On Nuclear Power

I said I'd do it; perhaps now is too soon for some. If so, you have my sincere apologies; my hope is to pose the question while the issue still holds the interest of the public.

I would suggest that nuclear power, in its ideal form, is one of the cleanest and safest forms of power generation given the constraints placed on the electrical grid, specifically the need for generation plants close enough to major urban and industrial areas to avoid prohibitive transmission losses.

The alternatives that I've learned about are:
- Coal-fired generation plants
- Oil-fired plants
- Natural gas plants
- Hydroelectricity, largely in the form of dams
- Solar farms
- Wind farms
- Biomass generators

All fossil and mineral fuels are limited; all can be presumed to be hazardous materials where they lie in the ground. Hydropower blocks rivers to navigation and destroys fish habitats in addition to adding vast amounts of vegetative pollutants (such as mercury, arsenic, and phosphorus compounds) to the downstream ends. Wind and solar farms are geographically restricted, and solar panels require vast expense in materials and generate a disproportionate amount of hazardous waste in their manufacture. And biomass generators require biomass in truly vast quantities; they also generate mass waste.

I would suggest that the occasional release of a cloud of radioactive steam is less harmful, generally speaking, than the exhaust plumes of the average coal-fired power generation plant. This is particularly true when one averages the pollution against the power generated; many reactors never release such steam, but all coal-burning plants pump out masses of toxic waste all the time they're running.

Of course, the ideal situation would be that we simply use less power. I applaud this as a solution, and to that end I'm turning off my computer and desk lamp.

Nuclear power is the only way forward until we can find/invent an alternative source of clean energy. in england nuclear power plants are being scheduled to shut down and replaced by newer safer reactors, this is a logical thing to do in my eyes until we are smart enough to produce other safer means of producing energy.

Two types of energy conversion I favor and see no reference to are,

Geothermal and Hydrogen power.

A third i find little information on is microwave accumulators.

These three are 0 to little emmission generators.
Hydrogen is portable and microwave would be as well. Geothermal is converted thermal energy and electicity produced is very portable and once converted can be transmitted by further conversion to microwave energy.

I have a theory and have read about a possible use of Mercury in it's liquid state we find on Earth as a catalyst for power generation as well as a fuel. This type of energy production is hazzardous yet very powerful.

At present I feel there is no feasible way to get rid of a reliance on any single source of energy completely. Currently the UK government favours the construction of 8 new nuclear power stations over the construction of a single tidal barrier across the Bristol Channel; one which could produce as much as 5% of the UK's entire energy requirements on its own. In a recent project I was able to conclude that the eventual construction of that tidal barrier is vital for the future energy security of the country, with the main downsides being the 30 billion pounds ($48 billion) it would cost. And also disrupt the flow of sediments, wildlife migration and almost all natural processes in the region.

Another option which is "environmentally friendly" is to use biofuels. It would be far more sustainable than the use of crude oil. However this also results in many problems. The reduction of carbon emissions of the UK to less than 20% by 2050 would require the cultivation of lands four times the size of Wales (84,000 square kilometres), growing nothing but biofuel crops. That would not be grown it the UK. It would actually be grown in significantly poorer countries such as Kenya and Ethiopia, where it will almost certainly result in a decrease of their food security and make them even poorer. And then there are NICs such as Brazil, where to farm these crops they would cut down huge parts of the rainforest and over farm the land until it is infertile and then move on.

Even with such "clean" energy sources we would be screwed. The greatest reduction in the combustion of fossil fuels as an energy source I can see is 50% over the next 40 years. The only realistic way I can imagine developed countries getting away from things like nuclear power is to drastically reduce the amount of energy we actually require. As long as the technology we have is maintained and developed, this should not be a real problem. But the biggest issue may be governments, who either are not able to put the required money into environmental sustainability projects, or do not believe that humans are responsible for enhancing the greenhouse effect.

governments never cease to disappoint me
when they make these types of decisions they show that they have some other motives at play besides just the delivery of clean renewable energy

i don't know a lot about tidal energy creation except they're a little like wind turbines and take advantage of the fact that the tides will pretty much constantly roll in and out, unlike the wind which has more variables

i can't think of any better solution for large scale (green) electricity generation

Tidal energy has many uses besides energy creation. Tides can be utilized as a pump to move waste from collection sites to treatment plants and anything else that can be piplined.

