Nuclear power

[Bart]

One of the maintopics during the G8-meeting in russia were the security of energy.
6 our of 8 nations said that they wanna rely on nuclear power to provide this security.
Germany and Italy disagreed.

This is a shame for mankind.
How could the most powerful nations in the world, seriously say that they wanna rely on nuclear power.
What will happen to all this nuclear junk?
Werent those things that happened in Tschernobyl and 3-Miles-Island warning enough?
Seems not, after seeing that G8 agrees to help india and china to built more powerplants.

The cancer rate near a nuclear plant is four times higher than normal. There are hundreds of secret incidents, that lead to almost ground zeros. And ofc uranium is a limited material too.

IMHO it's a crime against earth and our descendants.
Overall it's again a perfect example how the greed for money lead to insane and harmful actions and possible to the destruction of mankind.

Actually there are enough alternatives. Solar, water, wind and terrestrial heat plants could provide power. The downside is, they need more space and costs more. But mother earth should be worth it.

What do you think?

 

[sneez]

I voted pro because im pro.

Jk.
Nuclear energy is still much cleaner for the nature as your normal coal/oil plant refineree. Only problem being indeed the nuclear waste but if that is handled correctly its one of the most efficient power sources out there.

 

[RighteousFury]

Well im undecided tbh. Just like sneez said, all other sources have there downsides too + theyr limited. But ofc there are the downsides of nuclear power and waste as well.

But the biggest point about nuclear power is imo that the wast majority of ppl have no clear pictures what that is, how it works and what the risks realy are. If you read newspaper articles you stumble across headlines like "the radioactivity escaped" etc... last year i met some guy who said he was at the protest marches against nuclear waste transports. And 90% of the ppl instantly made a step back... Many ppl especialy in germany think that radioactivity is a thing. Some sort of green glowing cloud or so. Something that can move around. Well its not a thing its a process and yes the the radiation produced in that process can be dangerous. But it wont glue to some1 or something and it wont leak in the groundwater or the air. The thing we realy have to worry about is the material itself that produces that radiation. And thats normaly some sort of metall that CAN be contained if no1 fucks it up.
The half life time is a problem as well ofc but basicly the longer something lasts the less radioactive it is. Uranium is mostly harmless cos its so longliving it can be considered almost stable.

So yeah i study physics and maybe that makes my view on the matter a bit different but imo pure emotional arguments like the medias and politicians use are crap as well!

 

[Menace]

For developed countries Nuclear Power is the way to go. It's still a bit sketchy to see developing countries (your example of India is good enough) building more and more nuclear reactors with perhaps a less strict safety regulation than Europe or the States, but the simple truth is that nuclear power can provide far more electricity for a fraction of the emissions, with the only downside being the remaining nuclear waste, which we can definitely store for long amounts of time in a responsible manner.

As for safety, I really believe that the media (perhaps especially so in Germany?) is blowing it out of proportion, as with a well built modern reactor manned by well-trained people (eg, not Chernobyl, which was built by monkeys and manned by monkeys) there is really absolutely nothing to worry about.

In order to really reap the rewards of nuclear energy we'd have to invest much more time and money into researching fusion though, but meh.

 

[RighteousFury]

Well the problem with finding money for fusion research is, that its still not possible to produce more energy then the process consumts. Sure it might get more efficient but thats long term work and VERY expensive. However if theres a final breakthrough fusion plants would be more efficient with a higher peak output and less waste. However the principle of fusion on the current base will always produce lots of neutron radiation wich can be considered the most dangerous type of all...

 

[MeetYourMaker]

As has been mentioned Nuclear covers two areas and its a bit unfair to lump both together, I would still view the negatives of fission as considerably less than fossil fuel based methods for producing energy although accidents are on a much larger scalle.
There is no way the alternative sources you have suggested will provide enough power or will do so without further issues. Mother nature as you put it never intended you to start taking energy out of things such as waves or geothermaly and it will have negative effects if carried out on a large enough scale to get a useful energy amount, wind farms generate low frequency sound, wave farms alter costal erosion etc.

