Nuclear Yes/No/Maybe

ressem

JET runs at a slight energy profit,

Have they added a windmill?

From the JET faq http://www.jet.efda.org/pages/faqs/faq3.html
JET is not large enough to produce more fusion power than the power that is needed to heat the plasma.
...
In the steady state plasmas, the fusion power is around 20% of the input power. In the high performance plasmas the fusion power is approximately the same as the applied heating power.

Looking at runtimes of 5 seconds and .5 seconds respectively.
ITER is meant to be 4000 sec or so?--Edit-- Nope 500, And lots of glowing watch faces for all when they replace the lithium-tritium blanket every few years.

What contamination is this?

More than one type of reactor, but is there a type that doesn't bombard its surroundings with neutrons?


Say for arguments sake, lots of graphite & silicon carbide coated pebbles with radioactive nougety goodness which are difficult to reprocess after they've been through the reactor a few times? And the reactor itself.

Maybe we can pay 20 quid and return it to Germany under the EU waste directive.

But still, possibly less radioactivity/pollution then from coal.

Samos

rsynnott wrote:

Sorry, what? What contamination is this?

Perhaps you have heard of Chernobyl, or maybe Three Mile Island, or Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the fact that the half life for many fission by-products range from a matter of days to several billion years. No matter if this waste is handled with the utmost care, it takes huge effort to maintain it in a safe location until it is completely safe... This means some sort of safe storage tank that will remain intact for millions of years. That does not seem very realistic. How fair is it to gamble with the lifes of our progeny because we want fast and cheap energy now?

To establish it you need to build the plant. No current fission power system requires energy to keep it running. I think you're thinking of fusion...

I am referring to the costs of maintaining adequate safety on the nuclear plant to prevent contaminant leaks, which pose a danger to anyone within a significant radius of the facility. Concrete only lasts a few hundred years at best. This is an input which most be factored into the energy costs until the radioactivity levels are deemed safe, i.e. hundreds of thousands of years. On the other hand, the ideal fusion generator should not require any more input once it has begun, as is the case in stars.

Wrong; JET runs at a slight energy profit, and ITER is projected to run at 500-1000MW, though only for short bursts. Commercial fusion should be with us by 2030, all going well.

This technology has not produced a reliable or surplus energy output over input yet. Perhaps it will in the foreseeable future, but it is highly idealistic to assume that once we have it all energy problems will be solved. There are so many intricate factors involved, and any tiny oversight could render the process uneffective. Is it worth investing strictly limited resources (ie fossil fuels) on this technology if it has no guarantee of success? Should this project fail, we will have gambled most of the finite resouces of the planet on it leaving nothing for proven alternative technologies. I propose we develop these now, and conserve fossil fuels for investment as capital resources or as emergency power. Fusion may then be pursued when there is less at stake.

The problem with solar energy is that the sun goes down at night.

But does the wind stop at night, do plants die, and rivers dry up, or tides disappear? All of these are the indirect aspects of solar energy to which I was referring. Not to mention, storage devices do exist (as Bonkey mentioned), but alot of investment is due here as regards fuel cells.

Samos

Wibbs wrote:

You're not unrealistic in looking, but in avoiding the best current alternative, you're being incredibly unrealistic. I won't repeat what rsynnott has correctly pointed out, about what's wrong with your arguments against fission. I would suggest a bit of research beyond the usual anti nuke hype.

Nuclear fission is not the best alternative when the persistant, unavoidable contaminant waste is taken into the equation. I am not involved with any anti-nuclear movement or any other interest group. These views come from assessing the facts in light of general needs (things like avoiding disease and death from radioactivity, and having a pleasant environment in which to live). Maybe you do have a realistic plan to deal with this waste for several millenia: I'd like to hear it...

Fine, solar panel etc are a start. Pretty much all the other methods you mention are either grossly inefficient or impact the natural landscape far more than nuclear power, so it's not as "safe" as you may think. Why invest in options that won't cover our current energy needs, no mind future needs when we have the means now to retard global warming/pollution etc. in a significant way.I never said we should tbh. I'm not a big fan of rampant consumerism myself. I am a realist though.

Although any technology is not perfect, the danger of pollution posed by fission power significantly outways any cons of the biggest alternative offender, hydro-electricity.

Rule one of "personal well being", is take nothing personally, so chill out, I wasn't attacking you, just the woolly headed hippy stuff re personal development. It's a lovely idea an' all, but it won't stop the greenland ice sheet melting anytime soon as sadly your average person doesn't think like that. Neither will a few wind farms in the atlantic.

