The end of nuclear energy

[Hal.]

What a.n.other wants in terms of energy usage and what a.n.other needs should be given different priorities . If a.n.other needs energy to cook to make food safe this should be a higher priority than giving a.n.other enough energy to watch a porn movie .

[StringJunky]

That's a general engineering rule of thumb, and as a thermodynamic argument, I would agree. But you say it's "expensive", and that means you include practical considerations as well.

 

And if you include practical issues, they I think that there is an optimum. If energy gets too concentrated, harvesting it becomes a problem again.

 

But I admit that this is also just a feeling.

 

But actually, you have a very excellent point. If we assume that (1) the world population will continue to grow as it does, and (2) the energy consumption increases per person as well, then indeed, we'll be looking at a 10-20 fold increase of energy consumption (and more). And we can argue that sooner or later, fusion and fission are the only possible sources of energy, because the sun simply doesn't deliver enough anymore.

 

If we agree that this is a realistic scenario, then we must invest heavily in fusion a.s.a.p.

 

However, in today's world, the motivation to get sustainable energy is different. There is no lack of sunlight or wind.

 

It may not be all sunshine and roses with wind power environmentally though:

 

Large-scale use of wind power can alter local and global climate by extracting kinetic energy and altering turbulent transport in the atmospheric boundary layer. We report climate-model simulations that address the possible climatic impacts of wind power at regional to global scales by using two general circulation models and several parameterizations of the interaction of wind turbines with the boundary layer. We find that very large amounts of wind power can produce nonnegligible climatic change at continental scales.

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/101/46/16115.full

 

I'm not arguing against wind power but just highlighting that it's maybe not problem-free...it may impact non-negligbley on the very thing it's trying to mitigate but in a different way so the net benefit may not be as big as it's potential suggests.

[Brainteaserfan]

Danijel, I agree with almost all you say in your post, but why wouldn't solar or wind energy be green (if applied at a 15 TW scale)? Especially wind energy is just using nature's waste heat.

 

If we would look at a theoretical case where we would supply all the 15 TW by wind energy (no matter how impractical that would be for certain applications), then we'd need 6 million 2.5 MW wind turbines, which are just very ordinary wind turbines.

 

6 million sounds like a lot, but if you realize that the earth's land surface is 150 million km2, then we would have only 1 wind turbine in every 25 km2 (1 wind turbine in every 5x5 kilometer block). And if we'd build some at sea, or if we would use larger wind turbines (more power), that area would be even larger.

 

Honestly, I don't think that that's such a big impact on the environment.

 

It's worth noting that there would only need to be one nuclear reactor per 10000 km squared though.

 

I find it sad that "Greens" have prevented newer, safer reactors from getting built to replace the older ones, and then in the rare instance in which an old one has a problem, they point fingers at those who suggested building newer ones and say, "that's why we didn't allow you to build a new one." Also, there are places where it is safer to build nuclear reactors. You are taking a chance if you build on the Ring of Fire. The east coast of the US would be perfect for building one IMO.

 

BTW, wind and solar aren't so green. You can't make the wind blow or the sun shine when you need energy so you will need batteries which are quite harmful to the environment. Also, wind generally occurs away from cities and places where people live. I'm in favor of wind and solar power, but only when it is cost-effective. Nuclear is a very cheap way, although admittedly more dangerous way, to generate lots of power.

Edited May 21, 2011 by Brainteaserfan

[lemur]

BTW, wind and solar aren't so green. You can't make the wind blow or the sun shine when you need energy so you will need batteries which are quite harmful to the environment. Also, wind generally occurs away from cities and places where people live. I'm in favor of wind and solar power, but only when it is cost-effective. Nuclear is a very cheap way, although admittedly more dangerous way, to generate lots of power.