With regards to fusion its still in its research stage, I think theyve come to the conclusion that JET wont be useful for much more than containment research where as the new ITER plant is the most likely to actually produce energy but until its built who knows, certainly would be a possible viable source.
Yes I too studied physics and it was dull and I try to keep clear nowdays so info may be a bit out of date, I even went to JET although theres not much to see

There should be more money spent on saving energy rather than just trying to find more sources, things like heavily subsidised or free solar panels for properties would help although I expect them to need further devolpment before all homes should think about fitting them.

 

[sneez]

Would it be possible to send a solar panel (which makes energy out of sunlight) with a huge powercable attached to it into space near the sun? That would be cool and efficient at the same time.

 

[RighteousFury]

Not realy since silicon melts at about 1400°C

Basicly space based energy collectors are possible but solar pannels are just too inefficient to work proper. Check out what a set of pannels the ISS already has and its a piss small thing compared to a city or even a big factory. Other possible methods could be some sort of solar-wind-mill or photon-pressure-effect using concepts. Maybe just plain and simple heat absorbtion could work as well since the saturation point of such systems is much higher then the one of solar panels. Moving pannels closer to the sun is rather useless. U can place em "here" so they already get the maximum intensity they can actualy convert into electricity. Moving em closer will just let em age faster or actualy get em destroyed.

 

[sneez]

So just put the solar panels outside our atmosphere , problem will be the power cable going to earth then?

 

[doh]

Plus sending them up there will probably cost more energy then they will ever generate.

 

[[]Hoi[]]

I even went to JET although theres not much to see

I've been to the ITER project
It is 'just' two times bigger than the JET, yet they claim they are gonna generate 500MW. that is 10 times more than they will have to put in to keep the process going.
2016 it should be completed.

nuclear power ftw imho.

 

[Bart]

interesting posts you guys did.
i'm not saying that everyone have to stop nuclear energy production asap, but i was pretty stunned that 6 out of 8 said that NPPs are the main answer.

Nuclear energy is still much cleaner for the nature as your normal coal/oil plant refineree.

ofc fossils cant be serious alternatives to nuclear power.

Only problem being indeed the nuclear waste but if that is handled correctly its one of the most efficient power sources out there

the problem is not "if", the problem is "that they dont".
Saw how radioactive junk was stored in some eastern europe salt mountain.
Not very encouraging. Rust overshadowed their yellow paint.
So i've my doubts that some nations handle this waste with correct attention.

Also some sick terrorist could use this stuff to make a dirty radioactiv bomb.
Nothing can suprise me after russia reported that year after year some of their old nuclear weapons suprisingly "dissappear" without having a clue where this stuff is now.

As for safety, I really believe that the media (perhaps especially so in Germany?) is blowing it out of proportion, as with a well built modern reactor manned by well-trained people (eg, not Chernobyl, which was built by monkeys and manned by monkeys) there is really absolutely nothing to worry about.

Dont think so.

A nuclear plant near my place reported alrdy 16 incidents since it's launch 30 years ago.
So almost every 2 years they had to obligation to report caused by major incidents.
(only major accidents need to be reported)
100 km further west there's another one, that reported alrdy 9 incidents in the last 35 years. So i dont agree that there's nothing to worry about.

I'm not saying that Germany is the best country in the world, but i suppose we've a high standard of living and technology here. So if it could happen here, what could happen in poorer countries in asia or middle east?

Often we had only luck that we didnt experienced a 2nd chernobyl.
I know that most plants have atleast 3 redundant systems to prevent catastrophies, but there's still a very weak piece in the chain: the human. Humans make mistakes. No matter where they live.
The possibility for a serious incident will increase if india and china building the huge amount of reactors they planned to built.

I could also give the example that children below 5 years who live near 5km to a NPP, have a 2.5 times increased possibity to get blood cancer, although no higher radiation has been measured.
[Source: http://www.welt.de/wissenschaft/article1440454/Mehr_Krebsfaelle_nahe_Atomkraftwerken.html]

s has been mentioned Nuclear covers two areas and its a bit unfair to lump both together, I would still view the negatives of fission as considerably less than fossil fuel based methods for producing energy although accidents are on a much larger scalle.
There is no way the alternative sources you have suggested will provide enough power or will do so without further issues. Mother nature as you put it never intended you to start taking energy out of things such as waves or geothermaly and it will have negative effects if carried out on a large enough scale to get a useful energy amount, wind farms generate low frequency sound, wave farms alter costal erosion etc.

