|
psyconaught
Chemical Connoisseur


Registered: 11/04/10
Posts: 6,100
Last seen: 7 years, 2 months
|
Nuclear could replace all fossil fuel electricity in 25-34 years
#21682465 - 05/15/15 10:28 AM (8 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
http://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2015/05/15/we_could_get_rid_of_fossil_fuel_electricity_in_just_25_years_with_nuclear_power_109222.html
Its just too bad this subject is so politicized. We really need to be educating the voting population and politicians about the realities of nuclear and how necessary it really is.
-------------------- Think for yourself, question authority
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
|
Re: Nuclear could replace all fossil fuel electricity in 25-34 years [Re: psyconaught]
#21683064 - 05/15/15 01:11 PM (8 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
psyconaught
Chemical Connoisseur


Registered: 11/04/10
Posts: 6,100
Last seen: 7 years, 2 months
|
Re: Nuclear could replace all fossil fuel electricity in 25-34 years [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#21683122 - 05/15/15 01:26 PM (8 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
i'm not against solar and wind, they have their place. However I think nuclear is the only viable option for the base power loads that a civilization needs.
-------------------- Think for yourself, question authority
|
psilynut
aka Patchraper

Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 1,244
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
|
Re: Nuclear could replace all fossil fuel electricity in 25-34 years [Re: psyconaught]
#21683316 - 05/15/15 02:21 PM (8 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
A nuclear powered car may be possible someday.
http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1065040_thorium-powered-cars-a-million-miles-without-refuelling
I'd buy one . If didn't look retarted , had 400 hp , and didn't weigh more than 3500 pounds .
|
Asante
Mage


Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 86,797
|
Re: Nuclear could replace all fossil fuel electricity in 25-34 years [Re: psilynut]
#21687280 - 05/16/15 02:32 PM (8 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Thorium and fusion reactors are the ones we should be focussing on, the ones with abundant decentralized fuel and which do not produce long lived highly radioactive waste and cannot meltdown.
Lobbying for ordinary uranium/plutonium nuclear is not the way. Fukushima is proving that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power
-------------------- Omnicyclion.org higher knowledge starts here
Edited by Asante (05/16/15 02:38 PM)
|
psyconaught
Chemical Connoisseur


Registered: 11/04/10
Posts: 6,100
Last seen: 7 years, 2 months
|
Re: Nuclear could replace all fossil fuel electricity in 25-34 years [Re: Asante]
#21687974 - 05/16/15 07:00 PM (8 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Thorium and fusion reactors are the ones we should be focussing on
absolutely
-------------------- Think for yourself, question authority
|
Le_Canard
The Duk Abides


Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 94,392
Loc: Earthfarm 1
|
Re: Nuclear could replace all fossil fuel electricity in 25-34 years [Re: Asante]
#21689032 - 05/17/15 01:06 AM (8 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Perfecting fusion would be a real boon to humanity, that's for sure.
|
pretzelking
Stranger

Registered: 03/19/13
Posts: 77
Last seen: 8 years, 3 months
|
Re: Nuclear could replace all fossil fuel electricity in 25-34 years [Re: Le_Canard]
#21689719 - 05/17/15 08:30 AM (8 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
We have had safe nuclear reactor prototypes for years. This particular reactor would shut itself down after losing coolant (ie the reason why ALL meltdowns have happened).
Edited by pretzelking (05/17/15 08:30 AM)
|
BoldAsLove
Pokemon Master


Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
|
Re: Nuclear could replace all fossil fuel electricity in 25-34 years [Re: Le_Canard]
#21691357 - 05/17/15 04:59 PM (8 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Le_Canard said: Perfecting fusion would be a real boon to humanity, that's for sure.
Forget perfecting it. Just figuring out how to get on the net positive side of the energy equation for more than a negligible amount of time would be more than enough.
-------------------- DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor and Ferdinand , the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.
|
Stonehenge
Alt Center


Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 14,850
Loc: S.E.
|
Re: Nuclear could replace all fossil fuel electricity in 25-34 years [Re: BoldAsLove]
#21692248 - 05/17/15 08:36 PM (8 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Thorium reactors produce radioactive waste too. Fusion would be the way to go if it ever works. But then humans would colonize every square inch of the planet chopping down all trees and paving everything over leading to a rapid mass extinction. We make lemmings look smart.
-------------------- “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” (attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville political philosopher Circa 1835) Trade list http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/18047755
|
BoldAsLove
Pokemon Master


Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
|
Re: Nuclear could replace all fossil fuel electricity in 25-34 years [Re: Stonehenge]
#21692398 - 05/17/15 09:12 PM (8 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Stonehenge said: Thorium reactors produce radioactive waste too. Fusion would be the way to go if it ever works. But then humans would colonize every square inch of the planet chopping down all trees and paving everything over leading to a rapid mass extinction. We make lemmings look smart.
Why do you believe we would do that? If anything, the exact opposite would happen. As countries become more developed, population growth slows and even reverses. Therefore, more space is not really necessary. And, as population growth slows, so does our demand for resources. Fusion also allows us to consider fantastic methods of resource collection that were previously not cost-effective because of energy prices.
-------------------- DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor and Ferdinand , the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.
|
Stonehenge
Alt Center


Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 14,850
Loc: S.E.
|
Re: Nuclear could replace all fossil fuel electricity in 25-34 years [Re: BoldAsLove]
#21693916 - 05/18/15 10:02 AM (8 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
BoldAsLove said:
Quote:
Stonehenge said: Thorium reactors produce radioactive waste too. Fusion would be the way to go if it ever works. But then humans would colonize every square inch of the planet chopping down all trees and paving everything over leading to a rapid mass extinction. We make lemmings look smart.
Why do you believe we would do that? If anything, the exact opposite would happen. As countries become more developed, population growth slows and even reverses. Therefore, more space is not really necessary. And, as population growth slows, so does our demand for resources. Fusion also allows us to consider fantastic methods of resource collection that were previously not cost-effective because of energy prices.
The history of the world has shown the opposite. The effect of developed countries slowing birth rates is offset by increased rates in other countries. It takes more than fusion to bring socially primitive people into the 21st century. With unlimited water from cheap power, deserts bloom, wasteland becomes farmland and houses spring up where there were none before.
Then there is the added pollution from all those new people, greater global warming which even if we stopped all co2 output from power plants, etc would keep going up for decades. The genie is out of the bottle on that.
-------------------- “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” (attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville political philosopher Circa 1835) Trade list http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/18047755
|
BoldAsLove
Pokemon Master


Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
|
Re: Nuclear could replace all fossil fuel electricity in 25-34 years [Re: Stonehenge]
#21694731 - 05/18/15 02:24 PM (8 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Stonehenge said: The history of the world has shown the opposite. The effect of developed countries slowing birth rates is offset by increased rates in other countries.
The birth rates in the other countries is already extremely high, but world history shows that every country to date has followed the same path from developing to developed with lower birth rates and higher survival. There is no reason to think that fusion would do anything but speed up that process. Global population growth would absolutely slow.
Quote:
It takes more than fusion to bring socially primitive people into the 21st century.
The access to cheap energy is a requirement for any country to become developed and fusion provides just that in an amount never before seen in human history.
Quote:
With unlimited water from cheap power, deserts bloom, wasteland becomes farmland and houses spring up where there were none before.
Then there is the added pollution from all those new people, greater global warming which even if we stopped all co2 output from power plants, etc would keep going up for decades. The genie is out of the bottle on that.
With virtually unlimited energy and a decreasing birth rate, there is no reason for much more farmland. I don't see how you are reaching the conclusion that it would increase.
As for CO2, the invention of fusion essentially halts the vast majority of human carbon production. And with unlimited energy, we can pursue technologies that are currently entirely cost prohibitive, like carbon scrubbing. Again, I'm not seeing how you reached the conclusion that a non-carbon based, cheap, and limitless energy source would increase global warming.
-------------------- DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor and Ferdinand , the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.
|
abductee
Time



Registered: 05/07/15
Posts: 2,224
Loc: Canada
|
Re: Nuclear could replace all fossil fuel electricity in 25-34 years [Re: BoldAsLove]
#21694766 - 05/18/15 02:33 PM (8 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Woahh.. Nuclear is not needed. Look at fukushima, we are allready fucked.. its still leaking and the reactor core has made its way into the table water so now for hundreds of years that water draining into the ocean will be contaminated. Nuclear energy creates a waste that we cant just get rid of.. it builds up and we have to put all that waste somewhere.. nuclear energy is going to be what destroys our planet and creates monstrous mutations.. we are already on the way to our own destruction..why hasten it.
|
Stonehenge
Alt Center


Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 14,850
Loc: S.E.
|
Re: Nuclear could replace all fossil fuel electricity in 25-34 years [Re: BoldAsLove]
#21694784 - 05/18/15 02:38 PM (8 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
>The birth rates in the other countries is already extremely high, but world history shows that every country to date has followed the same path from developing to developed with lower birth rates and higher survival. There is no reason to think that fusion would do anything but speed up that process. Global population growth would absolutely slow.
The main reason for the death rate in the third world is because of lack of food and clean water. Cheap power means cheap food and water = lower death rate and faster growth. Areas now uninhabitable would be used since heat, cooling, food, water etc become cheaper. With the same birth rate and lower mortality, pop growth goes up.
>The access to cheap energy is a requirement for any country to become developed and fusion provides just that in an amount never before seen in human history.
Oh really? I think you mean IF it existed, and IF it was very cheap then we would have cheap power.
>With virtually unlimited energy and a decreasing birth rate, there is no reason for much more farmland.
The drop in birth rates come much later after the country is westernized. Many cultures have a tradition of large families, that will not change rapidly.
>As for CO2, the invention of fusion essentially halts the vast majority of human carbon production
Not so. There is still the automobile, decomposing plant and animal material, heating which will be with wood or charcoal for a long time in developing countries. Even with fusion power plants the infrastructure must be built, the people must change over to electric heat, etc.
Even if all human caused release of co2 was stopped, temps would continue to rise for a long time as will the breakdown of the ozone layer.
-------------------- “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” (attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville political philosopher Circa 1835) Trade list http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/18047755
|
BoldAsLove
Pokemon Master


Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
|
Re: Nuclear could replace all fossil fuel electricity in 25-34 years [Re: Stonehenge]
#21694974 - 05/18/15 03:41 PM (8 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Stonehenge said: The main reason for the death rate in the third world is because of lack of food and clean water. Cheap power means cheap food and water = lower death rate and faster growth. Areas now uninhabitable would be used since heat, cooling, food, water etc become cheaper. With the same birth rate and lower mortality, pop growth goes up.
If you follow the pattern of developing nations, they always go through a period where the mortality rate declines (particularly infant mortality) followed by a drop in birth rate. The first step to lowering the birth rate is lowering the mortality rate.
Quote:
Oh really? I think you mean IF it existed, and IF it was very cheap then we would have cheap power.
If it exists it will be cheap and virtually unlimited.
Quote:
The drop in birth rates come much later after the country is westernized. Many cultures have a tradition of large families, that will not change rapidly.
Countries don't have to be westernized for birth rate to fall. Really, they just have to advance from a survival society to a pre-modern society to see the biggest change.
Quote:
Not so. There is still the automobile, decomposing plant and animal material, heating which will be with wood or charcoal for a long time in developing countries. Even with fusion power plants the infrastructure must be built, the people must change over to electric heat, etc.
Even if all human caused release of co2 was stopped, temps would continue to rise for a long time as will the breakdown of the ozone layer.
Automobiles can run on energy, plant and animal material decomposing is not human-caused, and heating with wood is very efficient in terms of carbon. As fusion gets built, the power to build infrastructure will more and more come from fusion sources. I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Are you trying to argue that fusion will be worse for global warming??
-------------------- DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor and Ferdinand , the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.
|
Stonehenge
Alt Center


Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 14,850
Loc: S.E.
|
Re: Nuclear could replace all fossil fuel electricity in 25-34 years [Re: BoldAsLove]
#21695298 - 05/18/15 05:33 PM (8 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
>Countries don't have to be westernized for birth rate to fall. Really, they just have to advance from a survival society to a pre-modern society to see the biggest change.
You seem to be clueless about the fact that in many cultures having a large family is a tradition. A couple with 2 kids is considered almost childless. Because of high rates of infant mortality they crank them out as fast as possible. I agree one day they will wise up but not in the next few years as you seem to hope. We are talking about generations.
>Automobiles can run on energy,
Its called gasoline. You are not going to get a fusion plant inside a car, sorry.
>Are you trying to argue that fusion will be worse for global warming??
I am saying it will lead to a population explosion even worse than what is going on now. You are aware aren't you that world population is exploding?
-------------------- “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” (attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville political philosopher Circa 1835) Trade list http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/18047755
|
psyconaught
Chemical Connoisseur