I have faith in Nuclear Energy as being far better and efficient than most forms of energy conversion.

Green energy is available in vast renewable quantities,with 0 emmission. One source will not meet our needs alone until infrastucture is in place to provide it where needed.Each type as a supplement or assisstant to our needs is more reliable for now.

My choice is based on not feeling that reliance on one type of enegy is reliable at all times.
For instance a vehicle that rely's on fossil fuel will stop when fuel is spent.The same with electric vehicles. A mix of the two or possibly a 3rd makes sense.Besides reducing cost of travel you gain dependability. I'd be dissapointed to get half way across the desert or ocean and find myself stranded.Maybe worse at 30000 feet.

I agree wholeheartedly about governments. They must be convinced their constituants will share the added wealth with them as they grandstand around arguing with each other who's idea it was 1st.

I'll quit Rambeling for now!

i know that a lot of people include nuclear power in the list when talking about green energy and i do understand that it has less real time atmospheric pollution than coal and gas fired generators but being there's this little 100 year half life on the deadly radioactive waste that's still needed to be dealt with... i personally don't think nuclear should earn the green tick that some want to give it

Balaam they have ways of storing the used uranium etc... the Russians for instance used to dump their reactors from old suubs in the Balkan sea in kilometres of mud that from what I can remember doesnt corrode or corrodes the reactors so slowly that by the time they corrode away and "leak" radioactive waste that waste is just about all gone well back to human levels anyways.... and they are constantly working on how to store it without it causing destruction to the environment that its surrounded by.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Digger Walters

Balaam they have ways of storing the used uranium etc...

---

i totally agree, nuclear is far more acceptable to me than coal
i just think to call it green is drawing a very long bow

EDIT: i'd be perfectly happy to call it MORE green than <insert other source>
nothing is actually totally green because you will most likely cause some pollution in every construction project
so my measure of how green the energy relates to on-going impact on the planet

Well then theres wind generators, or water turbine Im not a fan of solar as they are only temporary and they require huge amounts of energy ot be built wet windmills and turbines on a small scale dont require much a truck alternator with a fan thats either water proofed or placed high up in the air so it spins quicker... and that the averge joe blow like you or me can do this from basic things found on a scrapheap which in stead of building mountains or flooding dams to use the big buggers we just use the natural things that sit there eg. sit a windmill on a nearby hill or on a pole and sit the water turbine in a fast flowing riverand yes I know I know not everyone lives by these but some most do if you dont live by a river byou tend to get SOME wind dont you and even if you live by a river Ive been to places that have both strong winds and strong river currents...

This all boils (pardon the pun) down to the difference between continuous power output levels vs. fill-in power levels.

It's all very politically correct to talk about "green" energy sources, but the problem is that the traditional "green" technologies all lack the output levels needed for the current generation of electricity usage.

It's also very politically correct to then say "reduce the electricity usage". That's simply not feasible for consumers to do, as certain levels of energy usage are needed for heating (whole-house and water), cooking, cleaning, and recreation. That's only dealing with household tasks, not even taking into account cars, public transit, public safety (stop lights, street lights, water, sewer), electricity production itself (keeping the lights on for the workers, pumping water, etc..) and on and on...

This was the 2009 power production for the United States:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._source_v2.png

Coal and natural gas production could be reduced slightly with more focus on nuclear, but the problem with nuclear is if it has to be shut down for whatever reason, there is a lengthy restart process that doesn't exist for coal and natural gas plants, that's why I think the coal and gas fired production can only slightly be reduced.

