2 edits
Originally posted by Black Star UchessSafety and pollution are not the only issues here. You can forget about safety and pollution -what about the fact that nuclear fission is non-sustainable and the fact that, unlike renewables, whether we like it or not we would be forced to eventually abandon all nuclear fission anyway no mater HOW much we may try not to?
From Above ;
'Nuclear plants can deliver much more energy than coal with virtually no air pollution'
Isn't that what we need? The arguments about Coal vs Nuclaer safety are interesting , but a bit mute:
Nuclear is intrinsically more hazardous in the short term - the technology is more complex. Perhaps when it was new, in the 1940s it was powers stations in pollution filters which make them run slower is a very short term fix.
The ore for the nuclear fuel is finite and WILL run out (just like coal) and once all the nuclear fuel is all spent there logically cannot be any more nuclear fission. And the more we turn to nuclear fission the quicker all that remaining nuclear fuel will be spent! -are you in agreement with me here so far? -this is just the consequences of the laws of physics.
So, even if it is made infinitely safe, nuclear fission logically has absolutely no long-term future.
Only the renewables have any real future which is why we should invest heavily on research into developing them and only them -it would be a waste of money, time and resources to invest in something that has no future such as coal or nuclear fission.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThis all depends on the numbers. How finite is it? At what rate will we use it up? If it will all be gone after 10 years then yes it is a wate of money. But if it will last 500 years when used up at 100 times the current rate, then that buys us lots of time.
Safety and pollution are not the only issues here. You can forget about safety and pollution -what about the fact that nuclear fission is non-sustainable and the fact that, unlike renewables, whether we like it or not we would be forced to eventually abandon all nuclear fission anyway no mater HOW much we may try not to?
The ore for the nuclear fue ...[text shortened]... y, time and resources to invest in something that has no future such as coal or nuclear fission.
Even renewables are a finite resource: Solar is powered by the sun, which will burn out in a few billion years. Tides are powered by the moon, which is gradually receding. etc etc.
So it all depends on the scale: how finite is fissionable material?
--- Penguin.
7 edits
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonHi Andrew
Safety and pollution are not the only issues here. You can forget about safety and pollution -what about the fact that nuclear fission is non-sustainable and the fact that, unlike renewables, whether we like it or not we would be forced to eventually abandon all nuclear fission anyway no mater HOW much we may try not to?
The ore for the nuclear fue ...[text shortened]... y, time and resources to invest in something that has no future such as coal or nuclear fission.
I agree in that cleaner coal power is good to, just saying it should not be counted on. I think it would very hard to have it without large amounts of CO2. Also Uranium / plotunium ore is finite but modern reactors can renew fuel and require relatively little of it. I went on a tour of one in france years ago 🙂 it is quite safe.
Re Nuclear waste. I agree this is a big problem. remember ( again from that project lol). It needs to be stored deep in rock for 1000s of yrs.... a deterent. but can be worked around.
But there is an important point about economic growth. There are a lots of developing countires, using coal / gas / oil to European levels would cause problems ( e.g the tiny Indian car they are importing to the UK.,... if everyone in UK and India drove one...) Nuclear Fission & Fusion offer more then enough to compensate and provide growth. We should be investing in it.
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI disagree and the folks around Chernobyl and Three Mile Island would also. There are fewer incidents because there are exponentially fewer facilities. Also, we haven't figured out what to with a byproduct that lasts in the thousands and thousands of years other than make a bomb out of it. Energy sources should have no byproduct or byproduct that is not harmful to life or they should no be used. Nuclear power doesn't fit the criteria. Obviously, a good many other types don't fit the criteria, either, and changes must happen.
Even if you correct for the number of plants, you will find that coal plants kill a lot more, but I agree, it's mostly just irrationality - people tend to overestimate very small chances of something dramatic happening. This is why lotteries and Greenpeace exist.
Originally posted by Black Star UchessYou really might consider informing yourself before your lack of knowledge causes you to embarrass yourself publicly, as you've done here.
I'm wondering what you think about Nuclear power?
Ages ago I did a project on energy & remember there being 4000 years of uranium, it being more common then silver (?) so have been in favour of it ever since.
But now reading more history it seems nuclear power and weapons have never been that seperate. And most of the nuclear accidents have ...[text shortened]... ne another....) . It seems a bit of a waste this money & science is not spent on powerstations.
Originally posted by BadwaterMirror mirror on the wall...who's the most ignorant of them all? You're a strong candidate.
I disagree and the folks around Chernobyl and Three Mile Island would also. There are fewer incidents because there are exponentially fewer facilities. Also, we haven't figured out what to with a byproduct that lasts in the thousands and thousands of years other than make a bomb out of it. Energy sources should have no byproduct or byproduct that is not har ...[text shortened]... . Obviously, a good many other types don't fit the criteria, either, and changes must happen.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI'm reading this thread backward, so you might be outdone, but right now, you're the leader in the Biggest Moron contest.
Safety and pollution are not the only issues here. You can forget about safety and pollution -what about the fact that nuclear fission is non-sustainable and the fact that, unlike renewables, whether we like it or not we would be forced to eventually abandon all nuclear fission anyway no mater HOW much we may try not to?
The ore for the nuclear fue ...[text shortened]... y, time and resources to invest in something that has no future such as coal or nuclear fission.
e expensive to store.The initial investment for any power plant is large.
3. The technology has weapons applications so encouraging nuclear power in nations that do not pppppphave nuclear weapons is unwise and security surrounding the whole technology is a major concern.
4. The risk of disaster is quite high. Although, as with aeroplanes, attention to safety procedures can reduce the actual risk, there is always the human factor.