I didn't take it personally. I just find it hard to take a person's arguments seriously if he resorts to petty name-calling or ungrouned assumptions. I apologise for being vague about that whole personal development aspect. However this is an important part of the debate, because how much energy we use and what variety we use depends on the attitudes people hold. In fact, this is the primary question because everything else flows from this. One that places immediate gratification and consumerism first and ignores the long-term consequences of one's actions will not bode well for the inhabitants of this planet.

meditraitor

Samos wrote:

Perhaps you have heard of Chernobyl, or maybe Three Mile Island, or Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the fact that the half life for many fission by-products range from a matter of days to several billion years. No matter if this waste is handled with the utmost care, it takes huge effort to maintain it in a safe location until it is completely safe... This means some sort of safe storage tank that will remain intact for millions of years. That does not seem very realistic. How fair is it to gamble with the lifes of our progeny because we want fast and cheap energy now? .

Dont want to sound like some headcase but the Moon is being touted as possible site for waste storage

Samos wrote:

I am referring to the costs of maintaining adequate safety on the nuclear plant to prevent contaminant leaks, which pose a danger to anyone within a significant radius of the facility. Concrete only lasts a few hundred years at best. This is an input which most be factored into the energy costs until the radioactivity levels are deemed safe, i.e. hundreds of thousands of years. On the other hand, the ideal fusion generator should not require any more input once it has begun, as is the case in stars..

As you say, when more R&D is carried out(no real research on nuclear energy supply and solutions to it problems have been carried out for 20 years) this could become viable.

Samos wrote:

This technology has not produced a reliable or surplus energy output over input yet. Perhaps it will in the foreseeable future, but it is highly idealistic to assume that once we have it all energy problems will be solved. There are so many intricate factors involved, and any tiny oversight could render the process uneffective. Is it worth investing strictly limited resources (ie fossil fuels) on this technology if it has no guarantee of success? Should this project fail, we will have gambled most of the finite resouces of the planet on it leaving nothing for proven alternative technologies. I propose we develop these now, and conserve fossil fuels for investment as capital resources or as emergency power. Fusion may then be pursued when there is less at stake..

The nettle needs to be grasped, while people sit around and argue about the pitfalls of nuclear energy supply climate change is still happening and it should be noted that an increase in nuclear energy output could give us some well needed time to look into safer and more relaible power sources while we wean ourselves off Carbon based energy production

Samos wrote:

But does the wind stop at night, do plants die, and rivers dry up, or tides disappear? All of these are the indirect aspects of solar energy to which I was referring. Not to mention, storage devices do exist (as Bonkey mentioned), but alot of investment is due here as regards fuel cells.

Your ideology is admirable but the facts are that the rate of development within these fields will not be quick enough to stop more damage to the environment while we wait for them to supply all our energy needs.

Mark

ambro25

@OP - Yes to Nuclear.

But, ideally, build my own house as self-sufficient & grid-isolated, within the next 10 years max. Based on renewables, mix of solar & wind (have factual experience of both).

Gurgle

Why don't we just wait for ambient temperature polymer superconductors and draw electricity directly from the earth's magenetic field.

rsynnott

bonkey wrote:

Given the invention, in recent days, of the miracle known as the rechargeable battery, this problem is no longer inescapable.

jc

A decent-sized power plant produces 1000MW of power. Some produce far more. Have you any idea how large a lead-acid battery array you'd need to store 1000MW? How much maintenance it would take? Battery technology has been very, very slow to evolve.

Will come back to this later

prospect

blather wrote:

THE Government yesterday ruled out any future use of nuclear power to meet energy needs.

There was no question of building a nuclear power plant in Ireland, said a Department of the Environment spokesperson.

Employers' group IBEC had said a nuclear power station could help Ireland solve its energy crisis.

Its spokesman Brendan Butler said: "As a society we do have to ask the question are we prepared to look at the issue of nuclear."

IBEC has warned that the Republic of Ireland is one of the most vulnerable countries in Europe when it comes to dependency on imported oil and gas supplies.

Having our own nuclear energy supplies would save us from future shock oil prices and shortages as well as curb greenhouse gases.

However, the Government said it was emphatically opposed to nuclear power generation despite our continuing over-reliance on imported fossil fuels.

A spokesman said: "We have a long-standing Government policy of being anti-nuclear. A nuclear power station is not on the cards."

Attempts are being made to develop alternative renewable energy sources such as wind and solar energy, he added.

I agree with this for one simple reason.
Would you trust a government that cant bore a hole under Dublin, to build a nuclear power station :rolleyes:

ambro25

prospect wrote:

Would you trust a government that cant bore a hole under Dublin, to build a nuclear power station :rolleyes:

LOL - seconded

rsynnott

Samos wrote:

Perhaps you have heard of Chernobyl, or maybe Three Mile Island, or Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the fact that the half life for many fission by-products range from a matter of days to several billion years. No matter if this waste is handled with the utmost care, it takes huge effort to maintain it in a safe location until it is completely safe... This means some sort of safe storage tank that will remain intact for millions of years. That does not seem very realistic. How fair is it to gamble with the lifes of our progeny because we want fast and cheap energy now?