Fossil fuel is as bad as nuclear energy. Didnt say anything else.


Never say never.
If solar panels would be installed in africa, spain and in deserts, the amount of energy could easily be collected...atleast that's what some science guy said.
But beside the lack of money, there are technically difficulties to solve before they could work with that.

How do you transfer electricity from far far away without having a tremendous amount of lose? Maybe that's summin for our physic genius Fury

aye, wind wheels produces noise and even looks horrible, but there are places where that doesnt really matter.
In the north and east sea for example. UK finally wanna build with a huge wind farm i there.

 

[sneez]

How do you transfer electricity from far far away without having a tremendous amount of lose? Maybe that's summin for our physic genius Fury

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_energy_transfer although that will give alot of loss, maybe one day we could use the earths electromagnetic field.

 

[Joko]

Solar panels are NOT a viable alternative to any major power source. They are however a nice power source for localized energy production such as heating water, recharging batteries or for anything that doesn't require sustained power over a lengthy period of time. Although the current methods for making these panels are so energy intensive that it takes about 10 years until they are actually good for the environment. However, this is all about to change with new ways of making the panels that will make them much cheaper (no need for subsidies) and less energy intensive to fabricate.

As for these things that use mirrors to focus light to heat water, they are even more useless that the stupid windmills people are building and destroying the underwater landscape. You would need to cover half of africa with these things to get the same energy outpit as a single nuclear power station.

 

[Shinon`]

Would it be possible to send a solar panel (which makes energy out of sunlight) with a huge powercable attached to it into space near the sun? That would be cool and efficient at the same time.

allthough this looks weird, there are actual researches going on atm which are looking at how to make energy and send it by nothing (air or whatever). I read about it somewhere on the internet, i'll try to find this article, since it was kinda interesting.

 

[sneez]

allthough this looks weird, there are actual researches going on atm which are looking at how to make energy and send it by nothing (air or whatever). I read about it somewhere on the internet, i'll try to find this article, since it was kinda interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_energy_transfer
2 posts up

Some weeks ago there was an article in dutchnews or fok/tweakers, where they nicely shown how far they are with wireless electricity. I think you read the same one;p

 

[Geo]

But what makes for a revolution in energy generation? Two things: availability and economics. The fact that solar energy is so bountiful -- enough hits the Earth in a minute to meet our global requirements for at least a week -- makes it potentially revolutionary; it's just the cost of capturing that energy that has been standing in the way. Reduce that enough, or increase the cost of the alternatives, and you have a winning scenario.

One other energy source could, I believe, be equally revolutionary. Not fusion, which, despite the dreams of my youth, I sadly have to relegate to a distant future, not that the ongoing experiments aren't worthwhile. But geothermal energy, boring as hot rocks and steam may sound, has revolutionary potential for the same reason as solar -- an essentially unlimited supply of energy untapped only because of economics.

The nanotech connection is not as direct here as with solar -- you have tougher materials to cut drilling costs or thermoelectric tunneling for efficient low-grade heat conversion -- but it only takes the right conjunction of developments and geothermal power stations will be springing up, or down, all over the place.

I've only considered here principal power generation, but this should already give some sense of the breadth and potential scale of impact. I'd be surprised to find any reader of this unaware of the excitement surrounding developments in fuel cell and battery technology. Nanotechnology figures almost without exception in the cutting edge of both.

So how do nanotechnology-based solutions apply to environmental concerns and energy security issues?

From an energy security point of view, nanotech developments are invariably positive since, at the very least, they can help save energy -- aerogels for better insulation, IR-reflective window coatings, low-grade heat conversion in cars, etc. They also assist to varying degrees in the development of alternatives to the fossil fuels upon which so many of us are now so dangerously dependent. I've already mentioned the potential of solar and geothermal energy.

On the environmental front the answer is not so clear. We live in a world where short-term economics have an overwhelming influence on decision making.

