The end of nuclear energy

[Brainteaserfan]

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).

 

 

 

Ah, ok. Thanks for the clarification.

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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. The real kicker is that global warming will cause the atmosphere to hold more water, which will make the problem worse.

 

 

 

 

I suppose it will, either 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.

 

 

 

Read the above.

 

Firstly, if you understood all my posts, then you would have not implied that there is less potential power from nuclear than fossil fuels.

 

Secondly, just like you can put solar panels on roofs, you can grow food on roofs.

 

Thirdly, nuclear power plants do not consume water, they simply use it.

 

Fourthly, what food crisis? Food production has increased 1,700 times since the 1700's while the human population has grown only a little over 10 times. Source: http://www.learner.o...population.html and Exploring Creation with General Science by Dr. Jay Wile pg 233. (just a book I had sitting around)

 

Fifthly, I think that whether global warming is happening or not is a different debate, as is hydroelectric. Sorry for bringing in solar panels, as they don't really relate either.

 

Not trying to sound harsh, just trying to give my opinion.

Edited June 4, 2011 by Brainteaserfan

[JCP]

Firstly, if you understood all my posts, then you would have not implied that there is less potential power from nuclear than fossil fuels.

 

I beg to differ, unless you are talking about fusion. If you scale up nuclear to anywhere near the fraction now provided by fossil fuels, there will most certainly be a shortage. I will admit that I don't have any real data on thorium, but my experience suggests that the people who often push for agendas, particularly the nuclear and fossil fuel industries, usually exaggerate reserves and/or potential, so I'm not going to hold my breath. And in any case, thorium reactors are experimental, and investment in them by nations is sporadic at best. They aren't expected to come online until at least the 2030's, if at all.

 

That being said, it doesn't mean that nuclear can't be part of an energy mix. But don't expect our entire civilization to be nuclear powered anytime soon.

 

 

Secondly, just like you can put solar panels on roofs, you can grow food on roofs.

 

Yes, that's true too. I was just putting their versatility into perspective, in that they don't have to take up arable land.

 

Thirdly, nuclear power plants do not consume water, they simply use it.

 

All power plants consume water. Any water that is used in a power plant is unusable for anything else, either due to evaporation or pollution. This is a well known fact. Hydroelectric power plants are particularly vulnerable, since they are heavily dependent on the hydrological cycle.

 

Fourthly, what food crisis? Food production has increased 1,700 times since the 1700's while the human population has grown only a little over 10 times. Source: http://www.learner.o...population.html and Exploring Creation with General Science by Dr. Jay Wile pg 233. (just a book I had sitting around)

 

What matters more is food per capita, not the total amount of food grown. Grain per capita has peaked in 1986 due to population growth and the adoption of the western diet in developing countries, and biofuels are the cause of the current food crisis, since more grains are devoted to fuel and energy rather than food. This is just a small example of how our water, energy, and food supplies are interconnected.

 

Fifthly, I think that whether global warming is happening or not is a different debate, as is hydroelectric. Sorry for bringing in solar panels, as they don't really relate either.

 

The evidence for human induced global warming is indisputable. What's more, the rate of warming and emissions has been happening faster than even the worst case scenario outlined in the IPCC report.

 

Not trying to sound harsh, just trying to give my opinion.

 

Well, just take care to provide more facts first, before you give your opinions.

Edited June 4, 2011 by JCP

[Brainteaserfan]

I beg to differ, unless you are talking about fusion. If you scale up nuclear to anywhere near the fraction now provided by fossil fuels, there will most certainly be a shortage. I will admit that I don't have any real data on thorium, but my experience suggests that the people who often push for agendas, particularly the nuclear and fossil fuel industries, usually exaggerate reserves and/or potential, so I'm not going to hold my breath. And in any case, thorium reactors are experimental, and investment in them by nations is sporadic at best. They aren't expected to come online until at least the 2030's, if at all.

 

That being said, it doesn't mean that nuclear can't be part of an energy mix. But don't expect our entire civilization to be nuclear powered anytime soon.

 

 

 

 

Yes, that's true too. I was just putting their versatility into perspective, in that they don't have to take up arable land.

 

 

 

All power plants consume water. Any water that is used in a power plant is unusable for anything else, either due to evaporation or pollution. This is a well known fact. Hydroelectric power plants are particularly vulnerable, since they are heavily dependent on the hydrological cycle.

 

 

 

What matters more is food per capita, not the total amount of food grown. Grain per capita has peaked in 1986 due to population growth and the adoption of the western diet in developing countries, and biofuels are the cause of the current food crisis, since more grains are devoted to fuel and energy rather than food. This is just a small example of how our water, energy, and food supplies are interconnected.

 

 

 

The evidence for human induced global warming is indisputable. What's more, the rate of warming and emissions has been happening faster than even the worst case scenario outlined in the IPCC report.

 

 

 

Well, just take care to provide more facts first, before you give your opinions.

 

Thanks for the source.

