On Nuclear Power

[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

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.

[Gamble]

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.

[Eutopeus]

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.

[TCWNME]

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.

[Balaam]

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

[Eutopeus]

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!

[Balaam]

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

[Digger Walters]

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.....

[Balaam]

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

[Digger Walters]

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...