Nuclear Power
I just wanted to do a quick survey of what everyone thinks of nuclear power. Has the Fukushima disaster changed your views at all?
I've been pro-nuke for the longest time, I still am despite current events. I do believe though that we need to keep researching better nuclear technologies, like Thorium reactors and TRISO/pebble bed technology.
Actually listened to a VERY interesting talk on Friday that was presented by a nuke physicist from Oak Ridge national lab regarding TRISO and pebble bed reactors/gas cooled reactors. From what I understood these reactors are "self-controlling" if cooling can't keep up and temperature rises, the properties of the fuel particles change in such a way that the reactor powers itself down.
And the guy had some bad news...the Chinese are going all out to utilize this new tech (using German technology) while we are dragging our feet in both R&D and actually putting up plants. (I guess it helps that they can execute greenpeace types...)
I really don't buy the notion that wind and solar will ever be able to meet baseline demand in an economical fashion...so nuke (fission) is, IMO, our best option until we master fusion.
I've been pro-nuke for the longest time, I still am despite current events. I do believe though that we need to keep researching better nuclear technologies, like Thorium reactors and TRISO/pebble bed technology.
Actually listened to a VERY interesting talk on Friday that was presented by a nuke physicist from Oak Ridge national lab regarding TRISO and pebble bed reactors/gas cooled reactors. From what I understood these reactors are "self-controlling" if cooling can't keep up and temperature rises, the properties of the fuel particles change in such a way that the reactor powers itself down.
And the guy had some bad news...the Chinese are going all out to utilize this new tech (using German technology) while we are dragging our feet in both R&D and actually putting up plants. (I guess it helps that they can execute greenpeace types...)
I really don't buy the notion that wind and solar will ever be able to meet baseline demand in an economical fashion...so nuke (fission) is, IMO, our best option until we master fusion.
0
-
For it? Against it?
The newest typeof reactors, the so called "fast breeder" reactors cannot melt down- they are much safer.
Best of all, they require lower quallity fuel.
We could run them on nuclear waste from the old reactors,we would actually reduce nuclear waste by building these new fission plants.
We could be like France (wait... wait... now hear me out) and get 90% of our power from nuclear- this would obviously make the middle east situation better. We have decades worth of nuclear waste stored, and could run fast breeder reactors on it for centuries (assuming a 1:1 replacement of old reactors with new) because the old reactors only achieved fission in a small percent of the fuel.
Then there is Nuclear Fusion-
The JET (Joint European Torus) acheived break even energy in vs energy out, and even produced a surplus.
Now they are building an even bigger one- ITER, and as Fusion scales up, it becomes more efficient, and is predicted to produce a 500 megawatt surplus- but its all scientific, no power generating turbines hooked up or anything. They say if it succeeds, new plants would take 15-20 years to build.
The thing is- We know it will produce a surplus, but its strictly for science experimentation, like JET was.
If we had spend as much as we do on welfare or the military, on building larger versions of JET nation wide(or versions of ITER surrounded by power generating turbines rather than scientific equipment to collect data), we'd have fusion power now.
Yet even though its a proven concept.... it still lags along at a snails pace, with endless test projects when the technology is viable RIGHT NOW.
So.... who is in favor of nuclear power?
Let the Middle east drink their oil, we should be on the Nuclear bandwagon.
Do you really want the french to have the first fusion power plant?
We had the first fission plant, lets stop the testing BS and just start building a fusion plant- and some fast breeder fission plants to replace our older more vulnerable plants, and get rid of some nuclear waste in the process.
Say it with me.... NUCLEAR POWER!0 -
i am very much in favor of nuclear power. 0 -
quote:
i am very much in favor of nuclear power.
good you will have to live with it.0 -
I'm for it. A lot of countries (France and Japan come to mind) have been using it for years and have not had any problems. 0 -
what about wind power? the uppernorthern plains could supply nearly all the electricity this country needs from wind.....i farm right next to one of the most productive wind farms in this country......gottem beating down the door to get easments from me and others in the area to put up more wind turbines. 0 -
quote:(France and Japan come to mind)
Great now you want to copy loosers.0 -
Oren, is that sarcasm, or are you actually against an environmentally benign energy policy that can slash US dependence on foreign oil? 0 -
NUKES NOW.
D.0 -
I am agains a power policy that does not have a cogent plan.
nuke power works but it is not cool. it just puts the problems off to the next gen.
nuke power concentrates deadly crap to poison the next generation.
