Question about Nuclear power plants.

[flamin lib]

Is it time to consider Nuclear electricity generation? The early days had two concerns: Safety of the plants and storage of the waste.

It looks to me as if the first has been addressed. No incidents in recent history. The second is and will continue to be an issue, but is global warming and pollution a bigger issue?

Just thought I'd ask.

On a related topic I heard that Russia has a portable hydrogen nuclear generator suitable for automotive use. Anyone know anything about this?

[BlueEyedSon]

1. Nuke is also non-renewable, just like oil

and im not so sure about the safety isses....

[phantom power]

2. I'd recommend spending some time in the "Environment/Energy" forum

There's a sort of ongoing discussion of the pros/cons of various post-oil energy schemes.

As for my opinion: nuclear's risks are far, far outweighed by the consequences of continuing to burn fossil fuels. If we continue to burn fossil fuels, it will simply be a race as to whether civilization collapses due to economic disruption, or climate change.

Note, that is not to say that wind or solar may not be superior, at least in some applications. Just to say that, compared to fossil fuels, nuclear is a big win. Whether or not nuclear should be avoided completely in favor of wind or solar, is a thornier issue. I believe nuclear should be used, but opinions differ widely.

[sweetheart]

3. "No incidents in recent history?"

This is simply not true. There are spills and leaks quite commonly,
and they are very dangerous for those exposed.

try these words in google searches and get better informed:

"sellafield spill"
"dounreay particles"
"nuclear spills"
"nuclear plant leaks"

The damage done by spills and storage problems over the next 10000 years
have not even begun... and your glib statement that those concerns
have been addressed is simply absurd.

[flamin lib]

7. Oh Sweetheart, be nice. If I'm uninformed, educate me,

don't insult me. Besides, we don't need to worry about storage---just sell the waste to N Korea and Iran . . .

[Massacure]

14. dounreay and sellafield are British, are they not?

I know that the Brits have a messy nuclear program. I'm surprised the U.S. isn't just as messy with our old reactors. We really do need to replace our second generation reactors with third generation ones.

Third generation reactors have a standardized design instead of each reactor being designed separately. Thus is it much quicker to build them and much easier to gain licenses for them. Their modularity means that building them costs less than half as much as the older reactors with need custom made parts.

They also use more inherently safe safety features, usually be using gravity or simple physics instead of large mechanical control systems.

More fuel is also burned up in them, reducing the amount of nuclear waste generated.

[Lerkfish]

4. hydrogen is better...

the raw material for the fuel is safely transported (water) and is relatively speaking renewable, and almost universally available.
Its not radioactive, and cause no deleterious effect on the environment.

It CAN be explosive under wrong conditions, but a hydrogen explosion's effects do not last 90 years, for example, or make the site of the explosion uninhabitable.

Further, Wind, Solar, and hydroelectric plants all use nature itself to create energy, and the source is readily available and is not dimished by use.

Nuclear plants, as they exist now, have a high risk/benefit ratio, are extremely expensive to set up and maintain, make excellent terrorist targets, require huge amounts of national security considerations, and the waste products are unsafe to transport and dispose of.

The only real advantage is that they can also be used to make more nuclear weapons. Which is why WE have them, and why we worry when OTHERS have them.

[phantom power]

5. One thing: Hydrogen is not an energy source. It's a storage medium.

Wind, solar, hydroelectric and nuclear are energy sources. Hydrogen is a fuel, which can be manufactured from energy sources.

[Lerkfish]

8. reread my post...i never said it was.

[flamin lib]

10. Storage medium? That's true of just about everything.

I suppose the only real source of energy is solar. Wind is only a manifestation of solar heat acting on the third rock from the sun.

What we need is a medium that is easy to distribute, clean, affordable and abundant enough to be inexhaustible.

It's like designing a sail boat. It's all a compromise. Make it go fast and it won't be comfortable, make it really comfortable and it won't sail all that well. Somewhere there is level of comfort vs pain that is acceptable to the designer.

[phantom power]

12. The only source of energy is nuclear :-)

Solar energy is nuclear fusion. Or, we can use fission.

No medium is inexhaustible. We can't use it any faster than we manufacture it. Whichever ones we end up choosing.

[flamin lib]

13. Very true. The advantage of this nuclear source is that

the source is far enough away that it isn't in ANYBODY'S back yard.

[patcox2]

6. Hydrogen is not an energy source.

Saying hydrogen is better than nuclear power is like saying The Patriots are better than the Yankees. They aren't the same thing. Hydrogen has to be made, and it takes more energy to make it than it gives you. Thats a law of physics.

[Lerkfish]

9. never said it was...I said it was a fuel.

further, if you'll note, I was pointing out it was better in terms of availability and no negative impacts on the environment.

Nuclear fuel for power plants ALSO has to be made, and requires a great deal of energy, as well as expense and risk.

[flamin lib]

11. Great points all. It is beginning to appear to me that there is

no single answer or one size fits all solution.

Hydrogen is very expensive at this point.

Wind is good in some areas with good prevailing winds, but a real hazard to migrating birds in some places.

Solar is still pretty low yield and expensive.

Tidal is obviously limited as to location and may perhaps have adverse effects on local sea life.

Geothermal I don't know enough about but I suspect there are pros & cons.

Using any of the above to create another medium, i.e. hydrogen, is really inefficient.

[Massacure]

15. The wind doesn't always blow. Solar is too expensive.

[aeolian]

16. It takes energy to produce hydrogen from water

More energy, necessarily, then can be recovered chemically from Hydrogen (nuclear fusion is another story).

So, you'll still need a power plant to produce hydrogen. A chemical hydrogen power plant would actually be a net sink of energy, not a source.

[Lerkfish]

19. yes...

yes you need energy to extract hydrogen from water.

My point was that in portability or availability of raw fuel (water), safety of process, and environmental impact, hydrogen was better than nuclear, which also requires energy, and the nuclear fuel is much less plentiful than water.

Not sure why i have to keep reitering my points in response to people claiming I made different points...

:shrug:

[MadHound]

17. Nuclear is not the answer.

Two problems that loom large due to the dangers of nuclear power. The first problem is human error. You can build the most sophisticated system in the world, but you can never build out human error. If human error kicks in, you wind up with something like TMI, Chernobyl, or much worse.

The second problem is waste, which is dangerous for literally millions of years. We have no sure, save way to get rid of the waste. Burying it at Yucca Mt., or any other underground site is simply inviting ground water pollution. In fact there have been dye studies done at Yucca Mt., and if some of the waste gets out of the barrels and starts seeping into the ground, that radioactive waste will start showing up in Las Vegas drinking water within two weeks.

No, the way to go is with wind, solar, biomass, biodiesel. According to the DOE, there is enough harvestable wind energy in North Dakota, South Dakota and Texas to supply all US electrical needs through the year 2030. Solar is coming down in price dramatically, and is starting to become competitive with more traditional forms of energy production. Biomass and biodiesel, especially combined with hybrid vehicles, could supply our fuel needs.

There is no need to rely on any more nuclear than we already do. In fact given the nature of nuclear power, we need to start weaning ourselves away from that also. Instead, let us go for the renewable, cleaner sources of energy.

[drencrom]

18. you're saying it wrong

It's NUKE-yu-lur, silly!