 

Once again, I do not want to debate GW or hydroelectric, or solar under this topic. If you create a new topic, I'll argue it there.

 

I don't think that I ever disputed that energy, food and water are interconnected. I live in the US, and I think that it is embarrassing for us to burn perfectly fine food. It simply isn't efficient. I think we should only burn the waste. Again, maybe there should be a topic for biofuel and I don't want to argue that here.

 

This forum is on the END of nuclear energy, not on whether we would "scale it up". However, nuclear power plants right now are using plutonium as given in an earlier source. Here is another, more credible source: http://www.world-nuc...info/inf15.html And I believe that if we stepped up nuclear power, we would mine more fissile elements. Therefore, I believe that even if we did step nuclear up drastically, we would not have a shortage.

 

A forum is where you present your opinion/ideas. I have researched them, but am more than happy to be proven wrong. What facts were you missing?

 

Meaning #2: http://dictionary.re...om/browse/forum

Edited June 4, 2011 by Brainteaserfan

[Moontanman]

I beg to differ, unless you are talking about fusion. If you scale up nuclear to anywhere near the fraction now provided by fossil fuels, there will most certainly be a shortage. I will admit that I don't have any real data on thorium,

 

Beg all you want but your data is flawed and incomplete. You've made several assertions here, how about showing some evidence for them? Your link ignores fast breeder reactors and assumes all reactors run on U235, which is a tiny part of the uranium on the earth. Your link also ignores thorium and plutonium.

 

 

but my experience suggests that the people who often push for agendas, particularly the nuclear and fossil fuel industries, usually exaggerate reserves and/or potential, so I'm not going to hold my breath. And in any case, thorium reactors are experimental, and investment in them by nations is sporadic at best. They aren't expected to come online until at least the 2030's, if at all.

 

 

You may have a point, considering your own misrepresentation of the facts I suggest you consider your own agenda.

 

 

That being said, it doesn't mean that nuclear can't be part of an energy mix. But don't expect our entire civilization to be nuclear powered anytime soon.

 

It does seem unlikely, just like coal fired plants were once rare and as were hydro electrical dams rare at one time.

but nuclear has the potitntial to generate far more power than coal or hydro.

 

 

 

Yes, that's true too. I was just putting their versatility into perspective, in that they don't have to take up arable land.

 

In some places solar is great, not so great in others, as an example, solar and or wind power is far more vulnerable to weather than nuclear or coal or hydro.

 

All power plants consume water. Any water that is used in a power plant is unusable for anything else, either due to evaporation or pollution. This is a well known fact. Hydroelectric power plants are particularly vulnerable, since they are heavily dependent on the hydrological cycle.

 

This is trivially falsified, water used by hydro, coal, or nuclear is not too polluted to use and should not be polluted at all. I live near a nuclear power plant, they use huge volumes of water so does the local coal power plant as well this water is either recycled through cooling lakes or released back into the ocean, the water so used is not contaminated or harmful in any way.

 

 

 

What matters more is food per capita, not the total amount of food grown. Grain per capita has peaked in 1986 due to population growth and the adoption of the western diet in developing countries, and biofuels are the cause of the current food crisis, since more grains are devoted to fuel and energy rather than food. This is just a small example of how our water, energy, and food supplies are interconnected.

 

 

They are not connected in the way that you suggest, in fact your suggestion that water used to take away waste heat from any power plant or used to make electricity via a dam is unusable for other things is simply not true and is suggestive that you have an agenda that is not being honestly shown here.

 

The evidence for human induced global warming is indisputable. What's more, the rate of warming and emissions has been happening faster than even the worst case scenario outlined in the IPCC report.

 

And this supports your assertions in what way exactly?

 

 

Well, just take care to provide more facts first, before you give your opinions.

 

I agree, and I suggest you take your own suggestion to heart...

Edited June 4, 2011 by Moontanman

[JCP]

Beg all you want but your data is flawed and incomplete. You've made several assertions here, how about showing some evidence for them? Your link ignores fast breeder reactors and assumes all reactors run on U235, which is a tiny part of the uranium on the earth. Your link also ignores thorium and plutonium.

 

Give me an example of a commercial reactor that runs on thorium, because I don't know of any. And there are no fast breeder reactors in operation. Here is the actual outlook for nuclear:

 

The political aspect: http://spectrum.ieee...f-nuclear-power

 

The energy economics of it (a good summary of both EROI and reserve dat. Note that it states that it is, at best, a transition energy source): http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3877

 

More economics: http://www.rmi.org/r...uclearSocialism

 

Energy end use data: http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/ieo/world.html

 

Look closely at figure 16 at the last link, and you tell me if nuclear will ever amount to anything. On the other hand, renewables look like they will be the big winner.

