NUCLEAR POWER VERSUS RENEWABLE ENERGY

[danie]

I want to start a debate on renewable energy versus nuclear energy. Topics to consider. politics, cost , safety, spent fuel , fuel reserves etc.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Discussion of the politics of it needs to take place on the politics board

[Advaithi]

I want to start a debate on renewable energy versus nuclear energy. Topics to consider. politics, cost , safety, spent fuel , fuel reserves etc.

 

 

Recent disasters proved nuclear energy sources are highly dangerous. We should think and implemet every possible plans to reduce the usage of renewable and non renewable resources. It takes thousands of years to form every drop of petroleum under earth but people wasting it within seconds.

[insane_alien]

Recent disasters proved nuclear energy sources are highly dangerous.

 

Have they really?

 

i'm pretty sure that the deaths and injuries caused by nuclear power are still lower than those caused by other means of power generation.

[swansont]

The perception is skewed by the scale of the disasters and the level at which we discriminate events as news. Much like airplane travel seems dangerous because we hear about every plane crash, but statistics show that driving is more dangerous.

[SMF]

If debating these options in any way suggests that it has to be an either/or choice, I would debate this notion. Also, I think that conservation should be included as the low hanging fruit for solving future energy problems. SM

[lemur]

If debating these options in any way suggests that it has to be an either/or choice, I would debate this notion. Also, I think that conservation should be included as the low hanging fruit for solving future energy problems. SM

I think that the idea that nuclear energy is clean and practically infinitely abundant contributes to an attitude that high energy dependence is not detrimental except insofar as it depletes energy reserves, which in itself would just be a social-political issue, but I believe it stimulates engineering , design, and other industrial approaches that treat energy as nothing more than an afterthought. So, for example, following WWII power appliances started multiplying, such as washing machines, electric clothes dryers, air-conditioning, electric heaters, etc. all presumably with the idea that convenience was more valuable than energy, which was viewed as suddenly as abundant as atoms. Even if atomic energy did/does turn out to be infinitely abundant, I still think it has a detrimental effect on humans to become so accustomed to lifestyle patterns that depend on levels of energy that would be extremely difficult to replicate using traditional methods such as wood-burning or even coal-power. It's fine, imo, to save a mountain, or forest, or some coal-miners from getting trapped underground by substituting nuclear power for other industrial energy-sources, but I still think conservation should continue to work toward cultural patterns that reduce people's overall energy-dependency so that they have more power of their environments relative to what they are accustomed to in the event of energy unavailability. It just doesn't make sense to me for individuals to consume many hundreds or even thousands of kwh when extracting that same amount of energy from sunlight, coal, wood, etc. would overwhelm them.

[CaptainPanic]

Have they really?

 

i'm pretty sure that the deaths and injuries caused by nuclear power are still lower than those caused by other means of power generation.

Including solar and wind power?

[insane_alien]

well, ma.ybe not those two but they don't yet have a massive fraction of the energy market.

[CaptainPanic]

well, ma.ybe not those two but they don't yet have a massive fraction of the energy market.

 

True, but that is not an argument against those types of power...

They should always be included (especially if the thread title asks us to include them).

 

Solar and wind power are becoming more competitive (they are becoming cheaper while other forms of energy are getting more and more expensive). The discussion about nuclear energy is a long-term discussion because of the complexity of a nuclear reactor, so the price-trends and safety records of solar/wind must be considered in the right time frame too (long term).

 

A comparison of nuclear and sustainable energy in the current situation is a fallacy in itself, because the at least 10 years pass between initial planning and actual start-up of a nuclear plant. The time needed between first plans and actual start-up of wind energy is much shorter (1 year?) and solar cells can be placed in a matter of days.

 

It would only be fair to compare nuclear and solar/wind at the same start-up date, not the same day of the first draft plans. That would mean comparing the current state-of-the-art nuclear energy technology vs. solar/wind in 9-10 years from now.

Edited April 22, 2011 by CaptainPanic

[Stefan-CoA]

In South Africa we had planned and nearly begun construction of a pebble-bed reactor which would have alleviated our energy shortage, given us greater economic leverage (we export a lot of our electricity), provided much-needed jobs and reduced the cost of our electricity. But, we had idiots such as Green peace boycott the endeavour by misleading our very gullible public with false information and sensationalism. Renewable energy is all fun and games in countries that already have an established energy grid (built upon coal, gas, nuclear) but trying to force developing countries into solar/wind power simply because it's better for the environment is immoral when there are people suffering.