I personally ...[text shortened]... t think we do need to proceed with care. We also should not neglect other good sources of power.[/b]
Spent fuel is dangerous in the same way that playing in traffic is dangerous.
Enriching uranium to commercial fuel levels is the first in a long series of steps, each one harder and more complex than the previous one.
The acceptable risk of disaster for nuclear plants in the western world, and the level to which plants are designed to fail - let's call disaster core damage - is on the order of one event every ten thousand years.
1 edit
Originally posted by Penguin…But if it will last 500 years when used up at 100 times the current rate, then that buys us lots of time. ..…
This all depends on the numbers. How finite is it? At what rate will we use it up? If it will all be gone after 10 years then yes it is a wate of money. But if it will last 500 years when used up at 100 times the current rate, then that buys us lots of time.
Even renewables are a finite resource: Solar is powered by the sun, which will burn out in a few b ...[text shortened]... etc etc.
So it all depends on the scale: how finite is fissionable material?
--- Penguin.
But surely you don’t believe that -all the current estimates suggest that both nuclear fission and fossil fuels will peak and then start to run out well before that!
Estimates vary wildly and are difficult to make but, never a less, intelligent estimates can be made:
http://robertkyriakides.wordpress.com/2008/04/07/peak-coal-when-will-coal-run-out/
We are definitely talking decades for fossil fuels rather than centuries here!
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=When+will+Uranium+ore++run+out&btnG=Search
-and this is assuming that we don’t increase usage of nuclear fission -if we do greatly increase usage, Uranium ore will run out much sooner. For example, if we increase nuclear fission energy production five-fold, then supplies of uranium ore could start to dwindle significantly in just 20 years time!
2 edits
Originally posted by sasquatch672Exactly which part of that post of mine do you disagree with and why? What is your counter argument?
I'm reading this thread backward, so you might be outdone, but right now, you're the leader in the Biggest Moron contest.
Note that my argument is NOT that nuclear fission is “unsafe” but rather it is non-renewable.
3 edits
Originally posted by sasquatch672Exactly which part of that post of his do you disagree with and why? what is your counter argument?
Mirror mirror on the wall...who's the most ignorant of them all? You're a strong candidate.
It is no good just saying what a person says is “stupid” or “ignorant” etc; you must elaborate if you are to have a meaningful debate else you might be the one being stupid.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonWhat I meant was that without having those numbers to hand, meaningful debate is impossible. And I am too lazy to go and research the numbers! I certainly did not intend to imply that I either agreed or disagreed with you.
[b]…But if it will last 500 years when used up at 100 times the current rate, then that buys us lots of time. ..…
But surely you don’t believe that -all the current estimates suggest that both nuclear fission and fossil fuels will peak and then start to run out well before that!
Estimates vary wildly and are difficult to make but, never a l ...[text shortened]... e-fold, then supplies of uranium ore could start to dwindle significantly in just 20 years time![/b]
Thanks for the links. I looked at the results of the Google search and found a number of sites , some saying supplies will run out Real Soon Now and others giving the opposite view. Here is an extract from one of the sites [http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2008/02/will-uranium-run-out.html]:
Breeders reactors produces 100 times as much energy from each pound of natural uranium than old fassion Light Water Reacors do. Thus a 50 year uranium supply for light water reactors would last 5000 years, with breeder reactors. In addition to uranium, the world is well supplied with thorium. Thorium can be breed into fissionable U233. Thorium is 4 times as plantiful in the earth's crust as uranium.
Easily and inexpensively extractable uranium and thorium can sustain a high energy, world wide economy for tens of thousands of years.
The guy speaks as if he knows his stuff, though I have no idea how reputable or authoritative he is. One thing that casts doubt for me on what he says is that his grammar and spelling leave a lot to be desired (I counted 6 typo's in the fist paragraph I have quoted). Why I should consider that to be a reflection on his subject knowledge is probably an interesting psychological question!
Just to put my uninformed views on the record, I understood that the resources were relatively plentiful and extraction / processing costs were not prohibitive.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonJust looked one of the 'against' sites (http://www.theecologist.org/pages/archive_detail.asp?content_id=627), which has this to say about fast breeders and Thorium:
[b]…But if it will last 500 years when used up at 100 times the current rate, then that buys us lots of time. ..…
But surely you don’t believe that -all the current estimates suggest that both nuclear fission and fossil fuels will peak and then start to run out well before that!
Estimates vary wildly and are difficult to make but, never a l ...[text shortened]... e-fold, then supplies of uranium ore could start to dwindle significantly in just 20 years time![/b]
The other hope is that fast-breed reactors will come on stream. These are reactors that create their own fuel while they generate electricity. It was the promise of this technology that led to the claim 50 years ago that nuclear power would generate electricity ‘too cheap to meter’. The problem is that fast-breed reactors have never worked.
‘Breeding’ involves three complex operations working in conjunction: breeding, reprocessing and fuel fabrication, which has never been achieved. The process causes waste that clogs and corrodes the equipment undertaking it. There are three fast-breed reactors in the world: Beloyarsk-3 in Russia, Monju in Japan and Phenix in France. Monju and Phenix have long been out of operation; Beloyarsk is still operating, but it has never bred.
Nevertheless, the nuclear industry still believes fast breed technology holds the answer to future electricity supply, using thorium as a fuel. Ceedata estimates this technology, which relies on uranium and plutonium as a start-up fuel, could theoretically double in size every 40 years. So if we use uranium and plutonium to fire up two thorium reactors today, in 40 years they would have made enough fuel to start another two. This accepts the technology is ready, which it is not. The most optimistic forecast is that this technology might be ready in 20 years.
I thought that fast breeders were proven and working. Maybe I was wrong. Is there a nuclear physicist in the house?
--- Penguin.