It's a necessary evil. And final storage has already begun in Sweden, hundreds of meters below the ground.

In any case, conventional thermal plants release all sorts of nastiness straight into the atmosphere, with no real way to contain it. Is that really preferable?

Samos wrote:

I am referring to the costs of maintaining adequate safety on the nuclear plant to prevent contaminant leaks, which pose a danger to anyone within a significant radius of the facility. Concrete only lasts a few hundred years at best.

And indeed, most plants have a life expectancy of less than a century. They can then be replaced; many plants in France have decommissioned gas-cooled plants and operating APWRs on the same site. Modern designs are easyish to decomission and clean up. Even the cleanup of the Experimental Advanced Pressure Water Reactor (a 70s design; that big spherical thing) at Sellafield is going well, and due to be finished on time and under cost.

But does the wind stop at night, do plants die, and rivers dry up, or tides disappear? All of these are the indirect aspects of solar energy to which I was referring. Not to mention, storage devices do exist (as Bonkey mentioned), but alot of investment is due here as regards fuel cells.

We don't have TIME to wait for effective storage technology, which would still seem to be a while off. We need a solution now.

Wibbs

Samos wrote:

Perhaps you have heard of Chernobyl, or maybe Three Mile Island, or Hiroshima and Nagasaki,

To be fair 2 of them were weapons. That's like quoting the Dambusters raid as a minus point against hydro. It smacks to much of the hippy mentality of equating "The Bomb" with nuclear power. Old hat and innacurate tbh. In any event, people live in both those cities quite happily. In fact the cancer rate is almost identical to the rest of Japan. BTW how many casualties was there at three mile island. I would suspect more people have died from industrial accidents as a result of coal mining or oil production than nuclear power.

Nuclear fission is not the best alternative when the persistant, unavoidable contaminant waste is taken into the equation. I am not involved with any anti-nuclear movement or any other interest group. These views come from assessing the facts in light of general needs (things like avoiding disease and death from radioactivity, and having a pleasant environment in which to live). Maybe you do have a realistic plan to deal with this waste for several millenia: I'd like to hear it...

The facts are that death and disease are likely to come far sooner from the environment being screwed up by non nuclear means. Actually meditraitor's not far wrong. You could fire it into space. Solve a lot of problems.

Although any technology is not perfect, the danger of pollution posed by fission power significantly outways any cons of the biggest alternative offender, hydro-electricity.

Really? So the mass disruption to the local ecology, migratory fish, bird life etc etc. is outweighed by the danger of pollution from neclear power. The fact is from your examples Chernobyl is the only one where you could try to argue that large scale death and damage was done. Now have a look at what the WHO had to say on the matter http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index.html
Up to 2005 only 50 deaths directly attributed to the accident. This from the "biggest" nuclear disaster in history. They say there may be more. 1000's more but they can't be sure. Not by a long shot. There were more than 50 coal miners killed in mining accidents last year in the coal fields of the US alone. Now as for environmental damage around Chernobyl. The UN want to make Chernobyl and the large area around it a site of world heritage as the animal and plant life is so lush.

This technology has not produced a reliable or surplus energy output over input yet.

You could say the same for wind tbh. Except for small scale use it's pretty lame.

I didn't take it personally. I just find it hard to take a person's arguments seriously if he resorts to petty name-calling or ungrouned assumptions. I apologise for being vague about that whole personal development aspect. However this is an important part of the debate, because how much energy we use and what variety we use depends on the attitudes people hold. In fact, this is the primary question because everything else flows from this. One that places immediate gratification and consumerism first and ignores the long-term consequences of one's actions will not bode well for the inhabitants of this planet.

Fair enough, but to get such a shift in attititudes especially in the developing world is pie in the sky tbh. It's worth trying but when we have the solution at hand it seems silly not to at least try it. Nulear power is a lot like sharks(bear with me ). Everyone is afraid of sharks, but the humble bee kills more people in the UK in 10 years, than sharks have in the world since records began. It's all down to perception IMHO.

meditraitor

Wibbs wrote:

The facts are that death and disease are likely to come far sooner from the environment being screwed up by non nuclear means. Actually meditraitor's not far wrong. .

whoooot:D must be my round so

Wibbs wrote:

You could fire it into space. Solve a lot of problems..

http://www.space.com/news/nuclear_moon_020822.html
We are an ingenious lot, but the poor old Luner SETI program would be damaged if this happened

bonkey

Wibbs wrote:

Now as for environmental damage around Chernobyl. The UN want to make Chernobyl and the large area around it a site of world heritage as the animal and plant life is so lush.

Not saying you're wrong, but do you have a source for this?

