View Full Version : Nuke vs. Coal vs. everything else
Echewta
01-24-2005, 02:16 PM
Hmmm. Is it time to revisit nuclear energy as the savior to global warming? WIRED had an article about it in its current issue.
Nuclear power has come along way since the China Crisis and Three Mile Island. Doesn't put out the pollutants that a coal and gas plant would. Cheaper, takes up less space, and produces more energy than bio or solar. Doesn't chop up birds like wind.
I'm not talking about making nuclear weapons here, I'm way against that. But perhaps people who are against nuclear energy should take a second look at the advances that have been made in that industry.
*shrug*
Running_Beastie
01-24-2005, 02:55 PM
Nuclear power is overall an excellent means of producing power. It is far cleaner than coal or oil burning plants; also, it is the second cheapest way of producing power only behind natural gas. While it does have the potential risk of radiation leaks, this problem can be easily eliminated with thorough inspections. The problem is that them energy industries don't want to spend the money to build any new power plants in the country. It would cut into their short term profits meaning the CEOs wouldn't be able to afford their multi-million dollar salaries. What would be even better would be fusion based power instead of fission based. With fusion there is no possibility of a meltdown and no chance of a radiation leak since it utilizes Hydrogen instead of radioactive Uranium. Again, the problem is that the energy industry doesn't want to invest the money into developing such a system because it would be costly in the short term. Right now there is no material that can withstand the high heat necessary for fusion. With some time and serious investment in research this problem could probably be solved. Once you had a structure to house the fusion reaction all you need is water to extract the hydrogen from. Of course, to the energy industry profits are more important than the world we leave for our future generations.
ChrisLove
01-26-2005, 12:12 PM
The problem with Nuclear is largely cost. It may be the second cheapest (I am suprised if it is cheaper than coal) but it is a distant second. They are not competitive economically with gas and dont have the potential that can be achieved from investment that so called renewables have.
Of course environmentally nuclear is pretty good, I suppose even if there was the odd disaster its nothing compared to the damage that fossil fuel plants do on purpose every year, it just seems if you are going to invest in high cost energy for enviromnental reasons you might as well hold on a little while until solar/bio/wind become more viable.
Britain has been decomissioning its nuclear plants but then the Gov promised to reduced CO2 emissions cos of Kyoto which means they will have to go nuclear because otherwise CO2 will increase.
catatonic
01-26-2005, 02:17 PM
But perhaps people who are against nuclear energy should take a second look at the advances that have been made in that industry.
*shrug*
There was a big significant advance since the last time we discussed this. Nuclear Waste is lethal for 2000 years after it's being buried. Before we could only bury it to be safe for 100 years, a big problem that was mentioned in the book, "Toxic Sludge is Good for You."
But now, by packing it with mud and grass in the container, we can bury it safely for 20,000 years. We just better remember where we've buried all the waste in the past. So I see no danger to Nevadans in the Nuclear Waste being buried there now and I actually support Nuclear Energy, but there need to be a ton of redundant safety checks.
I think Nuclear Energy is a good way out of an energy crunch.
ASsman
01-26-2005, 05:13 PM
Researchers report bubble fusion results replicated
http://theinq.com/?article=20839
Damn, can't find the original article.
Running_Beastie
01-26-2005, 05:30 PM
The cost I mentioned didn't include building of plants, it was simply the cost to produce vs. how much power you get out. Building nuclear plants is more expensive than coal plants, but they pay for themselves over time.
catatonic
01-28-2005, 09:06 AM
Is this (http://www.rpi.edu/web/News/press_releases/2004/lahey.htm#cool:) the original article?
catatonic
01-28-2005, 09:11 AM
(!)
ASsman
01-28-2005, 09:12 AM
Yes, excellent.
catatonic
01-28-2005, 09:52 AM
Article (http://scitation.aip.org/getpdf/servlet/GetPDFServlet?filetype=pdf&id=PLEEE8000069000003036109000001&idtype=cvips)
Abstract (http://scitation.aip.org/getpdf/servlet/GetPDFServlet?filetype=pdf&id=PLEEE8000069000003036109000001&idtype=cvips)
I couldn't figure out if the article actually said more energy came out than came in. If someone else finds this in the article please let me know.
catatonic
01-28-2005, 09:58 AM
These new data were taken with an upgraded instrumentation system that allowed data acquisition over a much longer time than was possible in the team’s previous bubble fusion experiments. According to the new data, the observed neutron emission was several orders of magnitude greater than background and had extremely high statistical accuracy. Tritium, which also is produced during the fusion reactions, was measured and the amount produced was found to be consistent with the observed neutron production rate.
I guess that doesn't mean it worked to produce more energy like I first thought.
catatonic
01-28-2005, 09:59 AM
Or does it?
ASsman
01-28-2005, 12:02 PM
I believe it said it produced close to the same, or didn't require AS much (energy input).
vBulletin® v3.6.7, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.