Registered: 11/04/10
Posts: 6,100
Last seen: 7 years, 2 months
|
Re: Nuclear could replace all fossil fuel electricity in 25-34 years [Re: Stonehenge]
#21695451 - 05/18/15 06:24 PM (8 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Its called gasoline. You are not going to get a fusion plant inside a car, sorry.
i'd like to introduce you to this wonderful new technology called batteries.
Quote:
I am saying it will lead to a population explosion even worse than what is going on now. You are aware aren't you that world population is exploding?
Quote:
If this trend continues, the rate of growth may diminish to zero by 2050
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
-------------------- Think for yourself, question authority
|
Douglas Howard
Stranger
Registered: 03/26/15
Posts: 1,678
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
|
Re: Nuclear could replace all fossil fuel electricity in 25-34 years [Re: psyconaught]
#21695789 - 05/18/15 08:04 PM (8 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Nuclear versus solar
By Denver Nicks Nearly all environmentalists love nuclear power. What they're divided on, really, is where to locate the reactor(s). Should we be building nuclear reactors distributed around our little planet where they'll produce energy for the surrounding area? Or should we instead just focus on harnessing the power produced by the massive nuclear reactor built for free by the cosmos and situated nearly a billion miles away at the center of our universe--what most people call solar power? http://www.power-eng.com/blogs/energy-matters/2013/05/nuclear_versus_solar.html
|
Douglas Howard
Stranger
Registered: 03/26/15
Posts: 1,678
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
|
Re: Nuclear could replace all fossil fuel electricity in 25-34 years [Re: psyconaught]
#21695851 - 05/18/15 08:16 PM (8 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Only thing that everyone and every companies should start making or using solar power equipment and appliances to prevent using up so much energy. And there is wind power that can help to lighten the load.
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/hydropower-profile/
|
BoldAsLove
Pokemon Master


Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
|
Re: Nuclear could replace all fossil fuel electricity in 25-34 years [Re: Stonehenge]
#21696398 - 05/18/15 10:12 PM (8 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Stonehenge said: You seem to be clueless about the fact that in many cultures having a large family is a tradition. A couple with 2 kids is considered almost childless. Because of high rates of infant mortality they crank them out as fast as possible. I agree one day they will wise up but not in the next few years as you seem to hope. We are talking about generations.
Cultures change as countries change. It has happened in all countries around the world and it will continue to happen. Reducing the death rate and providing clean food and water will lead to less population growth. Not in the "next few years" (which I did not claim), but not in generations either. We've seen this pattern happen time and time again.
Quote:
Its called gasoline. You are not going to get a fusion plant inside a car, sorry.
We have this new invention, it's called the electric car. It runs on electricity, but doesn't need a power plant inside it. It's quite remarkable.
Quote:
I am saying it will lead to a population explosion even worse than what is going on now. You are aware aren't you that world population is exploding?
You are aware that population growth is tapering off, right?  World population is exploding in developing nations, but is stagnant in the rest of the world. Fusion will help developing nations develop faster and slow population growth overall.
-------------------- DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor and Ferdinand , the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.
|
Stonehenge
Alt Center


Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 14,850
Loc: S.E.
|
Re: Nuclear could replace all fossil fuel electricity in 25-34 years [Re: BoldAsLove]
#21698086 - 05/19/15 11:33 AM (8 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
>We have this new invention, it's called the electric car. It runs on electricity, but doesn't need a power plant inside it. It's quite remarkable.
Guess what, electric cars are not selling fast, are expensive and the batteries do not hold a charge long. They represent less than 1% of the cars on the road. Our electric infrastructure barely keeps up with demand as it is. Gasoline like I said
>You are aware that population growth is tapering off, right?
It is going up and will accelerate if cheap power comes along.
I will not reply to your next silly response. Bye.
-------------------- “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” (attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville political philosopher Circa 1835) Trade list http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/18047755
|
BoldAsLove
Pokemon Master


Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
|
Re: Nuclear could replace all fossil fuel electricity in 25-34 years [Re: Stonehenge]
#21699508 - 05/19/15 06:25 PM (8 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Stonehenge said: Guess what, electric cars are not selling fast, are expensive and the batteries do not hold a charge long. They represent less than 1% of the cars on the road. Our electric infrastructure barely keeps up with demand as it is. Gasoline like I said
I have no clue what on earth you are trying to argue. My point was that as infrastructure gets cheaper and electricity more available, we will replace gasoline cars with electric cars. Do you seriously believe that that isn't going to happen??
Quote:
It is going up and will accelerate if cheap power comes along.
You are wrong. Population is increasing, the rate of population growth is decreasing.
Quote:
I will not reply to your next silly response. Bye.
So you realize you are wrong and don't want to make it any more obvious. Good on you.
-------------------- DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor and Ferdinand , the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.
|
Mr. Bojangles
Breathe In



Registered: 04/08/08
Posts: 1,937
Loc: The Dirty
|
Re: Nuclear could replace all fossil fuel electricity in 25-34 years [Re: BoldAsLove]
#21705999 - 05/21/15 11:25 AM (8 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Why is everyone so focused on fusion? It is awesome, and it does work...it just doesn't work well. Commercially speaking we're a couple decades away. Let the fusion research continue but in the meantime, crank up fission!
I see a few posters cite Fukushima, and rightly so...it scared pretty much everyone. However fission reactors weren't the cause of Fukushima. Mechanical (aka failure prone) safety mechanisms were responsible for that accident (as well as Chernobyl--along with "user error" and faulty reactor design aside from the safety mechanisms--and Three Mile Island). This is a direct consequence of people being scared of nuclear power. Public opinion sways governments and regulating bodies. After TMI happened, nuclear power plant production in the US practically stopped. This does not mean we just stopped getting energy from nuclear. Oh no, all those old, fucking dangerous power plants are still in production. Some of the older Gen II reactors are approaching 20 years beyond what they're originally licensed for. The NRC routinely adds 20 year extensions to the original 20 year licenses. This is great for a plant owner looking to squeeze out every penny from their very expensive investment, but for safety and efficiency? A 40 year old reactor operating with 40 year old mechanical safety mechanisms? Nope, fuck that. Now multiply that by 61 because that's how many of those reactors we currently have operating the US.
So we have a public and governments who are pushed away by the stigma of nuclear, extending licenses on old plants rather than invest in the research and the technology for new, safer plants. Everyone wants to say fusion this and fusion that...but the time of fusion power is a long way down the road. Nuclear power from fission can (and has) transform this planet for the better. It is the most dense form of energy we have ever had. There are no emissions. New reactor design is making leaps and strides with regards to passive safety mechanisms. Not only are all of the coolant issues associated with past accidents pretty much solved, but research is now pushing towards better coolant and fuel systems (still fissile fuel!) that will make nuclear even more efficient. The first and only reactors in the US with passive safety mechanisms should be finished in the next year or two, meanwhile we're still operating 61 plants using older technology.
Sorry for the rant but the stigma and paranoia surrounding nuclear power are the exact reason we haven't been able to make this technology safer than it should be. The real problem is and always will be how do we dispose of waste? I'm not sure how many of you are familiar with the current regulatory atmosphere but the need for non-proliferation in the US has made toxic waste dumps out of places like Hanford, WA and the Savannah river. In countries like France, where individual sites are responsible for waste, its either recycled (expensive!), or kept on-site and watched over properly. This gives huge financial and environmental incentive to handle waste properly. Now I'm not saying they're disposing of waste...just storing it until we can figure out how to deal with it.
If you want to be against nuclear...be against it for the right reasons. Otherwise lets try to make Earth a better place to live through science
-------------------- "It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong." Francois-Marie Arouet
|
Le_Canard
The Duk Abides


Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 94,392
Loc: Earthfarm 1
|
Re: Nuclear could replace all fossil fuel electricity in 25-34 years [Re: Mr. Bojangles]
#21706017 - 05/21/15 11:29 AM (8 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
We also need to vastly improve reactor design. They're extremely expensive to build and only last about 30-40 years.
|
Mr. Bojangles
Breathe In