The only information I could find on the topic was suggesting it be a World Heritage site to allow further research into the effects of the accident and/or to serve as a longterm reminder of what our mistakes can cost.

Nowhere have I seen nor can I find the suggestion that it is the lushness of the area that is why it should be made so.

It's worth trying but when we have the solution at hand it seems silly not to at least try it.

We don't actually have the solution at hand. Nuclear, at best, can act as a partial solution.

I also find it amusing that this logic is rarely/never used in conjunction with efficiency. More efficient useage of what we have is arguiably on par with nuclear generation in terms of how much of the existant problem can be solved.

Simple example - Chrysler (I think) released these new "smart" engines in teh US, which fire on fewer cylinders when less power is needed, and fires on all when you put the boot down. OK - hardly sounds as impressive as the cleanness of a Prius, but here's the thing.....the takeup of this technology is estimated to generate at least the same amount of emission reductions as the takeup of Prius-style hybrids will in the coming decade.

So, taking Wibbs comment a bit more generally, one has to ask....why do we continue looking for a method to allow us to maintain our wastefulness, when a solution (i.e. don't be wasteful) is already at hand.

jc

ambro25

This technology (NDQ: nuclear) has not produced a reliable or surplus energy output over input yet.

I must have missed that one :eek:

Erm, you might want to point your Googleator at Cattenom, France.

One of the, if not the, biggest nuclear plants in France, exporting at least half the output to Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands (since it's already supplying national grid acc. to stated French National Grid reqs with +/- 50% of output).

You build one somewhere remote and not too tourist-intensive (let's be realistic ) in IE, and I'd bet you be selling surplus to utilities into NI within a year

Wibbs

bonkey wrote:

Not saying you're wrong, but do you have a source for this?

http://www.nsrl.ttu.edu/chernobyl/wildlifepreserve.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_accident#Effect_on_the_natural_world (check the last line)
http://ranprieur.com/crash/naturechernobyl.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/05/AR2005090501144.html
Just a quick Google, but you get the jist. I read it the original article in Nature AFAIR.

I also find it amusing that this logic is rarely/never used in conjunction with efficiency. More efficient useage of what we have is arguiably on par with nuclear generation in terms of how much of the existant problem can be solved.

Do you honestly reckon that efficient useage is going to take up the energy shortfall, especially in industry? Plus, how likely is the widespread seachange in attitude that your efficiency plan call for? Sadly not very. At least this way while we're faffin around the environment is taking one less major hit. If the world went nuclear tomorrow the greenhouse gas and general pollution situation would fall off the scale.

Simple example - Chrysler (I think) released these new "smart" engines in teh US, which fire on fewer cylinders when less power is needed, and fires on all when you put the boot down. OK - hardly sounds as impressive as the cleanness of a Prius, but here's the thing.....the takeup of this technology is estimated to generate at least the same amount of emission reductions as the takeup of Prius-style hybrids will in the coming decade.

Sounds cool. Not an new idea either. The Prius type of car has it's issues too and is not as efficient as a lot of people seem to think.

So, taking Wibbs comment a bit more generally, one has to ask....why do we continue looking for a method to allow us to maintain our wastefulness, when a solution (i.e. don't be wasteful) is already at hand.

Surely we can do both? Reduce wasteful practice and use nuclear power to take up the difference. Seems more practical.

rsynnott

ambro25 wrote:

You build one somewhere remote and not too tourist-intensive (let's be realistic ) in IE, and I'd bet you be selling surplus to utilities into NI within a year

In practice, the opposite seems more likely (we'll run off BNFL reactors in NI).

Samos

Wibbs wrote:

To be fair 2 of them were weapons. That's like quoting the Dambusters raid as a minus point against hydro. It smacks to much of the hippy mentality of equating "The Bomb" with nuclear power. Old hat and innacurate tbh. In any event, people live in both those cities quite happily. In fact the cancer rate is almost identical to the rest of Japan. BTW how many casualties was there at three mile island. I would suspect more people have died from industrial accidents as a result of coal mining or oil production than nuclear power. The facts are that death and disease are likely to come far sooner from the environment being screwed up by non nuclear means. Actually meditraitor's not far wrong.

My point was in relation to rsynnott's question concerning contamination from nuclear fission. This is an undeniable fact. Perhaps more have died as a result of fossil fuel extraction (there are no comprehensive figures), but thew fact that radiation is persistent, long-lasting and almost unavoidable if released makes it a much greater danger, htough it may not have been realised immediately. Pollution from such activities can have detrimental effects on health and quality of life without causing death and these effects are difficult to assess accurately.

You could fire it into space. Solve a lot of problems.

Doesn't really solve the problem; merely prolongs the need for a real solution.