I would rather live in the dark at night than poison my kids.0 -
I have been for Nuclear power for a couple decades now.
This is only making what I already think better with what you are saying.0 -
quote:Originally posted by cowdoc
what about wind power? the uppernorthern plains could supply nearly all the electricity this country needs from wind.....i farm right next to one of the most productive wind farms in this country......gottem beating down the door to get easments from me and others in the area to put up more wind turbines.
Noisy, ugly hazards to flighted creatures (although I understand they're finding ways to make them less hazardous to our winged friends). Hell, we don't have that many options when it comes to sources of power, but they sure do make a lot of land look ugly for miles and miles around.
Nuclear power does seem safe to me, though that is that pesky little problem of what to do with the waste.0 -
quote:Nuclear power does seem safe to me, though that is that pesky little problem of what to do with the waste.
Well that is the problem, it is safe for many years , but not forever, it is like poisoning your grand kids , it is insanity.0 -
radioactive materials are common but they are not dangerous [in most cases] until prossesed, concentrated and dumped. 0 -
This one pops up quite a bit. There are many advantages to nuclear power and one of them ius that it is a clean fuel which means no greenhouse gases which lead to global warming (a concept which of course does not even exist in the Gun Broker world). We are also lucky enough to have Canada, the worlds leading producer of uranuium, as our NAFTA partner (though Gun Broker law would demand that we get out of NAFTA and then TAKE what we need from Canada- Uranium or oil) as well as being on good terms with Austrailia, the worlds second largest producer. Getting our hands on uranium is not a problem, nor is processing it into fuel. Nuke plants are pricey and take a lot longer to build than a converntional power plant so the start up costs are going to always be higher and unlike fossil fuels, which go up and down in price, a nuke plant is going to produce power at the same price, even if coal and natural gas costs fall. Disposal of the waste is the biggest headache of nuclear power and you simply cannot sweep this stuff under the rug and ignore it...It is nasty stuff and stays dangerous for many centuries. Like most others, nuclear power is an alternate engery source to fossil fuels and not a cheaper source of energy so don't expect to see your energy costs drop if we make a big switch to nuclear power. Although cutting our dependence on forign energy sources sounds good, the fact is that most of our power plants operate on coal or natural gas, both of which are produced in this country or imported from Canada, a very safe supplier of energy, which will be even safer once we invade them in order to punish them for not backing our policy in Iraq! The biggest problem with nuclear power is that the US public simply does not look at it in a favorable light, although once the light starts to grow dim when other resources run out, nuclear power may well become our last hope. 0 -
Woah woah woah there was a fusion reactor that acheived break-even? How come I've not heard about this? CA sucks, can you provide a link?
A Fusion reactor reaching break-even would be extremely huge news, as fusion represents the the best hope for limitless, clean energy generation.0 -
why are threads getting stretched out worse than Hillary's girdles? 0 -
I wouldn't mind more nuclear power. Even fission plants are preferable to coal (which pollutes more and actually exposes its employees to more radiation than a nuclear plant) and oil.
And a nuclear power economy would help out Australia, which wouldn't be a bad thing the last I checked, and reduce the Middle East to what it should rightfully be: jack squat in the middle of nowhere.[}:)]0 -
Very much in favor of it. 0 -
Err well... JET acheived close to break even conditions, but proved it could be done if scaled up.
http://www.efda.org/fusion_energy/fusion_research_today.htm
Err.... well a 16 MW output for 24 MW input- a ratio of 0.64
The problem is we just aren't building them big enough
ITER will hopefully be a 500 MW output for a 50 MW input.
http://ec.europa.eu/research/rtdinfo/49/article_4091_en.html
"In terms of volume, ITER is eight times bigger than today's machines. The scientific goal is to produce ten times more power than will be necessary for its own heating, which means producing 500 MW of thermal power for 50 MW of heating power. And this on a time scale of 400 seconds that is seen as necessary for the scientific demonstration."
Although the more recent estimates are showing a need for a 110 MW input.
However, all models indicated that scaling such a facility up from a 500 MW facility, to a 5,000 MW facility would yield net power outputs in the gigawatts.
We just need to build the damn things bigger. What we are doing now is like trying to refrigerate ice in the desert, with fridges that only have a 1 ice cube capacity, its much more efficient to just build 1 single large fridge.
