Nuclear Energy Debate

Message boards : Cafe SETI : Nuclear Energy Debate
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

1 · 2 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile The Gas Giant
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Nov 01
Posts: 1904
Credit: 2,646,654
RAC: 0
Australia
Message 320508 - Posted: 30 May 2006, 2:36:02 UTC

With the global warming issues that are surrounding us and the desire to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, Australia is in the very early stages of a debate on whether or not we should head down the nuclear energy route. I was wondering if the cafe folks would like to put their 2c worth in.

A little bit of background. Australia generates an extremely large proportion of its electricity requirements by burning coal - both brown and black. There is some hydro-electricity. Recently there has been a focus on wind generation and natural gas fired generation. Overall electricity wholesale pricing is around the A$30 to A$40 per MWhr level. We have no nuclear power generation. We have the worlds largest (or 2nd largest) deposits of uranium and it's alternative thorium.

Go for it!
----------------------------
Paul
(S@H1 8888)
And proud of it!
ID: 320508 · Report as offensive
cdr100560
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 May 06
Posts: 681
Credit: 65,502
RAC: 0
United States
Message 320518 - Posted: 30 May 2006, 2:43:27 UTC

What would be the downside? There has to be plenty of unoccupied land that would serve to keep it out of peoples back yards. It's clean, but does need a water source (for cooling and steam production for the turbines) Would that be a problem? The length of time for construction is a factor (several years) but reactor fuel lasts for awhile vs. the piles of coal needed for a coal fired plant. What are the future projected energy demands? (The cost vs. return factor) Nowadys there are enhanced security needs as well.

<to get the ball rolling>
ID: 320518 · Report as offensive
Profile Bill Price
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jun 99
Posts: 73
Credit: 2,397,157
RAC: 5
United States
Message 320536 - Posted: 30 May 2006, 3:47:37 UTC - in response to Message 320518.  

For reference, read Waldo & Magic, Inc. by Robert Heinlein. Until such time as we can draw energy from alternate universes, it seems to be that nuclear energy, properly done, is the best alternative we have. I haven't looked to see if they've (the U.S. DoD) ever stated what the problem with the U.S.S. Thresher was (reactor meltdown? playing tag with a Russian sub?), but outside of that I think the U.S. Navy has never had a problem using nuclear power for their fleet. My belief is the problems we've all heard about (Chernobyl, Three Mile Island) have more to do with private sector problems. I've thought for a long time we should do nuclear energy in a big way, and let the Navy run it.

Or to quote Dennis Miller: "That's just my opinion; I could be wrong."
ID: 320536 · Report as offensive
Profile David Stites
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 22 Jul 99
Posts: 286
Credit: 10,113,361
RAC: 0
United States
Message 320592 - Posted: 30 May 2006, 5:09:01 UTC - in response to Message 320536.  

For reference, read Waldo & Magic, Inc. by Robert Heinlein. Until such time as we can draw energy from alternate universes, it seems to be that nuclear energy, properly done, is the best alternative we have. I haven't looked to see if they've (the U.S. DoD) ever stated what the problem with the U.S.S. Thresher was (reactor meltdown? playing tag with a Russian sub?), but outside of that I think the U.S. Navy has never had a problem using nuclear power for their fleet. My belief is the problems we've all heard about (Chernobyl, Three Mile Island) have more to do with private sector problems. I've thought for a long time we should do nuclear energy in a big way, and let the Navy run it.

Or to quote Dennis Miller: "That's just my opinion; I could be wrong."

I seem to remember reading something about nuclear power being simple in small reactors but the problems come in when they are scaled up. If true the best answer is to have lots of small ones all over the place. That would also cut down on transportation costs.

Anybody know more about this?
David Stites
Pullman, WA USA
ID: 320592 · Report as offensive
Profile Scary Capitalist
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 May 01
Posts: 7404
Credit: 97,085
RAC: 0
United States
Message 320593 - Posted: 30 May 2006, 5:14:14 UTC

99% of nuclear waste can be safely recycled...alas, the enviiornmentalist lobby made it so that all of that wsste can only be 'safely' disposed of in salt mines and so forth....so much for recycling.
Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

ID: 320593 · Report as offensive
Profile Lampros
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 17 Jun 02
Posts: 279
Credit: 13,973,726
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 320603 - Posted: 30 May 2006, 5:29:40 UTC - in response to Message 320593.  

99% of nuclear waste can be safely recycled...alas, the enviiornmentalist lobby made it so that all of that wsste can only be 'safely' disposed of in salt mines and so forth....so much for recycling.


Hey Robert, would you care to elaborate about recycling? Not being snide, just interested.
ID: 320603 · Report as offensive
.

