Nuclear Power Yes Or No

With Oil and other fossil fuels slowly running out I suggest the only way forwards is Nuclear Power.
I dont see the development of any viable national power sources being invented before the fossil fuels run out.

What I would propose are smaller reactors sufficient to power say a town or area with extra power being supplemented by Wind and solar power.

Nuclear submarines have small reactors so why would it not be viable for there to be more of these providing power localy rather than semi-nationally?

Any Thoughts?

How about home size, for your garage. I would definitely like to have solar panels and wind power generation for home. I like the thought of cheap nuclear power, but I would only like it for me if I lived well upwind of the plant.

reply to post by logicize

But thats the idea, there would be no need for any such large 'plant', small reactors dont take up a lot of space and neither would the logistical support for them.

Im just counting the months untill the UK Government make it law that any new house build have solar water heating and basic solar electricity supplying 12V to batteries.

Some of my friends were trying to make a battery that would store up unlimited amounts of energy. There are certain ways to store energy from what they were telling me. But , the problem is that you can store so much energy in a certain place. But what happens when that room is filled ?

Also, how much does it take to turn one of these little Nuclear Generators that produce enough energy for a sub ... to be turned into a Bomb of some kind ? Especially if there were many, many of them lyintg around every where.

reply to post by Chorlton


How about steam turbines powered by burning hydrogen? And if you're wondering about costly hydrogen separation processes:

Reseachers Produce Hydrogen by Splitting Water with Sunlight

Clean and green, produces water and no tough stains!

This is very interesting to me as Lufkin Texas the area I live in right now is looking at building a Nuclear Power Plant. How or what should I look into for this situation ?

ANYTHING I SHOULD BE HESISTANT ABOUT ? Living 2 miles from the Nuclear Power Plant Just doesn't seem very good to me .. But as they say it there is nothing wrong with it ...

Originally posted by Deus_Brandon
Some of my friends were trying to make a battery that would store up unlimited amounts of energy. There are certain ways to store energy from what they were telling me. But , the problem is that you can store so much energy in a certain place. But what happens when that room is filled ?

You dont need that much electricity for day to day use. Much of it can be supplied by 12V then converting that to 240V

Also, how much does it take to turn one of these little Nuclear Generators that produce enough energy for a sub ... to be turned into a Bomb of some kind ? Especially if there were many, many of them lyintg around every where.

Well yes there would be a security problem, but, come the day when we all get to that state I think (hope) people might have moved on a little, though I realise there will always be fruitcakes in the world.

NO.

Nuclear energy is the antithesis of life. There is no way to make it clean or friendly or truly safe. What comes out of the reactor destroys life right down to the molecular level, period. It doesn't just make it a little warmer globally or increase respiratory problems like other fuel sources. There is no way to say it any clearer: wide-scale use of nuclear energy is nothing less than the eventual destruction of all life on earth.

As for a battery, why not use a hydrogen cycle battery? Use solar energy to create hydrogen during the day which you store in a "hydride battery" under your house. At night, you can use the stored hydrogen as an energy source by using a fuel cell. It should allow for much smaller storage cells (instead of a farm of big tanks) that can be buried under a house.

Note: Thermonuclear energy is perfectly clean and acceptable to me.

[edit on 9.25.2007 by Voxel]

IMHO I think nuclear power plants are technically dinosaurs. The used plutonium rods they produce we can't even find homes for. Nevada wants nothing to do with being the repository in Yucca mountain. I keep praying and hoping for the myriad of alternative energy projects currently underway will herald a new reusable surplus of energy. I don't believe nuclear is the way for the long term.

[edit on 25-9-2007 by jpm1602]

Originally posted by Voxel
NO.

Nuclear energy is the antithesis of life. There is no way to make it clean or friendly or truly safe. What comes out of the reactor destroys life right down to the molecular level, period. It doesn't just make it a little warmer globally or increase respiratory problems like other fuel sources. There is no way to say it any clearer: wide-scale use of nuclear energy is nothing less than the eventual destruction of all life on earth.

I agree in part, but as yet there is no viable proven workeable alternative.
There is a need to find the solution to Nuclear waste yes but other than that I see it as the only workeable option.

As for a battery, why not use a hydrogen cycle battery? Use solar energy to create hydrogen during the day which you store in a "hydride battery" under your house. At night, you can use the stored hydrogen as an energy source by using a fuel cell. It should allow for much smaller storage cells (instead of a farm of big tanks) that can be buried under a house.

Thats a great idea if you live somewhere that has a lot of sun but in the UK its probably a No No

Note: Thermonuclear energy is perfectly clean and acceptable to me.
[edit on 9.25.2007 by Voxel]
As I say. We just dnt have any viable working alternatives to Nuclear Power. There are lots of ideas but nothing that will provide the massive amounts of electricity that we need.

Originally posted by Chorlton
With Oil and other fossil fuels slowly running out I suggest the only way forwards is Nuclear Power.
I dont see the development of any viable national power sources being invented before the fossil fuels run out.

What I would propose are smaller reactors sufficient to power say a town or area with extra power being supplemented by Wind and solar power.

Nuclear submarines have small reactors so why would it not be viable for there to be more of these providing power localy rather than semi-nationally?

Any Thoughts?

There is nothing wrong with nuclear energy, especially the generation III+ nuclear power plants currently being designed/deployed. They are seismically qualified to withstand large earthquakes, have numerous safety systems to prevent loss of coolant accidents or severe core damage and produce relatively 'clean' energy.