Really? So the mass disruption to the local ecology, migratory fish, bird life etc etc. is outweighed by the danger of pollution from neclear power. The fact is from your examples Chernobyl is the only one where you could try to argue that large scale death and damage was done. Now have a look at what the WHO had to say on the matter http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index.html
Up to 2005 only 50 deaths directly attributed to the accident. This from the "biggest" nuclear disaster in history. They say there may be more. 1000's more but they can't be sure. Not by a long shot. There were more than 50 coal miners killed in mining accidents last year in the coal fields of the US alone. Now as for environmental damage around Chernobyl. The UN want to make Chernobyl and the large area around it a site of world heritage as the animal and plant life is so lush.
You could say the same for wind tbh. Except for small scale use it's pretty lame.

ON worst case scenarios and potential for widespread damage, nuclear energy is clearly the worst offender. However, as I stated earlier, this prospect need not even concern us if we stop wasting energy now and strive for efficiency and quality over quantity.

rsynnott

Samos wrote:

My point was in relation to rsynnott's question concerning contamination from nuclear fission. This is an undeniable fact. Perhaps more have died as a result of fossil fuel extraction (there are no comprehensive figures), but thew fact that radiation is persistent, long-lasting and almost unavoidable if released makes it a much greater danger, htough it may not have been realised immediately. Pollution from such activities can have detrimental effects on health and quality of life without causing death and these effects are difficult to assess accurately.

You know, the major alternative to nuclear will soon be coal. Coal burning causes all sorts of nasty health problems. No way to stop it. Is it better to have thousands die a year as a certainty than to have a very small year-on-year risk of an event killing thousands?

Samos wrote:

ON worst case scenarios and potential for widespread damage, nuclear energy is clearly the worst offender. However, as I stated earlier, this prospect need not even concern us if we stop wasting energy now and strive for efficiency and quality over quantity.

Why do you believe nuclear energy is dirtier than coal, for instance? And where would you have us derive our energy when most of our current supply dries up in a few decades?

Incidentally, with the state the world's space industry is in, sending it to the moon isn't practical. The Ariane V, currently the heaviest operating rocket, can send in the region of 10 tonnes, if that, to the moon. France alone has 40,000 tonnes of waste accumulated from their nuclear industry; the US, who don't generally reprocess, have far more.

Wibbs

Samos wrote:

Doesn't really solve the problem; merely prolongs the need for a real solution.

Why not(rsynotts valid problems noted)? If you could fire all the waste in to deep space that would be the end of the waste problem, full stop.

ON worst case scenarios and potential for widespread damage, nuclear energy is clearly the worst offender. However, as I stated earlier, this prospect need not even concern us if we stop wasting energy now and strive for efficiency and quality over quantity.

If we don't harness the power of the atom, fission or fusion, we're boned. No if's buts or maybes. Even lovelock backs this point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lovelock#Nuclear_Power Furthermore the sooner we start on the technological path where we attempt to directly mine the power of stars the better we'll be. Long way off and a bit mad I'll agree, but the alternative is to remain a pre type 1 civilisation for the foreseeable future. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

Don't get me wrong conservation of existing energy is good, but even with that I can see a shortfall especially in the developing world(where there's a big problem looming). Who are we to deny them their industrial revolutions? Properly executed Nuclear gives us an out.

Samos

rsynnott wrote:

You know, the major alternative to nuclear will soon be coal. Coal burning causes all sorts of nasty health problems. No way to stop it. Is it better to have thousands die a year as a certainty than to have a very small year-on-year risk of an event killing thousands?

Why do you believe nuclear energy is dirtier than coal, for instance? And where would you have us derive our energy when most of our current supply dries up in a few decades?

Incidentally, with the state the world's space industry is in, sending it to the moon isn't practical. The Ariane V, currently the heaviest operating rocket, can send in the region of 10 tonnes, if that, to the moon. France alone has 40,000 tonnes of waste accumulated from their nuclear industry; the US, who don't generally reprocess, have far more.

I have not stated that I advocate coal as the energy source of the future. We don't have to place ourselves in a false dilemma of choosing between pollution from coal or that from nuclear fission. There are other options, and I fail to see how being more efficient, reducing waste, being less spend-thrift along with a combination of renewable energy sources is such a terrible and unwelcome prospect. There will not be any one magic side-effect-free-technology that will save us from impending doom.

I think that most people place health high on their list of priorities, and as such anything that unnecessarily poses a risk to this will not be accepted. Pollution from energy sources such as nuclear, coal and other fossil fuels fulfils this criterion. Given a choice between the luxury and material abundance of the western lifestyle and a life of health and well-being, people will choose the latter. Nuclear might allow the former to continue but it does not guarantee the latter. Nor does coal.

In any case there are means in existence to reduce pollution from chimney stacks by scrubbing and other chemical approaches. However I am not aware of any methods to successfully recombine radioactive materials into stable elements...