If climate control was abandoned, relatively little power would be needed at night. Efficient modern light bulbs and flat screen TVs/monitors draw so little electricity and devices like refrigerators and water-heaters can be well-insulated. I think the small amount of batter-power needed to keep these few things running at night would pale as an environmental harm compared with nuclear waste, plus it is easier and cheaper to recycle batteries than radioactive materials. Nuclear power is only interesting because it offers an approach to energy that is practically infinite. However, global social-economic patterns lean more toward restriction and limitation than toward total liberation of all with infinite power, so renewable sources and conservation fit better with that economic paradigm than infinitely abundant atomic energy, imo.

[Brainteaserfan]

If climate control was abandoned, relatively little power would be needed at night. Efficient modern light bulbs and flat screen TVs/monitors draw so little electricity and devices like refrigerators and water-heaters can be well-insulated. I think the small amount of batter-power needed to keep these few things running at night would pale as an environmental harm compared with nuclear waste, plus it is easier and cheaper to recycle batteries than radioactive materials. Nuclear power is only interesting because it offers an approach to energy that is practically infinite. However, global social-economic patterns lean more toward restriction and limitation than toward total liberation of all with infinite power, so renewable sources and conservation fit better with that economic paradigm than infinitely abundant atomic energy, imo.

 

After being sealed in glass, nuclear waste isn't very dangerous. Most newer technologies have not been implemented as a result of regulation.

 

Also, it would be easier to build the nuclear plants quickly so that we aren't dependent on fossil fuels. After that is done, we can build wind and solar plants everywhere where they are efficient. Although wind and solar may be able to meet today's energy needs if we invest heavily in them, they may not be able to meet our needs when we use electric transport. Another reason I like nuclear over wind is http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/06/business/energy-environment/06noise.html. I don't want a noisy windmill anywhere near my house, ruining the view, disturbing my sleep, and causing my house value to plummet.

[lemur]

I don't want a noisy windmill anywhere near my house, ruining the view, disturbing my sleep, and causing my house value to plummet.

I guess that means your aren't worried about the effect on your house value of having a nuclear power plant next door.

[Brainteaserfan]

I guess that means your aren't worried about the effect on your house value of having a nuclear power plant next door.

There will be a lot less nuclear power plants next to houses than windmills. I could give you the names of three people who would like to live next to a nuclear power plant. (myself not included).

[lemur]

There will be a lot less nuclear power plants next to houses than windmills. I could give you the names of three people who would like to live next to a nuclear power plant. (myself not included).

Here's what I don't understand about nuclear power: Isn't the heat generated by the core essentially the result of nuclear fission? If so, why not use core heat to generate electricity instead of going through all the steps of mining, controlling, and disposing ofradioactive material? Politically, geothermal energy is less likely to attract public criticism than nuclear even though they rely on the same fuel ultimately.

[Airbrush]

....I feel that technology [fusion power] leap would not be any greater than it was for the appolo project.

 

I think it would be much greater leap into fusion energy than the leap into Apollo technology. Remember the computers used for the Apollo missions were less powerful than the average PC.

 

Here's how to solve the energy crisis: (1) Limit population, (2) improve efficiency, exploit (4) wind, (5) solar, (6) wave/tide, and (7) other green energy sources. Fusion power will happen someday, but that would be LAST on the list.

Edited May 24, 2011 by Airbrush

[lemur]

I think it would be much greater leap into fusion energy than the leap into Apollo technology. Remember the computers used for the Apollo missions were less powerful than the average PC.

 

Here's how to solve the energy crisis: (1) Limit population, (2) improve efficiency, exploit (4) wind, (5) solar, (6) wave/tide, and (7) other green energy sources. Fusion power will happen someday, but that would be LAST on the list.

Limiting population is a political issue that shouldn't be included as an approach to solving energy problems. It's not how many people live that wastes energy; it's how they live. People walking around in homemade clothes in warm climates without want for climate control or many motorized vehicles use much less energy than the same people with personal cars living and working in climate controlled buildings.