 

Here is the outlook for fast breeder reactors and other generation IV nuclear reactors:

 

http://www.fissilema...tus_of_fas.html

 

Read that one carefully, and you tell me if nuclear will ever amount to anything. Here is a quote:

 

The rationale for breeder reactors is no longer sound. "The rationale for pursuing breeder reactors -- sometimes explicit and sometimes implicit -- was based on the following key assumptions: 1. Uranium is scarce and high-grade deposits would quickly become depleted if fission power were deployed on a large scale; 2. Breeder reactors would quickly become economically competitive with the light-water reactors that dominate nuclear power today; 3. Breeder reactors could be as safe and reliable as light-water reactors; and, 4. The proliferation risks posed by breeders and their 'closed' fuel cycle, in which plutonium would be recycled, could be managed. Each of these assumptions has proven to be wrong."

 

 

Of course, that is just the most recent report. Over ten years ago most of the fast breeder reactors were abandoned because they were "too costly and of doubtful value": http://dieoff.org/page155.htm

 

Japan seems to have continued onward, but as far as I know they aren't any closer to producing a commercially viable fast breeder reactor today than they were ten years ago. They are all still in the experimental stage, and are likely to come online beyond the year 2030.

 

So far, only the generation III + nuclear reactors are going to be online anytime soon, and that's only if the whole Fukushima fiasco doesn't impact development too negatively.

 

RE: Thorium.

 

Here is the reserve data for Thorium: http://minerals.usgs...-2011-thori.pdf

 

And here it is for uranium: http://en.wikipedia....ranium_reserves

 

 

If we take those figures at face value, this implies that there is actually less thorium than uranium. Again, there are no power plants that are fast breeder reactors or generation IV nuclear power plants (not expected until 2030 at the earliest) in commercial operation. So this is moot.

 

You may have a point, considering your own misrepresentation of the facts I suggest you consider your own agenda.

 

I'm just being a realist, I have no agenda to speak of. And you will see that I'm not misrepresenting anything. You are.

 

Unless there is a breakthrough in, say, fusion or some other novel energy source, I seriously doubt that nuclear will pick up the slack left by fossil fuels alone. Especially considering the fact that energy demands tend to grow exponentially over time. I showed little data because I had initially believed that this was obvious.

 

 

 

It does seem unlikely, just like coal fired plants were once rare and as were hydro electrical dams rare at one time.

but nuclear has the potitntial to generate far more power than coal or hydro.

 

Nuclear and hydro are still rare, after decades of development, compared to the world energy outlook. Hydro has very little potential left (how many rivers or other bodies of water can be found...), and nuclear is looking like a dead end so far, at least if the plan is to support our already overpopulated planet, or keep on with business as usual. Coal is used primarily because of its high EROEI and low technology requirements, particularly in China.

 

 

In some places solar is great, not so great in others, as an example, solar and or wind power is far more vulnerable to weather than nuclear or coal or hydro.

 

This is why you don't rely one a single source for your electricity. And the impacts of weather and intermittenty on renewable energy are usually overblown; they can easily be overcome.

 

Solar has much better prospects than fast breeders. In fact, it is already possible to generate solar energy during the night. Unlike fast breeder reactors, this project looks like it has a chance of getting off the ground.

 

Even more significantly, the IPCC agrees that renewables can pick up the slack, in a landmark study done recently: http://www.guardian....rgy-power-world

 

But then again, this is off topic. We are here to discuss the viability of nuclear.

 

This is trivially falsified, water used by hydro, coal, or nuclear is not too polluted to use and should not be polluted at all. I live near a nuclear power plant, they use huge volumes of water so does the local coal power plant as well this water is either recycled through cooling lakes or released back into the ocean, the water so used is not contaminated or harmful in any way.

 

Then falsify it. I had not posted any information on it because I thought it was obvious. But I guess I was wrong. Look at where nuclear is located.

 

And the pollution doesn't have to be on site, there are other ways it gets into the water supply too. Here is a quote:

 

But the cleaner air has come at a cost. Each day since the equipment was switched on in June' date=' the company has dumped tens of thousands of gallons of wastewater containing chemicals from the scrubbing process into the Monongahela River, which provides drinking water to 350,000 people and flows into Pittsburgh, 40 miles to the north.

 

"It's like they decided to spare us having to breathe in these poisons, but now we have to drink them instead," said Philip Coleman, who lives about 15 miles from the plant and has asked a state judge to toughen the facility's pollution regulations. "We can't escape."

 

[/quote']

 

If that is not convincing, here is some more data: http://spectrum.ieee...ake-electricity

 

Here is the table broken down for you, regarding the efficient use of water. Guess what, nuclear is dead last:

 

 

 

 

They are not connected in the way that you suggest, in fact your suggestion that water used to take away waste heat from any power plant or used to make electricity via a dam is unusable for other things is simply not true and is suggestive that you have an agenda that is not being honestly shown here.

 

They are connected much more strongly than you believe, for the simple fact that the energy sector has to compete with other sectors for water use. The issue is that the water is evaporated, that's why it is mostly unusable. It is also polluted to a degree too, when you take into account the mines or other negative externalities.

 

This is a very well known fact by the way, I don't see why you are hostile to this suggestion. Unless you actually believe that the laws of thermodynamics can be violated.