The best thing that can be done is to create incentives for companies to produce products that consume less electricity so that the overall consumption is reduced. So long as the demand remains high, the need for high output coal and natural gas plants are going to remain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Digger Walters

windmills and turbines on a small scale dont require much a truck alternator with a fan thats either water proofed or placed high up in the air so it spins quicker... and that the averge joe blow like you or me can do this from basic things found on a scrapheap

---

i've been helping a mate do this to power the lights in his shed (all 12v)
i'm waiting 'til he sorts out the bugs before i try it myself
problem is it still needs batteries because you cant depend on the wind

he's still struggling with the supplies for the tower because the plan is to complete the entire project from scrap we get from the tip or the wreckers (except the batteries)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neko_lord

It's all very politically correct to talk about "green" energy sources

---

i've been called a lot of things but politically correct is a new one for me :D

as far as the rest of your post, to say as long as demand is high there will be the need for a cheap and dirty supply... well i kinda agree but i wish i didn't

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Balaam

i've been helping a mate do this to power the lights in his shed (all 12v)
i'm waiting 'til he sorts out the bugs before i try it myself
problem is it still needs batteries because you cant depend on the wind

he's still struggling with the supplies for the tower because the plan is to complete the entire project from scrap we get from the tip or the wreckers (except the batteries)

---

I thought about something similar and I thought why not use a whirlybird out of a roof in a house? a bit of round bar coming down from the whirlybird to the alternator and then run the dc power through a battery into a transformer/invertor and convert it into Ac power then boom youve got it right well I htink so anyway as a 17 year old living at home I cant really do itmyself would love to try though....

Actually, nuclear waste is but fuel in a breeder reactor pile. I'm serious here - almost everything can be dumped into one pile or another; low-level irradiated shielding can get a low-energy pile all its own, and electricity can be generated using a simple inverse heat pump with coolant turbines. High-energy waste takes rather more, but again, we've got a long-term energy production device. As piles become more or less active, the generators can be shifted modularly from one breeder pile to the next, with the least-active doing simple dump duty at a nominal increase.

Granted, there's a fair thermal plume from something like this, but so long as everything's encapsulated and - most importantly - it's in a tectonically stable location, who really cares?

I agree that the best place for a nuke plant is NOT right next to an ocean when in an earthquake- and tsunami-prone region. But there are many many places that are out of reach of any tsunami yet seen (barring Noah and his ark) and that haven't seen an earthquake over 2.5 in a hundred thousand years.

The main difficulty there is one of transmission.

Hydrogen and mercury et cetera have been mentioned; I'd like to point out that, while these are not bad ideas, they're not power generators. They'd work well as alternative fuels, though.

As far as hideous disfigurements go... well, frankly, industrial solvents are worse than nuke plants. Some of these are essential in the maintenance of coal plants -- and the detritus is often left in a landfill. Talk about unpleasant!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaptainRon

When its YOUR entire family, including all generations that have cancer and your babies are born with hideous difigurements, then lets see you say out loud that the benefits of nuclear energy far outweigh the risks. I almost had a region a mere 2okm away from my home turned into a low lvl nuclear waste dump, waste from countries all over the world. They were going to simply bury drums in the ground ROFL!. Thankfully the uproar that was echoed throughout the community saw the government either ban the project or lose its seat in parliament. They banned the project. All about $$$$ and nothing to do with proper research or knowledge or safety. Nuclear energy has waste that is not properly neutralised. Nuclear energy only seems to negatively effect those nearest to it (i certainly hope your government do not decide to build a nuclear facitlity on the paddock next door to you!). I could only hope human kind will take the step to inventing a green energy source that remains sustainable for thousands of years to come.

---

thank god for politicians

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by *jdm*

thank god for politicians

---

do i really have to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Digger Walters

wet windmills and turbines on a small scale dont require much a truck alternator with a fan thats either water proofed or placed high up in the air so it spins quicker... and that the averge joe blow like you or me can do this from basic things found on a scrapheap ...

---

I Would like to mention that old DC motors from your local pile of discarded electric treadmills will work just fine as a generator. A dc motor can serve as an engine to power your vehicle as well as a generator to recharge your energy cell. Electricity can then be used to illuminate,run onboard computers and control centers or entertainment.

If my previous posts led anyone to believe I feel nuclear is a type of "green energy" apologies because I do not. Though as mentioned a breeder reactor utilizes spent fuel through an enrichment process that rather than producing waste, enriches your fuel until you reach weapons grade. :(

At the point you have developed weapons grade plutonium, you no longer have to worry about a source of fuel for your population. :devil:

Another type of energy production is Ionized gas generation. by super heating Gases and passing through a magnetic field. Electricity is captured.