[Airbrush]

Limiting population is a political issue that shouldn't be included as an approach to solving energy problems. It's not how many people live that wastes energy; it's how they live. People walking around in homemade clothes in warm climates without want for climate control or many motorized vehicles use much less energy than the same people with personal cars living and working in climate controlled buildings.

 

You are correct Lemur. However, soon it will become a very practical issue. We cannot discuss energy alternatives without considering population.

 

Then, as you suggest, let's say NO limit to the populations of underdeveloped nations, since they use very little energy per capita, and excess people will simply starve to death. DO limit populations of energy hogs, like USA and other developed nations.

 

The developing nations, especially China and India, will also need to limit their growing populations, because they will soon surpass the US as energy hogs.

 

No energy sources can provide an unlimited amount of energy to unlimited world population. War is the quickest way to deal with overpopulation, especially nuclear war, but what a waste and what a mess.

 

The Earth has a carrying capacity, but we don't know exactly how many people that is. Let's call it quits before there are really too many people.

Edited May 24, 2011 by Airbrush

[lemur]

Then, as you suggest, let's say NO limit to the populations of underdeveloped nations, since they use very little energy per capita, and excess people will simply starve to death. DO limit populations of energy hogs, like USA and other developed nations.

Why exactly would people be more likely to starve to death in developing economies than in developed? Isn't whole issue with hunger food distribution? And limiting population of 'energy hogs' implies that you're expecting high energy-per-capita 'hogging' to continue. I find energy conservation far more appealing than population control measures, and what's more I wouldn't find it accessible if people started implementing population control measures simply because they didn't feel like making the necessary cultural shifts to better energy conservation.

 

The developing nations, especially China and India, will also need to limit their growing populations, because they will soon surpass the US as energy hogs.

You're ignoring my whole point again that it's not HOW MANY people live, it's HOW they live. Develop energy-efficient cultural lifestyles that make people happy and they will conserve on their own. Market the idea that they will be happier with cars, climate control, and other energy-expensive culture and they'll feel miserable without it. Market energy-efficient IT gadgets powered by solar-panel roofs over well ventilated but screened housing with architectural appeal and people will live happy low-energy lifestyles.

 

No energy sources can provide an unlimited amount of energy to unlimited world population. War is the quickest way to deal with overpopulation, especially nuclear war, but what a waste and what a mess.

It is clear that population is your main concern and energy-consumption is secondary. You just don't like the idea of lots of people living efficiently and happily with low energy-consumption, it seems.

 

The Earth has a carrying capacity, but we don't know exactly how many people that is. Let's call it quits before there are really too many people.

Please start another thread on population control so I can avoid it. I don't enjoy the though of imposing limitations on people's right to life and family. I just wanted to point out that you're confounding energy-usage with population by ignoring that conservation reduces energy-usage per capita. Other resource issues such as water, agriculture/food, etc. deserve their own thread.

 

 

[Airbrush]

... it's not HOW MANY people live, it's HOW they live. Develop energy-efficient cultural lifestyles that make people happy and they will conserve on their own. Market the idea that they will be happier with cars, climate control, and other energy-expensive culture and they'll feel miserable without it. Market energy-efficient IT gadgets powered by solar-panel roofs over well ventilated but screened housing with architectural appeal and people will live happy low-energy lifestyles.

 

You are correct. Probably water and food shortages will become an issue long before energy shortage. Sorry if I got too far off topic. It just seemed logical to me when discussing "the end of nuclear energy" and what remaining alternatives we have, that the QUANTITY of energy needed for a given world population could become an issue. But now I realize rising sea levels and resulting loss of coastal land, disrupted weather patterns which result in famine and severe storms, from global warming, along with wars fought over a shortage of fresh water, will become issues before energy shortage.

 

Hopefully economic pressures will limit world population to reasonable limits, without the need for Big Brother to decide who gets to have children, and how many they can have.