Samos

Wibbs wrote:

Why not(rsynotts valid problems noted)? If you could fire all the waste in to deep space that would be the end of the waste problem, full stop.

The obvious practical difficulties and the risk of rocket explosion aside, burying (as it were) a problem doesn't really count as a solution to a problem. Should we lock up murderers and paedophiles forever, or attempt to solve the deeper problems in society that lead to such crimes, and eventually rid ourselves of the source of the problem? It is the same with power. Why let dirt and pollution continusously build up when we can avoid it or at least minimize it? "Because it's easier!" is an irresponsible response.

If we don't harness the power of the atom, fission or fusion, we're boned. No if's buts or maybes. Even lovelock backs this point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lovelock#Nuclear_Power Furthermore the sooner we start on the technological path where we attempt to directly mine the power of stars the better we'll be. Long way off and a bit mad I'll agree, but the alternative is to remain a pre type 1 civilisation for the foreseeable future. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

Don't get me wrong conservation of existing energy is good, but even with that I can see a shortfall especially in the developing world(where there's a big problem looming). Who are we to deny them their industrial revolutions? Properly executed Nuclear gives us an out.

I think James Lovelock's position on nuclear power assumes that we should continue to progress and industrialise at current rates. And he is probably right. However, at the onset, I stated that we ought to question where all of this progress is taking us. It is far too easy to be complacent and assume that everything will turn out okay, to persist with this infallible progress and impress it upon devoping nations as though it is natural and right. And before you accuse me of attempting to enforce utopian ideals upon others, I also think that it need not be a great sacrifice to forego mcuh of what this "great" civilisation grants us. Don't get me wrong, alot of progress has been beneficial in terms of medicine and most technologies, but this need not be accompanied by shear amount of useless and destructive advancements (weapons, computer viruses, congested roads, overwhelming stress, etc.)

Civilisation surely has much more to do with culture and social relationships than with the extent of energy usage. If we are to face the inevitable downsizing of indutries and relocalisation of resources, then communities will become richer and more integrated, and all the positive advancements will not disappear either. I'm sure that "developing nations" would be just fine if stopped interferring with their way of life. However it may be too late for that. Colonialisation raped them of their resources and then sold them back at a profit! And they have become seduced by the false promise that material success is the life's raison d'etre.

We have come to a stage where we cannot have everything. We must choose what to prioritize now before it is too late and an undesirable fate is forced upon everyone.

rsynnott

Samos wrote:

I have not stated that I advocate coal as the energy source of the future. We don't have to place ourselves in a false dilemma of choosing between pollution from coal or that from nuclear fission. There are other options, and I fail to see how being more efficient, reducing waste, being less spend-thrift along with a combination of renewable energy sources is such a terrible and unwelcome prospect. There will not be any one magic side-effect-free-technology that will save us from impending doom.

The other options aren't ready to work now on a large scale.

Samos wrote:

I think that most people place health high on their list of priorities, and as such anything that unnecessarily poses a risk to this will not be accepted. Pollution from energy sources such as nuclear, coal and other fossil fuels fulfils this criterion. Given a choice between the luxury and material abundance of the western lifestyle and a life of health and well-being, people will choose the latter. Nuclear might allow the former to continue but it does not guarantee the latter. Nor does coal.

People will choose to go back to the stone age? Good lord.

Samos wrote:

The obvious practical difficulties and the risk of rocket explosion aside,

Rocket explosion would not be a problem. High-level nuclear waste is quite dense. Many modern long-term solutions involve coating it in metal. Do that, and if the rocket explodes, the waste simply falls back down, without dispersal. (Alternatively, you could give it an escape tower, like on the Apollo or Proton-Soyuz Zond). The practical difficulties, while large, are not insurmountable, at least for very high-level waste. This sort of disposal was one of the uses put forward for the Soviet Energia rocket, which was finished just as the Soviet Union collapsed, and has disappeared since.

Samos wrote:

Why let dirt and pollution continusously build up when we can avoid it or at least minimize it? "Because it's easier!" is an irresponsible response.

Again, remember that the realistic, economical alternative is coal. How you think nuclear waste on the moon even compares to half the world covered in smog, I don't understand. Ideally, yes, it would be nice to not pollute, and not produce dangerous waste (nuclear waste is not in itself pollution). It's not, at the moment, a practical option.

Samos wrote:

And before you accuse me of attempting to enforce utopian ideals upon others, I also think that it need not be a great sacrifice to forego mcuh of what this "great" civilisation grants us. Don't get me wrong, alot of progress has been beneficial in terms of medicine and most technologies, but this need not be accompanied by shear amount of useless and destructive advancements (weapons, computer viruses, congested roads, overwhelming stress, etc.)