Send message
Joined: 14 May 06
Posts: 61
Credit: 22,809
RAC: 0
Message 320618 - Posted: 30 May 2006, 18:54:44 UTC

In South Africa we produce about 6% of our energy with nuclear power. The rest of out electricity is produced burning coal, which we have in abundance. Each has it's specific environmental problems. The more that individual countries use nuclear power, the more that are tempted to make nuclear weapons. My country had such weapons, but has dismantled them, and I hope that they will remain dismantled forever.
ID: 320618 · Report as offensive
Profile tekwyzrd
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 01
Posts: 767
Credit: 30,009
RAC: 0
United States
Message 320677 - Posted: 30 May 2006, 20:14:50 UTC - in response to Message 320536.  

For reference, read Waldo & Magic, Inc. by Robert Heinlein. Until such time as we can draw energy from alternate universes, it seems to be that nuclear energy, properly done, is the best alternative we have. I haven't looked to see if they've (the U.S. DoD) ever stated what the problem with the U.S.S. Thresher was (reactor meltdown? playing tag with a Russian sub?), but outside of that I think the U.S. Navy has never had a problem using nuclear power for their fleet. My belief is the problems we've all heard about (Chernobyl, Three Mile Island) have more to do with private sector problems. I've thought for a long time we should do nuclear energy in a big way, and let the Navy run it.

Or to quote Dennis Miller: "That's just my opinion; I could be wrong."


The problem with nuclear power in the hands of corporate interests is greed. If given a choice between safety and profit often safety concerns are overlooked. Just look at what happened at the Davis-Besse facility. The company that controls most of the electricity supplied to my area (First Energy) owns the Davis-Besse facility and the infamous Three Mile Island facility. It is the same company held responsible for the massive 2003 blackout that affected a large portion of the eastern US and part of Canada.

I find it disturbing that First Energy has admitted that their investments in nuclear power have contributed to a loss of $40 Billion. Last year the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) gave the OK for First Energy to add charges to the bills of customers in Ohio for a total of $80 Billion to compensate them for their losses.

There are major differences between Government controlled nuclear power and corporate controlled nuclear power. The government isn't driven by the demand for profit. There's no executives demanding bonuses. There's no investors complaining about low dividends. There's no stocks. Sure, the government answers to taxpayers but with the massive defense budget there's plenty of money to insure safety.

I'm strongly opposed to nuclear power. There are safer, green alternatives to nuclear. They may not be as efficient but there's less potential for catastrophic accidents.
Nothing travels faster than the speed of light with the possible exception of bad news, which obeys its own special laws.
Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)
ID: 320677 · Report as offensive
Profile mikey
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 17 Dec 99
Posts: 4215
Credit: 3,474,603
RAC: 0
United States
Message 320776 - Posted: 30 May 2006, 22:14:43 UTC - in response to Message 320677.  

There are major differences between Government controlled nuclear power and corporate controlled nuclear power. The government isn't driven by the demand for profit. There's no executives demanding bonuses. There's no investors complaining about low dividends. There's no stocks. Sure, the government answers to taxpayers but with the massive defense budget there's plenty of money to insure safety.

TOTALLY agree, small companies have small budgets, Governments have "other" issues.

I'm strongly opposed to nuclear power. There are safer, green alternatives to nuclear. They may not be as efficient but there's less potential for catastrophic accidents.

The problems with this statement is that nothing else is as available longterm. Sure they will be less castrophic during an accident, but over the long term, coal, natural gas, etc ,etc, etc create many more issues that then have to be dealt with. Pollution for one. Burn coal, pollute the atmosphere for generations. Use nuclear energy, no long term outputs except energy. Except in accidents, then nuclear MUST be designed properly. Back to the government!

ID: 320776 · Report as offensive
Profile tekwyzrd
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 01
Posts: 767
Credit: 30,009
RAC: 0
United States
Message 320981 - Posted: 31 May 2006, 3:34:00 UTC - in response to Message 320776.  

There are major differences between Government controlled nuclear power and corporate controlled nuclear power. The government isn't driven by the demand for profit. There's no executives demanding bonuses. There's no investors complaining about low dividends. There's no stocks. Sure, the government answers to taxpayers but with the massive defense budget there's plenty of money to insure safety.

TOTALLY agree, small companies have small budgets, Governments have "other" issues.

I'm strongly opposed to nuclear power. There are safer, green alternatives to nuclear. They may not be as efficient but there's less potential for catastrophic accidents.

The problems with this statement is that nothing else is as available longterm. Sure they will be less castrophic during an accident, but over the long term, coal, natural gas, etc ,etc, etc create many more issues that then have to be dealt with. Pollution for one. Burn coal, pollute the atmosphere for generations. Use nuclear energy, no long term outputs except energy. Except in accidents, then nuclear MUST be designed properly. Back to the government!


There are massive green resources yet to be tapped. If I hit the big lotto jackpot (like that'll ever happen :( ) I'll be able to put my ideas to work. Until then, or until I at least have enough for a patent, I can't explain it or someone will steal my idea. It's happened before.