[lemur]

It would be really interesting if someone designed a model of an entire community that could run completely on renewable power.

 

I also had a thought about solar power that it would probably help if specific appliances were designed and sold with their own battery systems and possibly even solar collectors so that when you bought the appliance, you knew it was designed to run properly using only solar power year-round (or when needed).

 

E.g. if you bought a solar-powered refrigerator/freezer, you would want to know that it can effectively maintain its temperature overnight as well as during the day from the correctly-sided solar collector + battery system. If it was an electric range/oven, you would want to know how many hours of cooking time you had available, etc. In other words, conservation guidelines could be designed/built into the appliances and explained in the user-manuals.

 

In South Africa we had planned and nearly begun construction of a pebble-bed reactor which would have alleviated our energy shortage, given us greater economic leverage (we export a lot of our electricity), provided much-needed jobs and reduced the cost of our electricity. But, we had idiots such as Green peace boycott the endeavour by misleading our very gullible public with false information and sensationalism. Renewable energy is all fun and games in countries that already have an established energy grid (built upon coal, gas, nuclear) but trying to force developing countries into solar/wind power simply because it's better for the environment is immoral when there are people suffering.

There is also immorality in luring people into higher levels of energy-dependency when they already have traditional forms of conservation that have developed as a result of existing energy-limitations.

[CaptainPanic]

In South Africa we had planned and nearly begun construction of a pebble-bed reactor which would have alleviated our energy shortage, given us greater economic leverage (we export a lot of our electricity), provided much-needed jobs and reduced the cost of our electricity. But, we had idiots such as Green peace boycott the endeavour by misleading our very gullible public with false information and sensationalism. Renewable energy is all fun and games in countries that already have an established energy grid (built upon coal, gas, nuclear) but trying to force developing countries into solar/wind power simply because it's better for the environment is immoral when there are people suffering.

I assume that you mean that the nuclear power lobby or the coal/oil/gas power lobby are always objective?

[/sarcasm]

 

Regarding the argument about the grid: electricity grids in rich countries are not very much suited for large-scale solar/wind yet. Just like South-Africa, any other country will need to improve/expand the grid.

Edited April 22, 2011 by CaptainPanic

[danie]

My information is that the bebble bed project was terminated(after spending $1billion)

The problem i see in nuclear power stations is that you have a 10 year construction period and escelating cost while renewables ar getting cheaper by the day. It seams that nobody take the disposal of spent fuel and the decomissioning of the plant into consideration when comparing cost. (as well as evacuation/relocation in case of an accident)

 

If sealevels rise in the not to distent future , how will it impact on power stations near the coast.

 

I think we need opjective reasoning to plan for the future. Ower children will have to live with the dissions we make today.

[SMF]

Here are some points to consider/discuss:

 

Solar and wind power generate the most energy right in the window of peak demand, and thus can pick up much of the load above baseline and make a big dent in fossil generation. It will also make conversion to electric transportation more feasible. Doing this now will ultimately save money and allow time to work out base load solutions.

 

 

Photovoltaic solar and wind are well suited to more distributed generation and thus minimize how abrupt the necessary change to a smart grid will have to occur during initial stages of the switchover. This also makes it well suited for very poor nations because it is so much less expensive overall for them in particular.

 

Dry hot rock geothermal is apparently being ignored as a reliable, clean, and renewable (at human scale) base load power source. In some limited locations hot brine is also a good clean possibility if ecological concerns are respected.

 

Pebble bed is probably not the best choice for generation 4 nuclear. I think there are 7 different designs and several of them are touted to be safe, fail safe, not producers of weapons grade fuel, and can run on all the waste from the old plants that has been stored perhaps, ultimately, just for this purpose. I would like to hear a very critical comparison of generation 4 reactors.

 

If we have to have nuclear as part of the mix, and I am not entirely convinced of this, we should pick one or more generation 4 designs and perfect them in pilot plants. Next cookie cutter designs should be perfected prior to actually building production plants because this greatly decreases the chance of design flaws, reduces building costs, makes sloppy workmanship harder to cover up, and reduces ongoing maintenance and upgrade costs.

 

It is obvious to me that there is going to have to be a mix of energy sources to make up for the loss of all the precious fossil fuels that we are bent on just burning up. We should get at this changeover before the fossil fuels get too expensive. SM