Are you aware that before the advent of all that horrible, nasty, mean technology, most of the world, even what constituted the developed world at the time, starved and froze? That the average life expectancy was in the 30s? Why, precisely, do you think it would be a good idea to give up technology.

And I would argue that modern weapons technology has made most large wars unfeasible, computer viruses are an insignificant problem and computers are now indispensable, that the congested roads are the cost of an extensive transport system? I'm sure that in the middle ages people starved stress-free

And bear in mind that the population that our pre-industrial society was unable to adequately support was a couple of hundred million.

We have come to a stage where we cannot have everything. We must choose what to prioritize now before it is too late and an undesirable fate is forced upon everyone.

Would this be the undesirable fate involving nuclear power plants where one might, one day, blow up and kill a few thousand people, the one involving clouds of smog killing and maiming thousands or tens of thousands a year, as in early industrial London, the one involving us trying, and failing, to keep the world going on windmills, or the one involving 95% of the world starving to death?

turbine?

In my opinion Nuclear is not the way to go. The storage and treatment of nuclear waste is the biggest obstacle to be overcome. However even if that issue was dealt with suitably, nuclear is still not the only, or even best answer to electricity generation.

Obviously wind turbines cannot on their own provide all the neccesary power but a mix of renewables definetly can. I can't recall the total available wave energy offshore from Ireland but it is a factor of 1000 more than that which we currently use, now take the total avaiable and factor in technical restrictions and you still have a factor of 10 to 100 times more power. Ok so it isnt like we are going to surround the entire country with wave energy convertors so say realistically we can get 1/3 of our energy requirements from wave.

You also have wind turbines, solar pv, pumped hydro (storage), bio fuel and waste incineration.

All of these (except maybe waste incineration) are sustainable and clean technologies which can provide us with the required power for continued economic growth.

Nuclear is a quicker to install, perhaps better understood technology, but that doesn't indicate it is the best available technolgy for Irish power generation.

rsynnott

turbine? wrote:

You also have wind turbines, solar pv, pumped hydro (storage), bio fuel and waste incineration.

Of these, only pumped hydro is proven (and it requires special geography). We need a solution now. Ideally, we also need a solution with zero CO2 emissions. Biofuel and waste incineration don't fit this model, and both, if mismanaged, can pollute quite severely. They're not clean power, though they're better than coal.

Gurgle

rsynnott wrote:

Of these, only pumped hydro is proven (and it requires special geography). We need a solution now. Ideally, we also need a solution with zero CO2 emissions. Biofuel and waste incineration don't fit this model, and both, if mismanaged, can pollute quite severely. They're not clean power, though they're better than coal.

Wind turbines are extensively used in Scandanavia.
Works best where you have enormous flat plains with steady winds.
Offshore tidal power is the wave of the future.

turbine?

Bio fuel can be co2 neutral if the development and transportation of the fuel is carried out by vehicles running on bio fuel.

The technology is there to prevent incinerators and bio fuel plants from polluting from their flue stacks, such as flue gas desulphurisation (sp) and pm precipitators. The only problem with pollution from them is due to the small amount of fly ash which remains hazardous. You also have the possibility of fugitive emissions.

Compare with Nuclear:

Hazards due to fugitive emissions: NOx, PMs and CO vs Radiation

CO2 emissions: transportation and harvesting of crops vs transportation and mining of nuclear material

Waste: fly ash with high acidity and dioxin level vs high, medium and low level radioactive wastes.

I think the bio fuel and waste incineration are a better prospect!

The technologies are not well understood but they are under constant development. The british carried out extensive wave energy r&d in the 70s during the oil crisis, it was only with the abating of the crisis that funding was severly cut for these projects. If the funding had been maintained then the british would have significant wave energy utilisation at this point. Cheap oil and gas stopped this progress (North Sea Fields).

Interesting point if they had continued with the resarch and brought it to fruition they would hold patents on a very lucrative product.

anyway, I agree that we need a solution and that nuclear can make electricity in a well understood and tested technology, but in all the time nuclear has been used to make electricity nobody has figured out what to do with radioactive waste in the long term. The economics look good initially but take into account that the EU has legislation in place making the waste producer/disposer responsible for the waste untill it no longer poses a hazard and prehaps the economics swing in the favour of developing renewables.

Sorry about the bad spelling and lack of grammer!

rsynnott

turbine? wrote:

Bio fuel can be co2 neutral if the development and transportation of the fuel is carried out by vehicles running on bio fuel.

The technology is there to prevent incinerators and bio fuel plants from polluting from their flue stacks, such as flue gas desulphurisation (sp) and pm precipitators. The only problem with pollution from them is due to the small amount of fly ash which remains hazardous. You also have the possibility of fugitive emissions.