 

 

And this supports your assertions in what way exactly?

 

I was responding to another post.

 

 

I agree, and I suggest you take your own suggestion to heart...

 

I gotta love the irony here.

 

 

The bottom line, Moontanmann, is that nuclear is very unlikely to pick up the slack on the scale that you imagine it at. Unless one of three things happen first

 

1) Reduce energy demand

2) Reduce population numbers

3) A miraculous breakthrough occurs

 

 

We are locked into population growth for at least one more generation, and when and where a breakthrough will occur is anyone's guess. But I can tell you that it is extraordinarily unlikely to occur in nuclear energy. That leaves 1) reduce energy demand. But 1) is dependent on 2) or 3). If a solution isn't found soon...

 

=======================================================

 

Thanks for the source.

 

Once again, I do not want to debate GW or hydroelectric, or solar under this topic. If you create a new topic, I'll argue it there.

 

I'm not here to do that under this thread either. I was just making a statement of fact, that was all.

 

 

This forum is on the END of nuclear energy, not on whether we would "scale it up". However, nuclear power plants right now are using plutonium as given in an earlier source. Here is another, more credible source: http://www.world-nuc...info/inf15.html And I believe that if we stepped up nuclear power, we would mine more fissile elements. Therefore, I believe that even if we did step nuclear up drastically, we would not have a shortage.

 

As nuclear only covers only 6% of the world energy demand, I think all of the pro-nuclear types are certainly hard pressed to show that it can possibly be scaled up to the degree that they claim it could be done. Particularly with surging demand from China and India, and other developing nations. I personally think that, even with fast breeders, it can't possibly be done, especially given limited reserves in toto. Fusion potentially could, but when anything will come out of that is anyone's guess. But then, I could be wrong. Only time will tell, I suppose.

 

That being said, I don't deny that it help alleviate some of the problems with our energy crisis. But it will probably have to be part of an energy mix. Although, if you have followed this most recent post, there is quite a bit that has to be addressed, and the burden of proof is on the nuclear industry; my points are not easily debunked.

Edited June 4, 2011 by JCP

[Brainteaserfan]

Give me an example of a commercial reactor that runs on thorium, because I don't know of any. And there are no fast breeder reactors in operation. Here is the actual outlook for nuclear:

 

The political aspect: http://spectrum.ieee...f-nuclear-power

 

The energy economics of it (a good summary of both EROI and reserve dat. Note that it states that it is, at best, a transition energy source): http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3877

 

More economics: http://www.rmi.org/r...uclearSocialism

 

Energy end use data: http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/ieo/world.html

 

Look closely at figure 16 at the last link, and you tell me if nuclear will ever amount to anything. On the other hand, renewables look like they will be the big winner.

 

Here is the outlook for fast breeder reactors and other generation IV nuclear reactors:

 

http://www.fissilema...tus_of_fas.html

 

Read that one carefully, and you tell me if nuclear will ever amount to anything. Here is a quote:

 

 

 

 

Of course, that is just the most recent report. Over ten years ago most of the fast breeder reactors were abandoned because they were "too costly and of doubtful value": http://dieoff.org/page155.htm

 

Japan seems to have continued onward, but as far as I know they aren't any closer to producing a commercially viable fast breeder reactor today than they were ten years ago. They are all still in the experimental stage, and are likely to come online beyond the year 2030.

 

So far, only the generation III + nuclear reactors are going to be online anytime soon, and that's only if the whole Fukushima fiasco doesn't impact development too negatively.

 

RE: Thorium.

 

Here is the reserve data for Thorium: http://minerals.usgs...-2011-thori.pdf

 

And here it is for uranium: http://en.wikipedia....ranium_reserves

 

 

If we take those figures at face value, this implies that there is actually less thorium than uranium. Again, there are no power plants that are fast breeder reactors or generation IV nuclear power plants (not expected until 2030 at the earliest) in commercial operation. So this is moot.

 

 

 

I'm just being a realist, I have no agenda to speak of. And you will see that I'm not misrepresenting anything. You are.

 

Unless there is a breakthrough in, say, fusion or some other novel energy source, I seriously doubt that nuclear will pick up the slack left by fossil fuels alone. Especially considering the fact that energy demands tend to grow exponentially over time. I showed little data because I had initially believed that this was obvious.

 

 

 

 

 

Nuclear and hydro are still rare, after decades of development, compared to the world energy outlook. Hydro has very little potential left (how many rivers or other bodies of water can be found...), and nuclear is looking like a dead end so far, at least if the plan is to support our already overpopulated planet, or keep on with business as usual. Coal is used primarily because of its high EROEI and low technology requirements, particularly in China.

 

 

 

 

This is why you don't rely one a single source for your electricity. And the impacts of weather and intermittenty on renewable energy are usually overblown; they can easily be overcome.

 

Solar has much better prospects than fast breeders. In fact, it is already possible to generate solar energy during the night. Unlike fast breeder reactors, this project looks like it has a chance of getting off the ground.