Registered: 04/08/08
Posts: 1,937
Loc: The Dirty
|
Re: Nuclear could replace all fossil fuel electricity in 25-34 years [Re: Le_Canard]
#21706125 - 05/21/15 12:00 PM (8 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I believe 40 years is too much. I think keeping it at the original 20 year license length would keep outdated technology from being in use too long. 40 year old reactors today are wayyy past due on some of the modern safety mechanisms we have today. The newest production reactor is the AP1000 (Gen III+) but we're already past that design in the R&D phase and now looking at Gen IV reactors. Using a technology with such huge implications for energy and safety, its only right and responsible to stay on the cutting edge.
Cost? Definitely way too expensive. But this is where it comes to the government and public being scared. Maybe heavy government subsidies for new, safe reactors could spur some growth? Sadly the nuclear renaissance we were experiencing has gone the way of the wind thanks to Fukushima, leaving us with much the status quo for the years to come. Governments are going to be wary allocating much funds towards nuclear subsidies.
-------------------- "It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong." Francois-Marie Arouet
|
Stonehenge
Alt Center


Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 14,850
Loc: S.E.
|
Re: Nuclear could replace all fossil fuel electricity in 25-34 years [Re: Mr. Bojangles]
#21706148 - 05/21/15 12:08 PM (8 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
So, since we have no good designs for reactors, lets do away with them all. Let the current ones go until retirement but build no more. Until and unless the mythical cheap power, no toxic waste, fusion reactor is invented.
-------------------- “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” (attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville political philosopher Circa 1835) Trade list http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/18047755
|
Le_Canard
The Duk Abides


Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 94,392
Loc: Earthfarm 1
|
Re: Nuclear could replace all fossil fuel electricity in 25-34 years [Re: Mr. Bojangles]
#21706156 - 05/21/15 12:13 PM (8 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Indeed. And sadly renewable sources ain't that great. We got plenty of coal, but that stuff is incredibly toxic, both in use and extraction methods.
|
psyconaught
Chemical Connoisseur


Registered: 11/04/10
Posts: 6,100
Last seen: 7 years, 2 months
|
Re: Nuclear could replace all fossil fuel electricity in 25-34 years [Re: Stonehenge]
#21706165 - 05/21/15 12:15 PM (8 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Stonehenge said: So, since we have no good designs for reactors, lets do away with them all. Let the current ones go until retirement but build no more. Until and unless the mythical cheap power, no toxic waste, fusion reactor is invented.
we have lots of good designs but people like you prevent them from being built.
-------------------- Think for yourself, question authority
|
BoldAsLove
Pokemon Master


Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
|
Re: Nuclear could replace all fossil fuel electricity in 25-34 years [Re: Stonehenge]
#21706207 - 05/21/15 12:30 PM (8 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Le_Canard said: We also need to vastly improve reactor design. They're extremely expensive to build and only last about 30-40 years.
Quote:
Stonehenge said: So, since we have no good designs for reactors, lets do away with them all. Let the current ones go until retirement but build no more. Until and unless the mythical cheap power, no toxic waste, fusion reactor is invented.
We have myriad good designs. Gen III and IV reactors are awesome, but almost every reactor used today is Gen II. The new designs are a sizable capital investment though and uninformed public backlash makes it even harder to justify funding. But new reactor designs are extremely efficient and safe.
-------------------- DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor and Ferdinand , the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.
|
AcidBath
Wanderer



Registered: 01/02/13
Posts: 587
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 8 years, 2 months
|
Re: Nuclear could replace all fossil fuel electricity in 25-34 years [Re: BoldAsLove]
#21710378 - 05/22/15 12:43 PM (8 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
We should be decommissioning ALL nuclear reactors except for research reactors which ARE the path to the future. Todays fission breeder reactors are too dangerous and toxic to have any place in a future living on planet Earth. We have yet to solve the problem of spent fuel and nuclear waste.
--------------------
everything i say is only a satirical joke, nothing serious man!
 
