Nuclear Power
- Thread starter wuluf
- Start date
warrior poet
New member
Most nuke waste isn't super-toxic. (FYI, I was a nuclear engineering major at Penn State when I lost my wife and son tragically. I ended up having to leave school and 'drifted' in the USMC. Go figure.) It isn't the super-long half-life waste (or super-short either) that you have to worry about. They either burn out too fast to be a threat (the super-shorts) or don't give out enough rads to be a worry (the super-long half-lives). The Cesium and Krypton waste have a 'moderate' half-life, and THAT'S the dangerous ones.
As for nuke power, there are BREEDER reactors, where SOME of the waste can be used in another special plant. That eliminates SOME of the total waste. Just a little food for thought. As far as being safe, my professor used to dip a cup into the reactor pool and scoop up some of the water- then drink it. No ill effects, just super-clean, germ-free water. I always found that amusing, and thought I'd share.
What's really interesting to me, though, is WAVE POWER. Using the tides to produce power is free, cuts down on beach erosion, and could possibly help dampen dangerous storms. How's that for a win-win?
As for nuke power, there are BREEDER reactors, where SOME of the waste can be used in another special plant. That eliminates SOME of the total waste. Just a little food for thought. As far as being safe, my professor used to dip a cup into the reactor pool and scoop up some of the water- then drink it. No ill effects, just super-clean, germ-free water. I always found that amusing, and thought I'd share.
What's really interesting to me, though, is WAVE POWER. Using the tides to produce power is free, cuts down on beach erosion, and could possibly help dampen dangerous storms. How's that for a win-win?
oldbillthundercheif
Moderator
Quite a few, but that does not make them unsafe. If you want to know about unsafe reactors, look into the Russian "liquid metal" designs. They had a few problems.
The fact that the industry is already developed means that it can produce power right now. This is a good return on investment, while the other energy forms are still speculative. I will agree with you that govt funds should be used for researching other sources. Can't we do both?
RedneckFur
New member
I spent all my childhood living only a few miles from a nuclear power plant in Southport, NC. It may scare some folks, but I feel perfectly fine around it. Nuclear power is effecient and uses no fossil fuels. I'm all for buiding more reactors.
The Liberal Problem
Here is one problem I have with liberals and thier attitudes towards energy production.
They are against nuclear power because of waste.
They are against coal because of air polution and now greenhouse gases.
They are against hydro-electric generation because dams ruin rivers.
They don't want us to drill for our own oil because of the harm it does to animals.
And yet, they refuse to give up electricity.
Here is one problem I have with liberals and thier attitudes towards energy production.
They are against nuclear power because of waste.
They are against coal because of air polution and now greenhouse gases.
They are against hydro-electric generation because dams ruin rivers.
They don't want us to drill for our own oil because of the harm it does to animals.
And yet, they refuse to give up electricity.
We have at our disposal unlimited capacity to generate electrical energy from tidal or flowing water no dams no nukes no coal, the flow of water in the ocean never stops ,the generators tied to the ocean floor or river bottom are in a hostile environment but are protected from all but the most sever storms.unlimited electrical allows us to produce hydrogen ,BMW just announced a hydrogen powered car in America ,think those boys might know something , some European countries are already heading that direction .If we would step up to this we could tell parts of the world that hate our guts to drink their oil ,save money in the long run ,put a lot of Americans to work ,and put an end to a trade imbalance that is stealing the future of our kids.
nobody_special
New member
Tidal power has it's problems, esp. notably putting metal in a high-corrosion environment.
Nuclear is really the only viable option for the near and maybe mid-term future... it's the only viable technology that doesn't put out CO2. The waste problem can be solved given political will -- my favorite solution is to form the waste into ceramic cylinders and dump them at sea, so they embed deeply into the sub-surface mud in a geologically stable region.
In the long run, we need fusion and cheap solar power. In fact, cheap, low-efficiency solar cells have been developed and production is starting, though I imagine it will take some time to ramp up the scale of production.