The good news for those who worry about things like global warming, is that the increasing cost of oil -- a long-term trend that will not stop, oil being a finite resource -- and the decreasing cost of alternative sources such as solar energy, give renewables an ever more favorable economic position. When you look at the diverse spread of nanotech-related impacts they are almost always supporting technologies with an improved environmental profile.

Unfortunately, there is a rather big exception to this. Nanotechnology has helped improve the effectiveness of catalysts. Fuel cells and catalytic converters are among the welcome beneficiaries.

But catalysis is also at the heart of gas-to-liquid and coal liquefaction technologies that promise oil independence for those with access to previously uneconomical gas reserves or to coal reserves. Energy security is a big carrot and it so happens that two highly populated countries that rank among the fastest-growing economies in the world, and thus the fastest-growing energy consumers, are coal-rich: China and India. North America too is coal-rich.

If such countries can start to economically run their cars, trucks and buses on diesel made from coal -- which ironically is low-emission compared with normal diesel at the vehicle end but overall produces more CO2 than oil-based diesel -- then we could be looking at a greenhouse gas nightmare scenario since there is enough coal in the world to supply our energy needs for hundreds of years.

So, greenhouse nightmare or an emission-free future? Nanotechnology can enable them both. Barring a global wave of forward planning unseen in mankind's history, economics will probably make the decision for us.

All the alternatives involve a mix of technologies and energy sources, with energy not always being produced where you want and when you want, thus producing a far more complex system than we have now. The phrase 'intelligent grid' is often held up as an example of how this complexity will operate, with buying, selling and saving of energy being possible at many scales.

I'd rather do away with the 'grid' word altogether because it evokes the electricity grid that we in the developed world generally take for granted but which exists only as a consequence of our historical dependence on fossil fuels, and is grossly inefficient.

In a mixed-energy-source scenario, the traditional grid would be challenged by localized generation, the form of which would vary according to location: Saudi, sunshine. Greenland, geothermal.

The off-grid or localized grid scenario begs the question of how large amounts of energy will be transferred from one place to another, which will no doubt continue to be either required or an economically viable activity. The classic answer is hydrogen, but it is unfortunately a lousy way to transport energy, thanks largely to its volatility.

In theory, the development of cheap, high-load superconducting cables -- perhaps made of carbon nanotubes -- might keep the old-fashioned grid alive but it seems to me that an efficient means of converting whatever energy source happens to be available to you into a fuel that is liquid, or close to it, at room temperature -- e.g., methanol -- combined with a fuel cell technology to make good use of it, would be a hard system to beat when it comes to storage and transmission.

As I write, there are at least a few scientists around the world trying to figure out ways to outdo Mother Nature in turning sunlight into a compact, transportable energy source. All of which happens, of course, on the nanoscale.

Quite an intresting read i found while browsing dunno what your thoughts are on this are.

 

[sneez]

@geo,
Yes solar energy seems the best, Geothermal is good but the sources can deplete (And I don't think it's good for the earth either if used on mass-scale) , And it can only be used at 'hot-spots' so geothermal can not be used everywhere.
And like you said with solar energy being expensive, you bring up nanotechnology which is even more expensive But yes, solar combined with nano-technology could be our future power supply

 

[Quasi^]

I vote against.

I don't claim that there are viable alternatives to fossil fuels in wind or wave energy though. I don't see any viable option at the moment, but nuclear power has caused a lot of problems in the past, even in advanced countries like USA, UK and Russia. Just think what would happen if developing countries all started experimenting with it, which is what seems to be happening now.

 

[Geo]

I vote against.

I don't claim that there are viable alternatives to fossil fuels in wind or wave energy though. I don't see any viable option at the moment, but nuclear power has caused a lot of problems in the past, even in advanced countries like USA, UK and Russia. Just think what would happen if developing countries all started experimenting with it, which is what seems to be happening now.

With regards to Nuclear Power causing alot of problems , i reckon the problems it has saved out-weigh the problems caused and at the moment is the most viable method. With regards to developing countrys using it , well if experienced people are in charge and it is intelligently managed then there is no problem, however these countrys can not be trusted to do this imo, with regards to security and also waste management and the other worry is that they may not stop at using it for energy purposes.