I could explain where this electricity comes from and why it is produced,but prefer that those interested will do some research on their own and save this thread space,and me time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gnerphk

I said I'd do it; perhaps now is too soon for some. If so, you have my sincere apologies; my hope is to pose the question while the issue still holds the interest of the public.

I would suggest that nuclear power, in its ideal form, is one of the cleanest and safest forms of power generation given the constraints placed on the electrical grid, specifically the need for generation plants close enough to major urban and industrial areas to avoid prohibitive transmission losses.

The alternatives that I've learned about are:
- Coal-fired generation plants
- Oil-fired plants
- Natural gas plants
- Hydroelectricity, largely in the form of dams
- Solar farms
- Wind farms
- Biomass generators

---

there are more
how about tidal power plant?

and to the rest you state...we dont have to look for better way to gain power - we should put more afford into finding ways to not waste electricity all time. I n?know wasting ressources is something most americans really enjoy due to there life style. Even more important it is that a big nation like the states put more work into it and not only the lil ones like Germany. *proud*

same goes to china and and all the others that love to go for profit and dont care what they destroy by reaching it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by annagilbert

...we dont have to look for better way to gain power - we should put more afford into finding ways to not waste electricity all time....

---

i think both, there has to be better energy sources and a reduction in usage

Oh, certainly! That's the thing, though -- until we've decreased power consumption (and I doubt we will), we need to produce it as cleanly as possible.

And I for one stand behind nuclear power. (As far behind as I can, actually... but then again, I also avoid standing downwind of coal plants.)

^Oh goodie I git to follow the a****** who does those annoying b.o.t.t.z. from mother ruska


K .. You guys have come up with some very interesting facts and ideas. I would suggest not leaving it to the other guys to figure this out, but instead try to get grants to proceed with these ideas of ya'lls, for it is assured you will be the one's who will benefit or be harmed by all that transpires in the energy producing fields.

Whatever the choice of energy production you choose, remember there are always pros and cons to every choice. The idea that because it seems green means safe and suited for the continued health of the environment is just a colorful picture of daiseys painted on a canvas made of corruption and disillusionment.

The truth of the matter is, there is always a byproduct to energy production.

Take wind generators; good clean energy right? uh huh wrong. Those big ol propellers are made of spun fiberglass. The chemical to bind those fibers together is an epoxy resin polyurethane ... very toxic

Also the degree of maintaining them is astronomical. tankers full of 80wt oil just to keep all the parts moving, means more fossil fuels have to be refined and other cons

Take tide generators; the rolling wave energy can be transferred into mecanichal energy, transferred into electrical energy, clean right? perhaps, however, one would have to saturate coastlines with so many of them, just to keep up with demand and then of course the same thing as with the wind generators, the production of the material used to build them would of course add to the increased toxicity to the environment just because of what they are made of. Not to mention again the cost of maintenance to provide a fleet of service tuggs to daily inspect, repair, rebuild, etc

Course it seems you guys have already seen the pitfalls to solar, so no need to expound on the cons there.

Take hydrogen; now this is an interesting fuel source .. plentiful .. can be produced somewhat inexpensively, however depending on what and how you use it is where the cons come in. Hydrogen cell engines are cool, yet they require the metal platinum in the transition of the energy. Platinum aint plentiful, though it can be made synthetically by "NUCLEAR" processes, and therein lies the rubb. Again, just the production of the materials used on "clean green" energy can be and are toxic to the environment.

Okay lets go into Bio fuels ... no wait, before we do that let me ask you, does it make sense to make food into fuel? and what about the massive amount of lye that must be produced as a catylyst to replace the paraffin with the alcholol? again blah production blah of blah materials blah hazardous blah to blah envir.... blah blah blah

The best idea ya'll have mentioned so far which is most doable is geothermal. Very clean, very efficient, and the only persons who are affected really are those who lie in hell, so no problem there, they dont mind. EXPENSIVE at first yet one can reduce their electric bill by 80% per year in most cases.