Nothing travels faster than the speed of light with the possible exception of bad news, which obeys its own special laws.
Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)
ID: 320981 · Report as offensive
Profile Ghery S. Pettit
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 7 Nov 99
Posts: 325
Credit: 28,109,066
RAC: 82
United States
Message 321023 - Posted: 31 May 2006, 4:16:36 UTC - in response to Message 320536.  

For reference, read Waldo & Magic, Inc. by Robert Heinlein. Until such time as we can draw energy from alternate universes, it seems to be that nuclear energy, properly done, is the best alternative we have. I haven't looked to see if they've (the U.S. DoD) ever stated what the problem with the U.S.S. Thresher was (reactor meltdown? playing tag with a Russian sub?), but outside of that I think the U.S. Navy has never had a problem using nuclear power for their fleet. My belief is the problems we've all heard about (Chernobyl, Three Mile Island) have more to do with private sector problems. I've thought for a long time we should do nuclear energy in a big way, and let the Navy run it.

Or to quote Dennis Miller: "That's just my opinion; I could be wrong."


Thresher was lost to a flooding casualty in the aft machinery spaces. It was not a failure of the reactor plant.

As far as radioactive waste from a plant is concerned, a coal fired plant releases more radioactive material into the general environment than a nuclear plant does over its lifetime due to the Carbon 14 in the coal. I'd much rather have a nuclear power plant in the area than a coal fired plant.

One thing that would reduce the cost of nuclear power would be more realistic regulations. When I worked for the Navy in the late 70s we had a processing plant at the shipyard that would decontaminate water taken from the reactors we were refueling. The water that wasn't used to refill the plant had to be mixed with concrete and shipped to Nevada for disposal. This was in spite of the fact that the water was purer with less residual radioactivity than the water flowing by in the river. Go figure...


ID: 321023 · Report as offensive
Ophus

Send message
Joined: 10 Nov 99
Posts: 205
Credit: 1,577,356
RAC: 4
United States
Message 321268 - Posted: 31 May 2006, 13:06:35 UTC



The long term anwser which should be viable in 40 years or less is fusion. The only waste you get is Helium and better yet, you can mix current nuclear waste in with the fuel which will get rid of that problem also.


my $.02 worth


ID: 321268 · Report as offensive
Profile John Clark
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 99
Posts: 16515
Credit: 4,418,829
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 321300 - Posted: 31 May 2006, 13:33:39 UTC - in response to Message 321268.  
Last modified: 31 May 2006, 13:46:24 UTC

The long term anwser which should be viable in 40 years or less is fusion. The only waste you get is Helium and better yet, you can mix current nuclear waste in with the fuel which will get rid of that problem also.

my $.02 worth


This is where the future lies. The torus fusion research has reached the point where more power has been produced than the power used to sustain the process. The problem is sustaining this position for long, and continuous, periods. Later the trick will be to significantly improve the process efficiency.

In the mean time the fission option for long term power generation and security of supplies lies with nuclear generation. But with new designs and a heavy emphasis on interlocking safety systems.

Most countries will not have good options for wind or other "so called" green, and environmentally sustainable" power generation options.

The UK is well served by wind and wave sources as power generation options, as are sunnier countries for solar. Unfortunately the ground footprint of the green alternatives is very obtrusive compared to conventional or nuclear generating sets.

Perhaps the best long term, and possibly sustainable, system should look to micro generation. This is where a single house of comercial site, or small group of homes, is served by a small generating system. If this becomes a reality then the demand for large generators would not bee needed!



It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues



ID: 321300 · Report as offensive
Profile BODLEY Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 02
Posts: 877
Credit: 125,351
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 321312 - Posted: 31 May 2006, 13:42:51 UTC

I think ya gotta admit ...
Whether you like it or not, EACH living person on this Planet is a drain on Energy.
Recoverable resources for Energy HAS to be a constantly depleting item.
More people on the Planet? ... more Energy needed.
Less infant mortality and more old ba$t*rds like me living longer ... there MUST be a limit somewheres.
I have often thought that it is a ridiculous notion to have men digging holes in the ground to bring a substance to the surface that when used just serves to stuff up the planet ecosystem. A similar argument applies to oil. and all its derivatives.
It does NOT need a Rhodes Scholar to tell you that Nuclear is the ONLY way ... before the population explosion settles the matter once and for all ...
that's MY $0.01 worth. (I'll have the other $0.01 later!!!)
ID: 321312 · Report as offensive
Profile John Clark
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 99
Posts: 16515
Credit: 4,418,829
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 321341 - Posted: 31 May 2006, 14:28:49 UTC - in response to Message 321300.  