 

Have you ever heard of an energy shortage? Except for occasional power outages, and in places like Iraq, where people have power for a few hours each day, or no power at all. But that is not an issue, only an inconvenience.

Edited May 25, 2011 by Airbrush

[lemur]

Have you ever heard of an energy shortage? Except for occasional power outages, and in places like Iraq, where people have power for a few hours each day, or no power at all. But that is not an issue, only an inconvenience.

I hear of power companies "browning out" sections of cities during periods of high energy demand. I hear of gas and oil prices going up along with the price of electricity. I hear of renewable sources being the energy-frontier because of limitations and problems of fossil-fuels and nuclear. What exactly do mean by "shortage?" People doing everything possible to find more energy and it not being available? So basically it sounds like you're arguing for supplying as much abundant cheap energy as possible for as long as it lasts and dealing with shortages when they occur naturally? Isn't it better to practice cutting back early to avoid the shock of abrupt uncontrollable shortages?

[Brainteaserfan]

I hear of renewable sources being the energy-frontier because of limitations and problems of fossil-fuels and nuclear.

 

Nuclear IS renewable. It just isn't considered safe by many people - e.g. the media.

[lemur]

Nuclear IS renewable. It just isn't considered safe by many people - e.g. the media.

How is nuclear renewable? It may have a much larger reserve of fuel available than fossil fuel, but isn't it still ultimately limited?

 

 

 

[Brainteaserfan]

How is nuclear renewable? It may have a much larger reserve of fuel available than fossil fuel, but isn't it still ultimately limited?

 

Not quite limited maybe, but please don't lump nuclear and fossil fuels together. There are 29 years of natural uranium if ALL of our power came from nuclear, and if we didn't use breeder reactors. I believe that with breeder reactors it would be limitless (please correct me with a source if I am wrong. )

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/20/opinion/20iht-edbotkin.1.17105256.html

[lemur]

Not quite limited maybe, but please don't lump nuclear and fossil fuels together. There are 29 years of natural uranium if ALL of our power came from nuclear, and if we didn't use breeder reactors. I believe that with breeder reactors it would be limitless (please correct me with a source if I am wrong. )

 

http://en.wikipedia....Breeder_reactor

http://www.nytimes.c...1.17105256.html

29 years must be a typing mistake. I wouldn't "lump them together" in a general sense. Nuclear doesn't deplete any oxygen or generate hydrocarbon-type emissions. I just note that it's ultimately non-renewable because with any fuel, you have to consider an eventual transition to energy-levels that are available purely from solar and other renewable sources. Nuclear power could last for millenia but assuming human life continues to that point, then you become faced with the issue of how to make cultural-economic transitions to sustainable energy-levels per capita without the kinds of social-political conflicts that have been going on for years over fossil-fuel and especially oil.

[Brainteaserfan]

29 years must be a typing mistake. I wouldn't "lump them together" in a general sense. Nuclear doesn't deplete any oxygen or generate hydrocarbon-type emissions. I just note that it's ultimately non-renewable because with any fuel, you have to consider an eventual transition to energy-levels that are available purely from solar and other renewable sources. Nuclear power could last for millenia but assuming human life continues to that point, then you become faced with the issue of how to make cultural-economic transitions to sustainable energy-levels per capita without the kinds of social-political conflicts that have been going on for years over fossil-fuel and especially oil.

 

29 years of uranium. I believe that there are other elements capable of supporting nuclear reactions. (I got the 29 figure from that NY times link.)

[Hal.]

The Germans announced a couple of days ago that they are getting rid of their nuclear power stations within 10-11 years .

[Brainteaserfan]

The Germans announced a couple of days ago that they are getting rid of their nuclear power stations within 10-11 years .

 

Good luck to them- if they can quit coal too.