The BIG Geothermal Energy Production plants have only one flaw I can see, and that is is that they must be built where the crust of the earth is [relatively] thin, and have plenty of fresh non-saline water.

Then of course you have the old ways of Nuclear, Coal, Dams/Resevoirs, and Oil.

No matter what you use, there will always be a consequence to what is used. How you develope your technologies will determine how well you protect the environment you live in. I know of course that there will be a butt load of work to accomplish this symbiotic relationship to energy production, especially in the changes need to the infrastructure already inplace. Not an easy task no doubt.

I would suggest ya'll take a little of all of the available technologies and weave them into a cohesive grid, re-use the by-products and not just throw them away, cept for radioactive waste, and in that case everyone is just gonna have to accept that its got to go into someone's backyard somewhere. Decide where that will be and just do it.

For if you all intend on insisting on using what energy production provides, then you need to accept the consequences of ya'll's insistance and deal with the whole process and see it to the end. Aint no one else gonna do it for you.

The only other option is to change the whole world's way of thinking and go back to caveman days, and just scavage for food and pooh over a cliff.

The Solar Thermal Tower
This is not my idea, it's just a concept that was proposed for this area, which is sunny most of the year round. The concept is that you need to build a high tower, around 1km or 1/2 mile was proposed, and build a collection area of solar thermal mass around the base of the tower. The concept for here was to build glass houses, or a large single glasshouse which could be used for growing food. The heat that builds up in the thermal mass at ground level is channeled into the base of the tower, which is more like a chimney and that hot air would pass up through the tower, spinning turbines as it goes, to be expelled at the top. The idea is that the thermal mass is so efficient at collecting heat and storing it that there would be no reduction in power production at night, giving the elusive dependable base load power that is lacking in most sustainable energy projects. The difference in the air temperature at 1km high and ground level is the major driving force to this energy production method.

I had some concerns about the ill effects of pumping hot air into the atmosphere like that but really, it's just part of a natural process of heat exchange that goes on every day and night all over the planet. Other than that, there are all the construction costs and maintenance issues, as there are with any large power generators.

In all honesty, I prefer the stand-alone power systems that are basically hybrid solar/wind/biogas and hydro (if you're lucky) with a huge emphasis on energy efficient house and building design, including incorporating things like geo-thermal piping to help regulate house temperatures, proper building alignment to maximise passive solar efficiency and other methods of reducing the energy requirements for new buildings. This doesn't give the base-load power that is required by industry and commerce but it does help reduce the amount of base-load that is required overall.

http://www.nebrinc.com/images/Vertic...lustration.jpg
Geothermal heating/cooling systems can help regulate household temperatures.

There are two areas that still need heaps of work at this stage, those being generators and energy storage systems. With all the coal and oil in the world to burn, not much real work has been done here and there is much room for improvement I think. A generator produces electricity by spinning high-powered magnets in a copper wire coil. Usually, those magnets are made of steel and can be extremely heavy, so if we can reduce the weight of those magnets without reducing their efficiency, we can reduce the drag on moving parts and increase the energy efficiency of any generator. I know there has been some work done with ceramic magnets but I don't know very much about it. (sorry)

Energy storage systems are still very basic at this stage. If we can find a cheaper and cleaner way to store energy for later use, most households could become energy self-sufficient in no time. I know there are some modern batteries around that are far superior to the old lead-acid types but they tend to contain highly toxic materials and have a limited lifespan. We really need a clean and long-lasting storage system, like yesterday.

Solar Energy from Saline Ponds.
This concept was first developed in Israel and has been adapted and is in use at the Pyramid Hill salt works in Australia as well as at remote townships such as Alice Springs and Birdsville. The pond requires a large surface area and a large supply of very saline water but a reasonably sized plant can produce up to 150kw of electricity in the right conditions.

http://i460.photobucket.com/albums/q...yramidHill.jpg

This picture of the Solar pond at Pyramid Hill (near Kerang in Northern Victoria) shows the mesh of pipes running down the wall of the pond. These run across the bottom of the pond and up the other side. Fresh water (or radiator coolant) is circulated through them, and is heated by the saline pond water. This hot fluid is then used to heat glass houses, boil refrigerant in a rankine engine to make electricity, or (in the case of Pyramid Hill) used to heat air to flash dry gourmet salt products.