 

Even more significantly, the IPCC agrees that renewables can pick up the slack, in a landmark study done recently: http://www.guardian....rgy-power-world

 

But then again, this is off topic. We are here to discuss the viability of nuclear.

 

 

 

Then falsify it. I had not posted any information on it because I thought it was obvious. But I guess I was wrong. Look at where nuclear is located.

 

And the pollution doesn't have to be on site, there are other ways it gets into the water supply too. Here is a quote:

 

 

 

If that is not convincing, here is some more data: http://spectrum.ieee...ake-electricity

 

Here is the table broken down for you, regarding the efficient use of water. Guess what, nuclear is dead last:

 

 

 

 

 

 

They are connected much more strongly than you believe, for the simple fact that the energy sector has to compete with other sectors for water use. The issue is that the water is evaporated, that's why it is mostly unusable. It is also polluted to a degree too, when you take into account the mines or other negative externalities.

 

This is a very well known fact by the way, I don't see why you are hostile to this suggestion. Unless you actually believe that the laws of thermodynamics can be violated.

 

 

 

 

I was responding to another post.

 

 

 

 

I gotta love the irony here.

 

 

The bottom line, Moontanmann, is that nuclear is very unlikely to pick up the slack on the scale that you imagine it at. Unless one of three things happen first

 

1) Reduce energy demand

2) Reduce population numbers

3) A miraculous breakthrough occurs

 

 

We are locked into population growth for at least one more generation, and when and where a breakthrough will occur is anyone's guess. But I can tell you that it is extraordinarily unlikely to occur in nuclear energy. That leaves 1) reduce energy demand. But 1) is dependent on 2) or 3). If a solution isn't found soon...

 

=======================================================

 

 

 

I'm not here to do that under this thread either. I was just making a statement of fact, that was all.

 

 

 

 

As nuclear only covers only 6% of the world energy demand, I think all of the pro-nuclear types are certainly hard pressed to show that it can possibly be scaled up to the degree that they claim it could be done. Particularly with surging demand from China and India, and other developing nations. I personally think that, even with fast breeders, it can't possibly be done, especially given limited reserves in toto. Fusion potentially could, but when anything will come out of that is anyone's guess. But then, I could be wrong. Only time will tell, I suppose.

 

That being said, I don't deny that it help alleviate some of the problems with our energy crisis. But it will probably have to be part of an energy mix. Although, if you have followed this most recent post, there is quite a bit that has to be addressed, and the burden of proof is on the nuclear industry; my points are not easily debunked.

 

First off, I'm not the nuclear industry. I don't work for them, not affilliated etc. Even if I did, I don't represent the entire industry. Therefore, there is no pressure on me.

 

I do not think any single non-nuclear energy source will meet all of our energy needs.

 

Solar is making huge advancements in its technology because our solar technology is so bad that it is easy to improve. Nuclear is capable of producing many times what solar, or any other energy source can generate.

 

Generally, air is purified when it evaporates and then rains.

 

Everybody has an agenda, otherwise we wouldn't be arguing.

 

Think other than thorium. Think plutonium. In a previous source, it mentioned that 1/3 of all nuclear reactors use plutonium as fuel.

 

There are plenty of ways of measuring the efficient use of water.

 

You said that nuclear was still rare. Well that depends on the political climate in countries. In some countries, eg France, nuclear has taken off.

 

As for the quote about shifting pollutants from the air to the water, that was talking about a COAL power plant. http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/articles/2009/coal_water_pollution.php

 

I'm sorry my reply is rather disorganized, I tried to get all my points down, but right now I'm using an iPod and this website doesn't work well with it. Thanks for taking the time to argue!

Edited June 5, 2011 by Brainteaserfan

[Ophiolite]

Nuclear IS renewable.

You subscribe to the oscillating universe theory, then? Otherwise there is no way in which you can describe nuclear energy as renewable!

[Brainteaserfan]

You subscribe to the oscillating universe theory, then? Otherwise there is no way in which you can describe nuclear energy as renewable!

I admit, I'm wrong. However this was pointed out by lemur a long time ago if you read earlier in the thread.

 

Nuclear has the capability to provide us with power for a very long time. As far as I am concerned it is "limitless". Sorry for not looking up the definition of limitless before posting that. (http://dictionary.com/d/?q=Limitless&submit-result-SEARCHD=Search)

[Ophiolite]

Sorry for not looking up the definition of limitless before posting that. (http://dictionary.com/d/?q=Limitless&submit-result-SEARCHD=Search)

And I apologise for posting my observation before reading the entire thread.

[JCP]

First off, I'm not the nuclear industry. I don't work for them, not affilliated etc. Even if I did, I don't represent the entire industry. Therefore, there is no pressure on me.

 

I understand that. I just wanted to make sure that you understood that my doubts about nuclear fission are justified. I'm not pulling any of this out of my ass.

 

 

Solar is making huge advancements in its technology because our solar technology is so bad that it is easy to improve. Nuclear is capable of producing many times what solar, or any other energy source can generate.