And fusion power plants are harmless, any damage done to them- any loss in containment, means the required densities wont be met, fusion will stop, and all you have is some hot hydrogen isotopes, and the radiation in the facility drops so fast that its safe after 1 day.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/18812/1/pwhoa4_01-04
The triple point of fusion experiments has been increasing exponentially (as it should when scaled up), faster than the advances in computers. ITER was delayed 10 years because of funding, and it will easily break even. While we haven't broken even yet, we know it can be done, but the money isn't there.
I will look for Fast breeder Fission reactor links soon, but they can actually use old nuclear waste as fuel, they will clean up our waste and produce power at the same time- and their waste has a much shorter half life. The newest Fission reactors will do nothing but good, they can run on the nuclear waste our current reactors (which are all rather old) produce. Its a Win-Win Scenario, and if we just build a big enough fusion plant, we'll pass the break even point easily.0 -
Cowdoc: givette here. How much is your electric [power] bill? Your post got me curious. Best, Joe 0 -
I love nuke! i even bathe in it. Try it it's great. 0 -
...Nuke power, drill in Alaska, drill the Everglades, drill the Gulf. The bleeding heart singing hand holding liberals are killing us oil wise with their hand-wringing.
...If MORE Ethenol is mandated anything associated with corn, ANYTHING, will rise in price to the point it will be unatainable to most Americans, it's absurd...[;)]
0 -
Sorry - it is too late for nuclear power in this country. Due to deregulation, there is NO WAY a power company can afford to build a nuclear plant. The existing plants were built before deregulation and paid for by ratepayers. It will never happen now, just too god aweful expensive! A nuke plant costs like 10x the price of fossil plants and costs 2-3x more to operate. Only a state entity can afford to build nukes. 0 -
I work at a nuclear power plant for which they have been granted license from the NRC to build 2 more reactors and are already starting to break ground. There are several other energy companies across the nation that have been approved by the NRC to build others. Nuke power is not going away, it's increasing. 0 -
how many years to build a nuclear plant?
they put in a 40 Mega Watt wind farm in pretty short order....started early summer and was operational by fall.....that was 27 towers and sub station....FPL has a very big chunk of land tied up easement wise ...that includes me and are talking 150 more towers...noise there is some yes...but in a township that only five families live in is a non issue....birds dead, is BS neighbor has eight on his land and has not seen a dead bird yet.
far as being ugly you get used to them and don't even notice them after time.
Givet, power bill, no change...
i can live with the wind towers.....but i'll guarantee you'd never get a nuc plant put on any land around here.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Glock23Expert
I work at a nuclear power plant for which they have been granted license from the NRC to build 2 more reactors and are already starting to break ground. There are several other energy companies across the nation that have been approved by the NRC to build others. Nuke power is not going away, it's increasing.
Expanding an existing plant is another issue. Also not all markets have been deregulated so there is some places where you might see a new plant. Not likely though because as cowdoc stated, NIMBYs will prevent the construction of ANY plant - not just nukes - or delay it for years.
Approval for a plant and actually building one are so far removed from each other that they may as well be on different planets. I worked for PG&E for 8 years and talked with a lot of insiders about this very issue.0 -
VERY much pro-Nuclear Power here..... 0 -
ummm.... we have more nuclear power plants in the US now than there are in France... proportionate to users we have fewer but overall there are more. Last count showed over 70 in the U.S. compared with 59 in France...
quote:Originally posted by Oren Rudder
I am agains a power policy that does not have a cogent plan.
nuke power works but it is not cool. it just puts the problems off to the next gen.
nuke power concentrates deadly crap to poison the next generation.
I would rather live in the dark at night than poison my kids.
Why are you not living in the dark now? Seems as though emissions from our fossil fuel plants may be to blame for many health hazards these days...0 -
I'm for it. I also think nuclear powered cars would be cool. toss a couple uranium pellets in the gas tank and go. 0 -
We are well on our way to building the first Generation III nuclear (of nukular for you Bush boys) plant out in the desert. We have the experience (53 of one kind or another have been built and tested here) and the expertise to do it. The new plants will be co-generators, producing both electricity and hydrogen.
All the spent fuel, except some we keep for testing and experiments, goes to New Mexico where it's buried deep in caves cut in salt. The salt will slowly 'ooze' around the storage casks, entombing them forever. There are many such formations around the nation that offer the same solution.
The foot hills east of town are lined with about 50 windmills. You can't hear them unless you get close (I have) and I guess our birds are smarter than most: they fly around them.
Fusion is a pipe dream as far as commercial applications are concerned. We have achieved it here; in miliamps. Maybe in another 50 years.
Clouder..0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
36 comments