Oh, and I am a physicist.
Nuclear is really the only viable option for the near and maybe mid-term future... it's the only viable technology that doesn't put out CO2. The waste problem can be solved given political will -- my favorite solution is to form the waste into ceramic cylinders and dump them at sea, so they embed deeply into the sub-surface mud in a geologically stable region.
In the long run, we need fusion and cheap solar power. In fact, cheap, low-efficiency solar cells have been developed and production is starting, though I imagine it will take some time to ramp up the scale of production.
Oh, and I am a physicist.
Nuclear power is clean, cheap and safe. The people who don't like the idea have spread a tremendous amount of misinformation and misleading information to keep it from being used to any great extent in the U.S. Nuclear waste is not a problem for Europe, why should it be more of a problem here in the U.S.?
But, ok, let's say we don't want to use nuclear power. We have enough coal in the U.S. to last us a century or three. It's cheap, with today's technology it's clean--we could use that--but we don't.
Our problem is not that we don't have good energy sources for electrical power but rather that the general public is so uninformed that the environmentalists can say whatever they want and everyone just nods wisely. Our problem is that we have allowed people whose agenda has nothing to do with what's best for the people of the United States to keep us from building enough power plants (of ANY kind) to keep up with demand.
But, ok, let's say we don't want to use nuclear power. We have enough coal in the U.S. to last us a century or three. It's cheap, with today's technology it's clean--we could use that--but we don't.
Our problem is not that we don't have good energy sources for electrical power but rather that the general public is so uninformed that the environmentalists can say whatever they want and everyone just nods wisely. Our problem is that we have allowed people whose agenda has nothing to do with what's best for the people of the United States to keep us from building enough power plants (of ANY kind) to keep up with demand.
oldbillthundercheif
Moderator
Best for the United States, eh?
Tell that to the residents of Super El-Aay Quadrant 2 South-West of the New United States when their skin falls off in the year 3000.
In order for atomic energy to make us any less reliant on oil, we need to find a way to mine and process the fuel without using huge amounts of oil. Otherwise we are running in place. I'm rooting for fuel-cell powered mining equipment and hydo-power supplied refining facilities and H2 manufacturing plants. Damn the endangered squirrel-clam, we need dams.
Tell that to the residents of Super El-Aay Quadrant 2 South-West of the New United States when their skin falls off in the year 3000.
In order for atomic energy to make us any less reliant on oil, we need to find a way to mine and process the fuel without using huge amounts of oil. Otherwise we are running in place. I'm rooting for fuel-cell powered mining equipment and hydo-power supplied refining facilities and H2 manufacturing plants. Damn the endangered squirrel-clam, we need dams.
Last edited:
The answer to that question lies here: http://units.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/2006/january/article1.cfm
I highly recommend following that link, it's a quick read and pretty informative.
However, the specific answer to your question is:
Brett Bellmore
New member
As a technophile, I'm predisposed to like nuclear power, and all the myths spread about it really annoy me. As a practical engineer who's trying to keep up with developments, though, I conclude that photovoltaic is going to be cost-competitive with nuclear before we could overcome the irrational prejudice against nuclear power. A company called Nanosolar is currently shipping solar panels made by a new, vastly cheaper technique, and once they get all the bugs worked out of their production process, nuclear is dead except for niche applications, like the far north.
theinvisibleheart
New member
Wuluf
My understanding is that nuclear (fission based, not fusion based) is the safest and most cost effective means of energy production. France has the lowest electricity rate of all the EU countries.
Remember, no mode of energy production is 100% failsafe (there are injuries and fatalities involved in conventional energy production). There are safe disposal/storage method of nuclear byproduct with low probability of environmental contamination. Furthermore, in countries which utilize nuclear energy, nuclear waste comprise less than 1% of all the industrial toxic byproduct.