 

Again, that depends on which nuclear source we are talking about. I'm enthusiastic about fusion (provided that anything could ever come out of it), not so much about fission. I think that we can both agree that the potential for most of the alternatives to fossil fuel, nuclear or otherwise, is quite large, but no single one will solve our crisis.

 

 

Generally, air is purified when it evaporates and then rains.

 

That's true. But its also not very usable in vapor form.

 

 

Everybody has an agenda, otherwise we wouldn't be arguing.

 

Think other than thorium. Think plutonium. In a previous source, it mentioned that 1/3 of all nuclear reactors use plutonium as fuel.

 

There are plenty of ways of measuring the efficient use of water.

 

 

Yes, and this is why you have to look all of the facts presented to you by both sides. I will trust that both of us did that, and came to different conclusions. You're optimistic, I'm not so much.

 

 

I think for now, its better if we agree to disagree, lest a flame war begins.

 

Also, keep in mind that this whole argument spawned from the disbelief or misunderstanding that food, water, and energy are interconnected. I apologize if you felt that this argument was too heated, I never intended for this to happen.

 

 

You said that nuclear was still rare. Well that depends on the political climate in countries. In some countries, eg France, nuclear has taken off.

 

Yes this is true, to a certain degree and depending on which localities you are talking about. Some nations are well equipped to base their energy system primarily on nuclear. I doubt, however, that the United States or China will be able to accomplish the same feat, simply because of the way their societies are structured (i.e. trying running the Interstate Highway System on electricity).

 

The United States also has their dysfunctional political system, which makes it even more difficult for anything to get done. All those politicians have to represent all of those special interest groups...

 

As for the quote about shifting pollutants from the air to the water, that was talking about a COAL power plant. http://www.reclaimde...r_pollution.php

 

I was just giving an example of how power plants use up fresh water, whether directly (through evaporation) or indirectly (pollution). Nuclear no doubt uses it up differently, but the overall point was that the demands on water by the energy sector are quite large, second only to agriculture!

 

 

Thanks for taking the time to argue!

 

I never meant to argue, sorry if it felt that way. Thanks for taking the time to debate your points! I'm sure that some of us at least came to an understanding, and learned something over the past day.

Edited June 5, 2011 by JCP

[Moontanman]

JCP, you are spreading so much crap here it's difficult to deal with it all, from non science opinion sources to sources that are nothing but political action groups, to sources that assume 1950's level technology, to some sources that don't even seem connected to your argument. You keep talking about just wanting to represent the facts but you are not being honest in your "discussion" style at all but the idea that a power plant uses up water is the biggest piece of male bovine excrement you have raised and the most obviously false. yes the water evaporates, some of it, but not even a major percentage of it, most of it is just recycled in some way from cooling towers to cooling lakes and ponds but the amount lost is trivial and it also rains back down elsewhere often quite close by. You cannot show that nuclear power plants significantly increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, if they did they would be a source of global warming not a possible solution! Nuclear power plants or coal or hydro for that matter do not "use up" water! If you want to debate any of the rest of this stuff you must stop out right lying! The idea that power plants use water in a way that make it unusable by anyone else is simply not true, not true by any stretch of the imagination.

[lemur]

The idea that power plants use water in a way that make it unusable by anyone else is simply not true, not true by any stretch of the imagination.

If hydrogen fusion plants were made practical, those would convert water into helium and oxygen, though, wouldn't they? I assume he was talking about fission, in which case you're right, but I thought maybe he had read something about fusion using up hydrogen derived from water and gotten that mixed up with fission, which doesn't use up water.

Edited June 5, 2011 by lemur

[Moontanman]

If hydrogen fusion plants were made practical, those would convert water into helium and oxygen, though, wouldn't they?

 

Yes but it would be an incredibly trivial amount, just a few hundred kilos, at most, of hydrogen fused would be enough to power the entire USA power grid.

 

I assume he was talking about fission, in which case you're right, but I thought maybe he had read something about fusion using up hydrogen derived from water and gotten that mixed up with fission, which doesn't use up water.

 

I don't know where his mind has taken him on this but that one thing is so inaccurate it's difficult to really go any further with the discussion he is presenting.

[lemur]

Yes but it would be an incredibly trivial amount, just a few hundred kilos, at most, of hydrogen fused would be enough to power the entire USA power grid.

In the short term, it would be negligible. But I would assume that if fusion power plants were sustainably operational, cheap abundant power would become the norm and the global economy would continue to grow for many millennia as well as all sorts of space-colonization projects being undertaken, so to avoid ending up like a waterless Mars, development of conservative consumption norms still seems first priority to me.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Let's tone it down. Challenge the information, by all means, but do so in a civil fashion.

As far as the recent discussion goes, the notion that nuclear power uses up water in cooling flies in the face of basic chemistry and physics. Water goes through a pipe. It gets warmer. It's discharged back into the source body of water.