 

Actually, they have been decreasing their reliance on nuclear for years. (by about 40% in the last dozen years)

http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/diermeier/ftp/other/atom.html

[JCP]

Not quite limited maybe, but please don't lump nuclear and fossil fuels together. There are 29 years of natural uranium if ALL of our power came from nuclear, and if we didn't use breeder reactors.

 

29 years is a very short time compared to fossil fuels*, of which conventional oil and gas will be depleted in the next 70-80 years or so. What's more, not a lot of our energy comes from nuclear power to begin with, so it is even more scarce than fossil fuel.

 

I believe that with breeder reactors it would be limitless (please correct me with a source if I am wrong. )

 

Its not entirely limitless. However, the potential problems with breeder reactors are that they generate more waste and they carry with them the increased risk of nuclear proliferation.

 

You are correct. Probably water and food shortages will become an issue long before energy shortage. Sorry if I got too far off topic. It just seemed logical to me when discussing "the end of nuclear energy" and what remaining alternatives we have, that the QUANTITY of energy needed for a given world population could become an issue. But now I realize rising sea levels and resulting loss of coastal land, disrupted weather patterns which result in famine and severe storms, from global warming, along with wars fought over a shortage of fresh water, will become issues before energy shortage.

 

Energy, food and water are tied together. Power plants consume gigantic amounts of fresh water, particularly nuclear and hydroelectric, which also has to compete with demand from the agricultural sector. And modern agriculture is heavily subsidized by fossil energy. A shortfall in either food or water will produce a shortfall in energy production.

 

 

Hopefully economic pressures will limit world population to reasonable limits, without the need for Big Brother to decide who gets to have children, and how many they can have.

 

I hope so too, but I'm not hedging my bets.

 

* I will allow for the fact that 29 years refers to proven or current reserves of uranium, rather than the ultimate recoverable resource base. Still, I can't imagine there being anywhere near enough to allow us to base our entire economy off of it.

Edited June 4, 2011 by JCP

[Brainteaserfan]

29 years is a very short time compared to fossil fuels*, of which conventional oil and gas will be depleted in the next 70-80 years or so. What's more, not a lot of our energy comes from nuclear power to begin with, so it is even more scarce than fossil fuel.

 

 

I don't think that you read all my posts. There are other elements that can be used as fuel for the reactors. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_radioactive_element_is_often_used_in_nuclear_reactors_at_nuclear_power_generating_stations

Do a little googling and you will find better sources.

 

As for disposing of the waste you can put it in glass, or you can recycle much of it. http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/nuclear-wasteland

 

The 29 years was if ALL our power, 100% of it, came from nuclear. However, that was the total estimate for all of Earth's uranium resources,already mined or "unmined".

 

Interesting quote "energy, food, and water are tied together". I haven't had time to do much research, but I think that it's worth noting that sunlight is required for food also, and solar hijacks that sunlight and actuallly renders that sunlight unusable.

Edited June 4, 2011 by Brainteaserfan

[Moontanman]

29 years is a very short time compared to fossil fuels*, of which conventional oil and gas will be depleted in the next 70-80 years or so. What's more, not a lot of our energy comes from nuclear power to begin with, so it is even more scarce than fossil fuel.

 

That is a man made scarcity.

 

 

 

Its not entirely limitless. However, the potential problems with breeder reactors are that they generate more waste and they carry with them the increased risk of nuclear proliferation.

 

No, actually they produce less waste that has to kept stored for much less time than regular reactors and they operate with elements than cannot be used to make nuclear weapons, think thorium, and they use up the stuff that can be used to make nuclear weapons.

 

 

Energy, food and water are tied together. Power plants consume gigantic amounts of fresh water, particularly nuclear and hydroelectric, which also has to compete with demand from the agricultural sector. And modern agriculture is heavily subsidized by fossil energy. A shortfall in either food or water will produce a shortfall in energy production

 

I'm not sure what you mean by this? Do you actually think that hydroelectric or nuclear uses water that somehow vanishes after it makes electricity?