Of course there are always naysayers who complain about the spent fuel waste from NPP's. What exactly is the problem though? The waste is secure and a long-term repository poses no risks to the human population. It's a legacy problem, but what the hell do you care, you will be dead a hundred years from now... and the fuel will still be secure hundreds of years from now... most likely packed away in a glass matrix to prevent leaching and stored deep underground.

The industry employs thousands of workers and supports many other industries.. I don't see the problem with nuclear. It is ignorant people who can't forget chernobyl that give nuclear a bad name...

Heh I was just thinking about this...

Yes, nuclear is going to be a necessary buffer in the transition from fossil fuels to clean green energy whether we like it or not.

Unfortunately it is being promoted by hypocrites who would deny this buffer to nations who do not agree with their way of thinking which is bringing the world very close to a survival conflict that it cannot afford...

Nuclear needs to be explored and developed further and highly regulated by an international body which is independant and ensures its peaceful application.

At the moment it is being used as a tool for war mongers and propagandists against countries wh do not agree with US policies and as a source of quick profit for countries with rich Uranium deposits.

Nuclear power is a very clean energy without putting out any greenhouse gases, with virtually no by-products as with Breeder reactors you can potentionally recover 95% of the Uranium spent. Currently, France only recycles 28% of its spent Fuel rods, though, with newer reactors it has became very clear that it IS possible to recover a significantly higher percentage of the spent fuel rods while still using a large proportion of the leftover waste not reprocessed in other industries such as:

• Military
  
• NASA
  
• inertial guidance devices
  
• X-ray machines
  
• gyroscopic compasses
  

Just to name a few, while the rest of the waste could be stored or potentially sold to developing countries that are in need of enriched Uranium (read, NOT bomb grade).

Take a look at Safety. There has not been a single accident in the history of civilian reactors that could not be prevented with a modern reactor design. For example, Chernobyl did not even had a contrainment building even though it had a dangerous reactor:

• The reactor had a dangerously large positive void coefficient, meaning the hotter it got, the more power it puts out.
  
• A more significant flaw was in the design of the control rods that are inserted into the reactor to slow down the reaction, when first inserted they actually quicken the reaction.
  
• The water channels run through the core vertically, meaning that the water's temperature increases as it moves up and thus creates a temperature gradient in the core.
  
• The reactor also had been running for over one year, and was storing fission byproducts.
  
• As the reactor heated up, design flaws caused the reactor vessel to warp and break up, making further insertion of control rods impossible.
  

Not only that, the operaters were simply ill-trained.

• They violated procedures
  
• The operaters were unaware of the safety system guidlines.
  
  Let's also take a look at 3 mile island. Basically it were a number of things that caused the accident, including faulty safety valves, bad training, and poor control room design.
  
  Both of these incedents both happened over 20 years ago, and with modern computers, modern science, and lessons learned from these disasters, we can be sure that ANY disaster at a Nuclear plant, is not only unlikely, but impossible.
  
  Terrorism threat is unlikely, this is what an aircraft will do to a reactor contrainment vessel:
  uk.youtube.com...
  
  Yep, that's right, it didn't even scratch the surface.
  
  Let's take a look at price:
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Cheap too. The point I'm making, is Nuclear power is a very safe, clean and CHEAP energy, and because of this, France not only has some of the cleanest air in all of Europe, they have the cheapest power in all of Europe too. Let's follow there example and use Nuclear in conjunction with other renewables such as geothermals, only then, will be rid the world of dirty, coal power, oil and gas power, which in the end, will benifit us all AND the environment.
  
  Thanks.
  
  Source:
  www.uic.com.au...
  &
  Wiki
  
  [edit on 26/9/07 by JimmyCarterIsSmarter]

I wonder if the polluted water from these stations could be used to drive a geo-thermal power station?

reply to post by JimmyBlonde


Nuclear power plants do NOT pollute the water.

reply to post by JimmyBlonde


Or used to heat houses or maybe greenhouses used to grow food??

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsSmarter
reply to post by JimmyBlonde

 

Nuclear power plants do NOT pollute the water.

I thought it got contaminated in the cooling process??? Really I have no idea on the technicalities on reactors. Where does the waste come from that everyone talks about???

Nuclear power in submarines works because the power demand is fixed to the design. In Oregon many small regions ideal for a smaller proportional reactor would have outgrown the reactor after only 8 to 10 years as the population has gone up about 30% in the last 10 years. the average lifespan of rods for that size reactor last roughly 20 years... eventually you would just have a whole bunch of small reactors perpetually fighting demand. although you encounter the same problem eventually in the standard size power plant it is still more efficient for construction and minimizing waste...

Originally posted by JimmyBlonde

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsSmarter
reply to post by JimmyBlonde

 

Nuclear power plants do NOT pollute the water.

I thought it got contaminated in the cooling process??? Really I have no idea on the technicalities on reactors. Where does the waste come from that everyone talks about???

actually water can be used to block different wavelengths of radiation..most of the debated waste is simply the spent rods and shielding. which sometimes gets buried or placed in strategic locations in the desert. which still can bit society in the rear... in Hanford Washington there is a proposed new dam for electrical power. until they realized the re channeled water also becomes ground water. in this case the new river would channel right through a zone of buried nuclear waste on through to the Columbia river and is halting the construction... a good read on that comes from an article in the Oregonian newspaper date sep 19, 07 I have a paper copy but I'm sure they are online.

Originally posted by Chorlton

Nuclear submarines have small reactors so why would it not be viable for there to be more of these providing power localy rather than semi-nationally?

Any Thoughts?

Its got the makings of a good idea, but you forgot that you'd be accused of trying to develop weapons and the US would have to consider bombing you.