[Brainteaserfan]

I understand that. I just wanted to make sure that you understood that my doubts about nuclear fission are justified. I'm not pulling any of this out of my ass.

 

 

 

 

Again, that depends on which nuclear source we are talking about. I'm enthusiastic about fusion (provided that anything could ever come out of it), not so much about fission. I think that we can both agree that the potential for most of the alternatives to fossil fuel, nuclear or otherwise, is quite large, but no single one will solve our crisis.

 

 

 

 

That's true. But its also not very usable in vapor form.

 

 

 

 

Yes, and this is why you have to look all of the facts presented to you by both sides. I will trust that both of us did that, and came to different conclusions. You're optimistic, I'm not so much.

 

 

I think for now, its better if we agree to disagree, lest a flame war begins.

 

Also, keep in mind that this whole argument spawned from the disbelief or misunderstanding that food, water, and energy are interconnected. I apologize if you felt that this argument was too heated, I never intended for this to happen.

 

 

 

 

Yes this is true, to a certain degree and depending on which localities you are talking about. Some nations are well equipped to base their energy system primarily on nuclear. I doubt, however, that the United States or China will be able to accomplish the same feat, simply because of the way their societies are structured (i.e. trying running the Interstate Highway System on electricity).

 

The United States also has their dysfunctional political system, which makes it even more difficult for anything to get done. All those politicians have to represent all of those special interest groups...

 

 

 

I was just giving an example of how power plants use up fresh water, whether directly (through evaporation) or indirectly (pollution). Nuclear no doubt uses it up differently, but the overall point was that the demands on water by the energy sector are quite large, second only to agriculture!

 

 

 

 

I never meant to argue, sorry if it felt that way. Thanks for taking the time to debate your points! I'm sure that some of us at least came to an understanding, and learned something over the past day.

I disagree on a few points, but completly agree on several others and partly agree on others.

 

On water vapor not being very usable: I disagree. This is more GW than nuclear, but I believe that water vapor will reflect sunlight, cooling off the earth, allowing it to rain and become in a usable state, (actually generating energy when it rains over a mass of land that uses hydro).

 

On argue vs debate: I didn't mean that it was becoming too heated, I sincerely am thanking you for your time spent allowing me to discuss this with you.

 

I should have used the word debate instead of argue; the word argue came to me first.

 

On nuclear sources: I believe that fusion is capable, although not as good as fission, of solving our energy, "crisis" - single handedly. I acknowledge that some political climates are not ready to take that yet. So the US will continue to send money overseas for oil, (instead of drilling in Alaska), for our cars which could be powered by electric energy generated by nuclear. I'd like to go into the politics farther, but I don't feel that that would be quite with the rules of staying on topic.

[Moontanman]

In the short term, it would be negligible. But I would assume that if fusion power plants were sustainably operational, cheap abundant power would become the norm and the global economy would continue to grow for many millennia as well as all sorts of space-colonization projects being undertaken, so to avoid ending up like a waterless Mars, development of conservative consumption norms still seems first priority to me.

 

 

I once read that the sun would expand and sterilize the earth before enough hydrogen from our planet could be fused to make a measurable difference in the amount of water in the ocean or some similar thing and that is probably pretty close to being correct. The main thing to remember about hydrogen fusion is that it does release neutrons and will cause other things to become radioactive so in the long term it is not much better than fission as far as waste is concerned, well the fusion waste probably wouldn't be as nasty as the waste from fission but there would still be a lot of it... except of course for aneutronic fusion, which perversely would use helium3 as it's fuel and produce no particle radiation and "could" skip the entire turning heat into motion and then into electricity cycle all other power plants rely on. The perversity of this is that helium3 is practically non existent on the Earth but occurs in a more reasonable quantity on the Moon! Don't ya just love it when a plan.... well lets just say doesn't quite come together. lol

 

BTW a link was posted in another thread that has very good graphics and explains nuclear energy quite well and if it is correct Canada already has reactors that can operate on thorium...

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/57643-nuclear-energy-infographic/page__pid__610859#entry610859

[physics confusion]

The reason why a Hydrogen Fusion reactor is currently not in use is simply that the hydrogen fusion reactor has many severe side effects.

1: The hydrogen reaction is a chain reaction if the right quantities of hydrogen are present;

2: If the right quantities aren't present, the produced Light Helium will turn to Helium, in turn to berylium, so on, so forth. this eventually stops at Iron where it becomes an endothermic reaction and the reactor goes NOVA;

3: The heat produced from the Hydrogen reaction is at approximately 3200 degrees celcius. few materials on earth can handle this; and

4: A hydrogen reaction cause an Electro Magnetic feild. The earth produces it's own electromagnetic feild (commonly known as the atmosphere), which causes gases to be trapped. a second electromagnetic feild COULD cause the atmosphere to collapse or polarise the iron core, thus the atmosphere would collapse and all life WOULD die.

 

Current technologies are not yet capable of containing this sort of reaction, and thus is why it is not currently used.