|
psyconaught
Chemical Connoisseur


Registered: 11/04/10
Posts: 6,100
Last seen: 7 years, 2 months
|
Re: Nuclear could replace all fossil fuel electricity in 25-34 years [Re: AcidBath]
#21710402 - 05/22/15 12:47 PM (8 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
i agree we need to be phasing out older reactors. Though we need to be building new ones at the same time, current generation reactors are extremely safe.
-------------------- Think for yourself, question authority
|
Asante
Mage


Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 86,797
|
Re: Nuclear could replace all fossil fuel electricity in 25-34 years [Re: Stonehenge]
#21739849 - 05/30/15 05:21 AM (8 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Stonehenge said: Thorium reactors produce radioactive waste too..
Yes but Thorium waste only stays hot a few hundred years vs Uranium waste's tens of thousands of years.
Quote:
Fusion would be the way to go if it ever works.
Fusion is THE way to go, bar none. Not just for earth but for spreading out among the stars too. Deuterium is a supreme fuel thats ubiquitous in the galaxy.
But we can build a working high output Thorium plant NOW and we still need some R&D with fusion.
-------------------- Omnicyclion.org higher knowledge starts here
|
Stonehenge
Alt Center


Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 14,850
Loc: S.E.
|
Re: Nuclear could replace all fossil fuel electricity in 25-34 years [Re: Asante]
#21741074 - 05/30/15 01:21 PM (8 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
>Yes but Thorium waste only stays hot a few hundred years vs Uranium waste's tens of thousands of years.
Under ideal conditions. Under actual conditions some actinide by products are formed which have much longer half lives. I agree its better than conventional uranium reactors or breeders in that respect. But, a few hundred years of high radiation is nothing to laugh at.
Meanwhile, the search for the philosophers stone goes on, the workable fusion reactor. Its always over the next hill.
-------------------- “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” (attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville political philosopher Circa 1835) Trade list http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/18047755
|
Asante
Mage


Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 86,797
|
Re: Nuclear could replace all fossil fuel electricity in 25-34 years [Re: Stonehenge]
#21741131 - 05/30/15 01:40 PM (8 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
I have a complete hardon for fusion reactors since my teenage years. It completely is the way to go. Every single nation has the fuel, it just takes technology to get it to burn. You can't get meltdowns or nuclear explosions and almost all the radiation stops immediately when you switch the reactor off.
And energy, sooo much energy. 1 gram deuterium, which isnt even radioactive or toxic, yields as much energy as 100 55gal drums of oil OVER the energy needed to burn it.
-------------------- Omnicyclion.org higher knowledge starts here
|
Stonehenge
Alt Center


Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 14,850
Loc: S.E.
|
Re: Nuclear could replace all fossil fuel electricity in 25-34 years [Re: Asante]
#21741423 - 05/30/15 03:03 PM (8 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
>And energy, sooo much energy. 1 gram deuterium, which isnt even radioactive or toxic, yields as much energy as 100 55gal drums of oil OVER the energy needed to burn it.
You are assuming 100% conversion which will never happen. But, even 1% efficiency is perfectly acceptable as long as output is greater than input. It has to be a lot greater or you have a huge plant handling hundreds of megawatts, most of which is used to power the reaction and only a few megawatts for output.
The radiation produced will weaken walls, containment vessels and so on. Some materials will become radioactive and have to be disposed of. But first we need to invent it, then discuss that.
Maybe put nuke plants underground in a place with very low water tables? A meltdown gets contained automatically.
-------------------- “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” (attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville political philosopher Circa 1835) Trade list http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/18047755
|
abductee
Time



Registered: 05/07/15
Posts: 2,224
Loc: Canada
|
Re: Nuclear could replace all fossil fuel electricity in 25-34 years [Re: Stonehenge]
#21766222 - 06/05/15 02:53 PM (8 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
but what do we do about the nuclear waste that is gushing from fukushima? I last heard that the core melted down into the water table and that it will continue to drain into the ocean for hundres of years.. what if just one more reactor exploded somewhere on the opposite side of japan and started to contaminate that end of the world.. Nuclear power has already done so much harm! whats the tolerable amount of permanent destruction allowed to deem nuclear "ok" to use? I would gamble a 1000 bucks that we are facing a huge spike in cancer and birth related defects in the next 15 years.. and it will double after that. The people that lived on fukushima, how many were sent from there homes like 100 thousand or so.. just up and leave in a hurry, leaving everything behind. That sucks man....
|
|