Fission based nuclear energy production is not commercialized as much as in US as in other countries due to regulatory cost. During 1970s/1980s, the cost of complying with ever changing regulation was too expensive.
The other has to do with negative portrayal of nuclear energy by US media such as 1979 thriller "The China Syndrome" (Jane Fonda).
Links from Cato Institute:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4290
http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=777
Wuluf said:
My understanding is that nuclear (fission based, not fusion based) is the safest and most cost effective means of energy production. France has the lowest electricity rate of all the EU countries.
Remember, no mode of energy production is 100% failsafe (there are injuries and fatalities involved in conventional energy production). There are safe disposal/storage method of nuclear byproduct with low probability of environmental contamination. Furthermore, in countries which utilize nuclear energy, nuclear waste comprise less than 1% of all the industrial toxic byproduct.
Fission based nuclear energy production is not commercialized as much as in US as in other countries due to regulatory cost. During 1970s/1980s, the cost of complying with ever changing regulation was too expensive.
The other has to do with negative portrayal of nuclear energy by US media such as 1979 thriller "The China Syndrome" (Jane Fonda).
Links from Cato Institute:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4290
http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=777
Let's build 10 nuclear power plants. And lots of new coal plants, too.
Store the waste in Yucca. Or in Nebraska. Or anyplace else in the USA, but let's make a decision, build the plants, and get it done. Sorry, but the wind energy/solar power energy/someday technology are not going to cut it to provide for this country's power needs.
Let's just get it done. If we can run submarines and air craft carriers from nuclear power, we can do the same for the major cities in the USA. France is doing it. Other countries in Europe are doing it. We can do it too, or we can just complain about the high price of oil and complain about President Bush.
Store the waste in Yucca. Or in Nebraska. Or anyplace else in the USA, but let's make a decision, build the plants, and get it done. Sorry, but the wind energy/solar power energy/someday technology are not going to cut it to provide for this country's power needs.
Let's just get it done. If we can run submarines and air craft carriers from nuclear power, we can do the same for the major cities in the USA. France is doing it. Other countries in Europe are doing it. We can do it too, or we can just complain about the high price of oil and complain about President Bush.
Go Nuclear!
Yep. IMO, nuke plants are the answer. Certainly, science can overcome radioactive storage problems in time. Let's do it! Leftists have a mental disease, so don't pay any attention to them.
About wind: IMO, personal windmills, that can store power via batteries for later use, are a good deal. Almost all of the existing wind farm monstrosities are just a tax scam and near worthless for our power needs.
Yep. IMO, nuke plants are the answer. Certainly, science can overcome radioactive storage problems in time. Let's do it! Leftists have a mental disease, so don't pay any attention to them.
About wind: IMO, personal windmills, that can store power via batteries for later use, are a good deal. Almost all of the existing wind farm monstrosities are just a tax scam and near worthless for our power needs.
I certainly agree that nuclear power needs to be the electrical generation method of the future. All coal and gas fired electrical generating plants need replacement with nuke power.
That will have a secondary benefit of lowering natural gas prices to those consumers and encouraging additional natural gas pipelines to increase customer numbers over what we have now. I live in a somewhat rural area that cries out for natural gas piping. It's not being considered at this point because the Gas suppliers have enough customers and are content to add just a few more each year.
Eliminating natural gas use in the generation of electricity would have multiple benefits; the elimination of coal fired plants would as well. Coal mining has the highest death rate in its production, if memory serves, of any fuel industry.
That will have a secondary benefit of lowering natural gas prices to those consumers and encouraging additional natural gas pipelines to increase customer numbers over what we have now. I live in a somewhat rural area that cries out for natural gas piping. It's not being considered at this point because the Gas suppliers have enough customers and are content to add just a few more each year.
Eliminating natural gas use in the generation of electricity would have multiple benefits; the elimination of coal fired plants would as well. Coal mining has the highest death rate in its production, if memory serves, of any fuel industry.