The long term anwser which should be viable in 40 years or less is fusion. The only waste you get is Helium and better yet, you can mix current nuclear waste in with the fuel which will get rid of that problem also.

my $.02 worth


This is where the future lies. The torus fusion research has reached the point where more power has been produced than the power used to sustain the process. The problem is sustaining this position for long, and continuous, periods. Later the trick will be to significantly improve the process efficiency.

In the mean time the fission option for long term power generation and security of supplies lies with nuclear generation. But with new designs and a heavy emphasis on interlocking safety systems.

Most countries will not have good options for wind or other "so called" green, and environmentally sustainable" power generation options.

The UK is well served by wind and wave sources as power generation options, as are sunnier countries for solar. Unfortunately the ground footprint of the green alternatives is very obtrusive compared to conventional or nuclear generating sets.

Perhaps the best long term, and possibly sustainable, system should look to micro generation. This is where a single house of comercial site, or small group of homes, is served by a small generating system. If this becomes a reality then the demand for large generators would not bee needed!



The really dangerous fission reactors are those fueled with enriched uranium (enhanced isotope 238). These are designed as breeder reactors, and produce 10% more fissile fuel than they burn. This will be used to fuel new breeder reactors. So, for every 9 built the fuel from these, when reprocessed will fuel the 10th.

The reprocessing deals with plutonium 238, with a half life of ~24,000 years.

But, this would make the power generation fuelling independent of natural uranium deposits.

Waste would be seriously hot and dangerous long term, unless handled very carefully!

It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues



ID: 321341 · Report as offensive
Profile BODLEY Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 02
Posts: 877
Credit: 125,351
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 321430 - Posted: 31 May 2006, 15:44:20 UTC - in response to Message 321341.  

Perhaps the best long term, and possibly sustainable, system should look to micro generation. This is where a single house of comercial site, or small group of homes, is served by a small generating system. If this becomes a reality then the demand for large generators would not bee needed!

What a seriously interesting solution!!!
WHY have none of the numbskulls that are elected to provide a Government (not just here, but everywhere), not thought of this ... and acted on it?
ID: 321430 · Report as offensive
Profile BODLEY Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 02
Posts: 877
Credit: 125,351
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 321432 - Posted: 31 May 2006, 15:46:42 UTC - in response to Message 321430.  
Last modified: 31 May 2006, 15:47:04 UTC

Perhaps the best long term, and possibly sustainable, system should look to micro generation. This is where a single house of comercial site, or small group of homes, is served by a small generating system. If this becomes a reality then the demand for large generators would not bee needed!

What a seriously interesting solution!!!
WHY have none of the numbskulls that are elected to provide a Government (not just here, but everywhere), not thought of this ... and acted on it?

btw ... does that mean we would - in the case of meltdown ... only have a small nuclear explosion?
If so ... let's ensure that the first one is built to service 10 Downing street. I would even Pay for it ... personally .... !!!!!!!
ID: 321432 · Report as offensive
Profile joebloe3000

Send message
Joined: 28 Oct 00
Posts: 24
Credit: 3,165,532
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 321524 - Posted: 31 May 2006, 18:03:40 UTC - in response to Message 321432.  

I found this pretty interesting and if it is acurate and not made up, this is our future.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=HF__Qlhtnws&search=water%20power
ID: 321524 · Report as offensive
Profile RDC
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 17 May 99
Posts: 544
Credit: 1,215,728
RAC: 0
United States
Message 322220 - Posted: 1 Jun 2006, 7:35:43 UTC

I live about 15 miles downwind of Shippingsport, PA's reactors (Beaver Valley), which was the first one built for producing electricity in 1957, and there hasn't been any incidents with the reactor that I'm aware of. It always has been rather well run by a private company.

What's humorous though is that even though our area has a nuclear plant, the power is sent out west and not connected to the local area grid and we get our power from coal powered plants.


To truly explore, one must keep an open mind...
ID: 322220 · Report as offensive
Profile BillHyland
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Apr 04
Posts: 907
Credit: 5,764,172
RAC: 0
United States
Message 322226 - Posted: 1 Jun 2006, 8:12:30 UTC - in response to Message 321432.  

...does that mean we would - in the case of meltdown ... only have a small nuclear explosion?

BODLEY, a meltdown, no matter how severe, cannot cause a nuclear explosion, but you can get a chemical explosion or a steam explosion. It is extrordinarily difficult to force the conditions that cause a nuclear explosion. And commercial reactor design is very safe. The Three Mile Island incident in the US is proof of that. TMI was the result of several years of improper (or none at all) maintenance and a chain of decisions that were exactly wrong. The reactor core lost coolant and the result was a very small release of radioactive gas. This is flat out amazing considering that the reactor core was trashed. Everything else was confined within the dome shaped building you see at just about every nuclear power facility called a containment vessel.
ID: 322226 · Report as offensive
1 · 2 · Next

Message boards : Cafe SETI : Nuclear Energy Debate


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.