficiency. With a MHD generator stage, a power plant could theoretically reach around 60% efficiency. Some believe that this technology may be able to extract energy directly from the plasma formed in nuclear fusion reactions, with the remaining heat being used to drive steam turbines.
Unfortunately, the costs for this technology are high. If it were cheap, it would probably be already used everywhere.
Science does not replace god. It simply demonstrates that gods are not required.
You'll have it, and it'll be as soon as possible. That is, fossil fuels will become too expensive to burn. What do you think, three years from now? Maybe five?
Hmm. But the machines that mine the uranium (which by hand is ... difficult) run on fossil fuels. In fact, everything runs on fossil fuels, most of it oil.
What also run on fossil fuels are the factories that make solar panels. Also the trucks that distribute the solar panels.
The party's over, guys. That's all I'm saying.
Will: no gyration without funkstification.
Such a pessimist. There are 800+ years of coal at current use in the US alone. Coal can be used to make electricity as well as techniques are being developed to economically liquefy for mobile use. We always can turn our corn and other grains into ethanol and stop exports. Soybeans can be used to make bio-fuel and that will run the machines to dig the uranium.
See above. Electric vehicles and others including ethanol and bio-fuels will supply the US with enough to mine uranium. Personally I think the US should export grains at the same price as a barrel of crude oil. If oil is $130 per barrel corn, wheat and other grains should be $130 per bushel. Those with all the crude can either eat their oil or pay our price. Canada imports from the US so that means you too. Current market on a bushel of corn is $5-6, wheat about $8 and soybeans about $14. My suggestion is only the export price be tied to the price per barrel of crude thus imposing a $120 or more fee or tax per bushel. These funds should then be used to develop the US energy market. As the US is the largest food exporter in the world it may be time to fight back with a better weapon than GPS guided smart bombs. Starvation will work faster than invasion and cost a lot less.
As always, when whales became harder to find the black gold was utilized to make kerosene for lamps instead of whale oil. I imagine there were many that thought the party was over then too.
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
...See what I said about having nightmares, Will?
pauljohn:
I love biodiesel as much as the next guy, but it's terribly inefficient stuff. I'm not saying it's totally unviable, but the idea of industrial-scale use for it seems improbable right at the moment.
As for the attitude about enslaving to world the U.S.'s will... I'm not sure if you're aware, but we have your water. And China? They have your manufactured goods.
Isn't this a sad state of affairs we'd have come to? MAD through trade embargos and selfishness rather than nuclear exchange.
You're gonna wake-up in a smoothie, Mutha' Ucker.
there's also the added issue of depleted uranium, another strong argument against nuclear power plants.
Vote for McCain... www.therealmccain.com ...and he'll bring Jesus back
The fact it's from Pickens isn't good. It's a good idea, but not with him in play. There's a more than likely chance he sees a large degree of personal gain in his plan, else he wouldn't have given it a second thought.
Vote for McCain... www.therealmccain.com ...and he'll bring Jesus back
800 years at what rate? The current rate of use? How would that change in the absence of both petroleum and natural gas? And we're going to extract that coal by hand at what rate? Check your math.