 

 

 

 

I hope so too, but I'm not hedging my bets.

 

Some sort of population control will eventually happen...

 

* I will allow for the fact that 29 years refers to proven or current reserves of uranium, rather than the ultimate recoverable resource base. Still, I can't imagine there being anywhere near enough to allow us to base our entire economy off of it.

 

Again quite thinking about U235 and the tiny amount of it available to us and think thorium, U238, plutonium, and fast breeder reactors, while not limitless nuclear is quite capable of sustaining our entire civilization if we wanted it to and for a very long time.

[JCP]

I don't think that you read all my posts. There are other elements that can be used as fuel for the reactors. http://wiki.answers....rating_stations

Do a little googling and you will find better sources.

 

As for disposing of the waste you can put it in glass, or you can recycle much of it. http://spectrum.ieee...clear-wasteland

 

I did understand all that. And I am personally uncertain how thorium reactors will work in practice. But I don't think they would alleviate all of the problems associated with nuclear power in general. And in the end, you still have the problem of waste (breeder reactors can get rid of high level waste; Its good, but you only shift the problem).

 

The 29 years was if ALL our power, 100% of it, came from nuclear. However, that was the total estimate for all of Earth's uranium resources,already mined or "unmined".

 

Ah, ok. Thanks for the clarification.

 

 

Interesting quote "energy, food, and water are tied together". I haven't had time to do much research, but I think that it's worth noting that sunlight is required for food also, and solar hijacks that sunlight.

 

 

Yes, that is correct. However, I will add that with the exception of concentrated solar power, solar and wind do not consume a lot of fresh water. You can always put solar panels on rooftops, and wind turbines take up very little space to begin with.

 

Fossil fuel and nuclear power plants, however, consume quite a bit of fresh water. And many proposed alternatives, such as biofuels and algae, compete for land too. The food crisis going on all over the world is caused in part by the diversion of crops to fuel production.

 

That is a man made scarcity.

 

How so? The bulk of our power does not come from nuclear to begin with. Barring a break through in fusion, I seriously doubt that nuclear could pick up the slack. Unless, of course, you find a way to significantly reduce demand, or supplement it with renewable energy. Also, the end use of nuclear is electricity; there is still transportation and fuel that you have to worry about. Although, I suppose that transportation could be electrified.

 

 

No, actually they produce less waste that has to kept stored for much less time than regular reactors and they operate with elements than cannot be used to make nuclear weapons, think thorium, and they use up the stuff that can be used to make nuclear weapons.

 

Yes, it reduces those problems, but doesn't do away with them entirely. Although, I will give that this is more of a political problem rather than a technical one; I personally don't think they are that much of an issue provided that everyone is smart.

 

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean by this?

 

What I mean is that the energy sector competes directly with both water and agriculture, since they demand pretty much the same resources. Energy, water and food are interconnected. If production in one sector goes down, it will negatively impact the other two.

 

Do you actually think that hydroelectric or nuclear uses water that somehow vanishes after it makes electricity?

 

It does, through evaporation. Hydroelectric in particular is terrible when it comes to evaporation. And you need to find a way to cool down all of those spend fuel rods where nuclear is concerned. Power generation is as demanding of fresh water supplies as is agriculture. The real kicker is that global warming will cause the atmosphere to hold more water, which will make the problem worse.

 

 

Some sort of population control will eventually happen...

 

I suppose it will, either through a global pandemic or thermonuclear warfare over what remains. Either of those will put an end to our civilization.

 

Whatever the outcome, I seriously doubt that there will be billions of us flying around in airplanes, eating lots of meat, and driving really huge cars at century's end.

 

Again quite thinking about U235 and the tiny amount of it available to us and think thorium, U238, plutonium, and fast breeder reactors, while not limitless nuclear is quite capable of sustaining our entire civilization if we wanted it to and for a very long time.

 

Read the above.

Edited June 4, 2011 by JCP