Expanding Nuclear Energy (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 07, 2024, 03:09:24 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Expanding Nuclear Energy (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Do you support expanding nuclear energy to meet CO2 emissions reductions?
#1
Democrat: Yes
 
#2
Democrat: No
 
#3
Republican: Yes
 
#4
Republican: No
 
#5
independent/third party: Yes
 
#6
independent/third party: No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 47

Author Topic: Expanding Nuclear Energy  (Read 7151 times)
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,823


« on: May 24, 2009, 10:17:34 PM »


What would you suggest as an alternative?
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,823


« Reply #1 on: May 25, 2009, 03:41:07 PM »

fertilizer
h20 car thing
solar
wind
electric.

i just don't like nuclear.

We don't have the capacity to store electricity the same way we can store gas and oil. The bulk of our electricity has to come from sources that can generate power at all times. Wind and solar electric generation cannot run at all times so they provide excellent supplements to power, but not the base load. Hydrogen for devices like automotive fuel cells requires electricity to create the hydrogen, and that goes back to primary power sources.

In some regions, non-fuel power generation is possible. The most important is hydroelectric power which requires dams and reservoirs to cover land, and then only where there is enough vertical drop and enough water to generate the power. Geothermal and tidal generation can be used in a few locations that have sufficient natural power to harness.

The fuel-based sources include coal, oil, natural gas, and uranium. The first three are the major contributors to carbon dioxide emissions in the air, and all the preceding sources are not sufficient to replace the total electricity needed. That leaves nuclear power from uranium.

ok. But what happens if something goes wrong?

Of course things can go wrong for any power technology. Oil spills, refinery explosions and and coal mine collapses tragically happen. The response is to improve safety, and nuclear power is no exception. Since the era that gave us Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, the world has made major strides in overall design and safety technology. We don't see the improvements in the US because we stopped all public work on nuclear technology 30 years ago, but countries like France and Japan have continued research and engineering. Newer designs lower the possibility of release of radioactive material and limit the amount that would be released.

Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,823


« Reply #2 on: May 31, 2009, 09:34:03 AM »


Random Fact:

France is the only non-major-petroleum producing country in the world that is a net energy exporter.  The sole reason being their reliance on nuclear power, which produces enough extra energy to sell to Germany, Belgium, etc.

I wonder if the fact that we yet didn't have a significant problem with our big number of nuclear installations would have to see with the fact that this is in the hands of a monopolistic public company, so a one which don't have to care (or less have to care) about profitability, I sincerely wonder...

Well, outside of the safety question, which is a serious question, as far as I know nuclear energy is reliant on some raw materials which are in pretty limited quantity on the planet. So if everybody goes nuclear, it won't last a lot of time...

Personally, I strongly root for nuclear fusion, a technology still in development, but if ever it worked, the perspectives of development could be huge to say the the least...

That said, I also strongly support the renewable energies, and especially sun, the future of this one could be good too...

Fusion continues to be some decades off. It's theoretical promise is belied by real and difficult challenges to make it work on a commercial scale. However, there are other materials, particularly thorium, that may be developed into future nuclear fuels.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.03 seconds with 14 queries.