And is it economical? How much per kilowatt? How will it be affected by climatic nastiness in the near future? We may need all the arable land we can get to grow food on if the climate does change severely.

turbine? wrote:

Compare with Nuclear:

Hazards due to fugitive emissions: NOx, PMs and CO vs Radiation

Nuclear power plants do not generally emit significant radiation...

CO2 emissions: transportation and harvesting of crops vs transportation and mining of nuclear material

Nuclear power doesn't need much uranium, tho. It won't compare to the requirements for crops.

Waste: fly ash with high acidity and dioxin level vs high, medium and low level radioactive wastes.

Radioactive waste is not generally distributed into the atmosphere.

turbine? wrote:

The technologies are not well understood but they are under constant development. The british carried out extensive wave energy r&d in the 70s during the oil crisis, it was only with the abating of the crisis that funding was severly cut for these projects. If the funding had been maintained then the british would have significant wave energy utilisation at this point. Cheap oil and gas stopped this progress (North Sea Fields).

Are there large-scale wave plants with sane costs which have been operating for a long time?

anyway, I agree that we need a solution and that nuclear can make electricity in a well understood and tested technology, but in all the time nuclear has been used to make electricity nobody has figured out what to do with radioactive waste in the long term. The economics look good initially but take into account that the EU has legislation in place making the waste producer/disposer responsible for the waste untill it no longer poses a hazard and prehaps the economics swing in the favour of developing renewables.

Sorry about the bad spelling and lack of grammer!

Store, and wait for technology to develop. There are 3rd and 4th generation nuclear plant designs which produce very little nasty waste. And reprocessing improves all the time.

turbine?

I dont know how to do the quote thing sorry.

In response though:

And is it economical? How much per kilowatt? How will it be affected by climatic nastiness in the near future? We may need all the arable land we can get to grow food on if the climate does change severely.

The cost for waste incineration with electricity generation is about 2.2p kW/h in britain.

Hard to say about climatic nastiness, the models for this are so approximate that nobody really knows, however crops grown for bio fuel are present in most of the warm biomes, except dessert.

Monoculture is a problem and bio fuels could be seen as a monoculture, but thet are not neccesarily so. It depends on the crop management. for instance rape can be grown as a break crop here, allowing the ground to be cycled through various crops. Good for soil quality etc.

Nuclear power plants do not generally emit significant radiation...

And bio fuels / waste to energy stations dont generally emit NOx etc. Thats why thet are called fugitive emissions.

Nuclear power doesn't need much uranium, tho. It won't compare to the requirements for crops.

I think that uranium mining uses large tracks of land though. Doesnt use much uranium but what it does use requires a large site to produce aswell as producing a hazardous fly ash from the tipping and CO2 from vehicle movements. High rate of occupational illness among uranium mining workers.

Radioactive waste is not generally distributed into the atmosphere.

Again neither are the wastes from the bio fuel/ waste to energy plants. The ash has to be kept in a hazardous landfill site. Possible problems occur with leaching of the acids and dioxins. Short term acute problems compared to long term chronic problems for Radioactive waste emissions.

Are there large-scale wave plants with sane costs which have been operating for a long time?

Wave technology has some tried and tested installations. None that I know of are large scale though some are medium scale. EU has developed a testing centre to help the technology progress. I'll find out the website and get back to you. One developing technology is called the Pelamis "A typical 30MW installation would occupy a square kilometre of ocean and provide sufficient electricity for 20,000 homes. Twenty of these farms could power a city such as Edinburgh." google pelamis. They are installing their product, I think it is comparable to more conventional methods as regards price.

Store, and wait for technology to develop.

The technology to make the waste safe? They have had 50 years to figure that one out.

The technology to generate effectively from renewables? Won't happen to any great degree if we use nuclear and can find a continuous source of fissile material. economy would become happy with nuclear energy (in its abundance?) even if we have to live with more and more nuclear waste that we don't really know what to do with.

turbine?

www.emec.org.uk is the eu test centre for wave energy covertors

rsynnott

turbine? wrote:

The technology to make the waste safe? They have had 50 years to figure that one out.

The technology to generate effectively from renewables? Won't happen to any great degree if we use nuclear and can find a continuous source of fissile material. economy would become happy with nuclear energy (in its abundance?) even if we have to live with more and more nuclear waste that we don't really know what to do with.

50 years isn't really very long . There are now reactor designs which don't produce any high-level waste. In another 100, I'd be surprised if waste is a big issue. It's not really a huge issue now. France, which is mostly nuclear-powered, has accumulated 40,000 tonnes of waste, enough to fill a large warehouse.

There is no real problem with ensuring supply of fissile material; fast breeder reactors can convert the abundant U-238 and Thorium into plutonium. With fast breeders, supplies of those materials, and of reprocessed waste, should last for millions of years.

In any case, fission can be seen as a stopgap. All going well, we should have commercial fusion, producing very little waste, within 50 years.