[Brainteaserfan]

The reason why a Hydrogen Fusion reactor is currently not in use is simply that the hydrogen fusion reactor has many severe side effects.

1: The hydrogen reaction is a chain reaction if the right quantities of hydrogen are present;

2: If the right quantities aren't present, the produced Light Helium will turn to Helium, in turn to berylium, so on, so forth. this eventually stops at Iron where it becomes an endothermic reaction and the reactor goes NOVA;

3: The heat produced from the Hydrogen reaction is at approximately 3200 degrees celcius. few materials on earth can handle this; and

4: A hydrogen reaction cause an Electro Magnetic feild. The earth produces it's own electromagnetic feild (commonly known as the atmosphere), which causes gases to be trapped. a second electromagnetic feild COULD cause the atmosphere to collapse or polarise the iron core, thus the atmosphere would collapse and all life WOULD die.

 

Current technologies are not yet capable of containing this sort of reaction, and thus is why it is not currently used.

People were scared of the first nuclear bomb's effects too.

 

I think that with our current tech in fission, a majority of our power could come from nuclear. As far as I can tell, the only reason that nuclear power isn't being used for most of our power is that whenever a important political party advocates it, another one will spend advertising saying that they don't advocate it. Since many people associate nuclear power with nuclear weapons, the party that advocates nuclear power loses the elections. Sad, but reality.

[Ophiolite]

The reason why a Hydrogen Fusion reactor is currently not in use is simply that the hydrogen fusion reactor has many severe side effects.

1: The hydrogen reaction is a chain reaction if the right quantities of hydrogen are present;

2: If the right quantities aren't present, the produced Light Helium will turn to Helium, in turn to berylium, so on, so forth. this eventually stops at Iron where it becomes an endothermic reaction and the reactor goes NOVA;

3: The heat produced from the Hydrogen reaction is at approximately 3200 degrees celcius. few materials on earth can handle this; and

4: A hydrogen reaction cause an Electro Magnetic feild. The earth produces it's own electromagnetic feild (commonly known as the atmosphere), which causes gases to be trapped. a second electromagnetic feild COULD cause the atmosphere to collapse or polarise the iron core, thus the atmosphere would collapse and all life WOULD die.

 

Current technologies are not yet capable of containing this sort of reaction, and thus is why it is not currently used.

None of the statements you have made are correct in the way in which you mean them. Whatever you have read or were told that led you to believe these statements are true was either badly presented, also wrong, or badly misinterpreted. It would be helpful to other members and casual readers if you verified your statements before posting.

 

1. You are correct that one form of hydrogen fusion is a chain reaction, but you imply by this - borrowing from popular lexicology - that it is a run-away chain reaction. Such is decidedly not the case. Even with the conditions deep within the sun, creation of two protons to deuterium, the first step in the reaction, is so rare half the hydrogen in the sun will still be unconverted 5 billion years from now.

2. Conditions to produce fusion into the higher atomic weight elements are not present within the design of any proposed fusion reactor. Further, as a minor detail, the progress towards iron is associated with supernovae, not novae - an entirely different beast.

3. Which is why the tokamak reactors contain the reaction in a magnetic field.

4. Wow! The atmosphere and the Earth's magnetic field are two completely different things. The magnetic field does protect the atmosphere from some very slow erosional effects of the solar wind, but is not what keeps it from collapsing. The core of the planets is already polarised, hence the magnetic field.

 

 

Edit: the following was added as a separate post after noting stringjunky's observations.

 

People were scared of the first nuclear bomb's effects too.

I believe the primary intention of a nuclear bomb is that people should be scared of its effects. Otherwise it's not of much use. Tell me, are you not somewhat scared of its effects? And if not, why not?

 

As far as I can tell, the only reason that nuclear power isn't being used for most of our power is that whenever a important political party advocates it, another one will spend advertising saying that they don't advocate it.

You don't think safety considerations, real or imagined, have had a part to play?

Edited June 12, 2011 by Ophiolite

[swansont]

I think the main reason that a Hydrogen Fusion reactor is currently not in use is its nonexistence.

[Ophiolite]

I think the main reason that a Hydrogen Fusion reactor is currently not in use is its nonexistence.

Not strictly true. What we lack is an effective one that generates subtantially more energy output than input.

[swansont]

Not strictly true. What we lack is an effective one that generates subtantially more energy output than input.

Fair enough. My perpetual motion machine suffers the same shortcoming.

[Das Energy]

Nuclear power, is a furthy, its nuclear heating for steam, just like Coal but more dangerous. The day of steam has been replaced by Carbon. Its emense energy for so little heat, plus it provides its own cooling by creation of Dry-Ice.

[zapatos]

I believe the primary intention of a nuclear bomb is that people should be scared of its effects. Otherwise it's not of much use. Tell me, are you not somewhat scared of its effects? And if not, why not?

I believe he may be referring to the fear some had at the time (1940's) that if a chain reaction was started by scientists, it may not have stopped until the entire earth was destroyed.