See-Through Solar Film for Windows
This is fairly new technology that I heard about a while ago but it has great potential, especially in the urban enviroment, where whole office towers could become energy producers and maybe even net energy exporters rather than energy consumers. The beauty of this spray-on film is that it can be easily retro-fitted to any existing building and is reasonably cheap and low energy to manufacture. It may not be base-load power but once again, we really need to work on energy storage/release systems for the future.

Look, none of these are perfect in any way and each has specific requirements to work efficiently but these are a few methods of larger-scale energy production that I am aware of. I tend to focus on what will work where I am, so these are suited to my environment but may not be suited to yours. Sorry but you will probably find that if you look hard enough you will find other methods that suit your own specific environment.

I would like to add that a lot of these technologies are still in their infancy and will still need more work to get the maximum energy efficiency required. We will also need to look at our own and societies energy consumption and especially patterns of use that create this need for such a high level of base-load energy that is really only needed for short periods at specific times of day. Can we adapt what we do so as to reduce these periods of peak power usage? I think we can.

Of course King Albion is right. There is always a cost involved and many green technologies hide those costs in the manufacturing process, the materials used and the ongoing maintenance costs. Those low-energy fluorescent bulbs for example are very energy efficient in use but require more energy in production and contain materials like mercury which make them an environmental hazard when broken.

Nuclear power is no different. The plants are expensive to build, expensive to maintain and only have a limited lifespan of around 30 - 40 years before a costly and hazardous shut-down proceedure can be implemented. Then there are the spent fuel rods, which are still "hot" and require careful storage and handling. The nuclear industry was first developed to provide the US (and British and Soviet, etc. etc. etc.) with a source of weapons-grade plutonium and the industry as a whole has relied on government subsidy to continue to operate. If we stop building nuclear weapons then the impetus for government subsidy might run out anyway. I am not saying there is no place for nuclear power. It just isn't very practical in real terms yet. We need better technology there as well.

There was some mention of a different type of nuclear generator that uses a different fuel than uranium. These are thorium generators I think, which are considered the greener nuclear alternative and can even be used to safely dispose of spent uranium fuel rods (plutonium). It looks good but is still in the experimental stage. Still, you never know. Whatever happens, we really need to adjust the way we do things currently. We live in a consumer society and although that is good for business and good for developing new technologies (most of them toys) it is bad for the planet and the human population as a whole. I think we really need to look at the way we manufacture products that are designed to fail or become obsolete in a short space of time and address that. We are squandering our future for what? To make money? All the money in the world won't be worth a grain of salt if the planet gets screwed in the process. Rich and poor, we will all die together.

nice post rodri!

Yeah; apparently, I have to spread Rep around more before giving it to Rodri again.

One addendum: The nuclear reactor type known as an Integral Fast Breeder uses electroplating to consume fuel in highly efficient fashion; the process yields minimal waste, since virtually all of the produced materials are converted back into fuel for the reactor.

I do Theorise, turning lakes into producers. A deep pond/lake, with a clear layer of fresh water suspended in the depths and a saline layer on the surface breeding algaes,preferably bluegreen in color. This may store energy in the form of heat energy assisted by solar collection. I may be wrong on this.

Energy can be pruduced in many ways by convection, stated in rodri's post about wind towers. I agree with comment on change to atmosphere though.

I'll say that" nothing is free"
Energy incuded!. then Ms. nature takes over! Maybe we can defeat universal law and physics! Remember,Balance!

Nuclear power got owned by this
http://www.data0.net/wp-content/uplo..._craftfile.png

by the way does anyone know where to get the full source code for the stuxnet worm?

Wow. I had no idea 20.3 percent was nuclear to be honest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moghedien

Nuclear power got owned by this
http://www.data0.net/wp-content/uplo..._craftfile.png

by the way does anyone know where to get the full source code for the stuxnet worm?

---

why do you need full stuxnet worm code? You must want to blow up a pipeline or cut off supplies, huh?

i want to compile it and research it on a comp not connected to any network
When im done i will do a gutman (35 passes) hard disk wipe and flush the firm ware