| Author |
Message
|
| AdmiralFloyd |
 Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 12:24 pm Post subject: Nuclear power, the debate |
 |
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 19
|
| What is your view on current use of fission power and/or possible future uses of fusion power. could it be safe? could it be economical? could it be enviromental? is it any of these things already? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| cleft |
| Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 05 May 2005
Posts: 149
|
Since you started this thread, I ran into this and thought it might just fit right in with your subject...
| Quote: |
Frozen talks over fusion reactor warm up
11:02 10 May 2005
NewScientist.com news service
Maggie McKee
Europe and Japan have taken a significant step towards finalising the highly contentious plan to build the world's largest nuclear fusion facility, thawing negotiations that have been frozen for 18 months. But the countries have not yet settled the most crucial question of where to build the reactor.
The ambitious project, called ITER - International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor - aims to lay the groundwork for using nuclear fusion as an inexhaustible and clean energy source. But progress on ITER ground to a halt in December 2003 because its six member parties could not agree on where to locate the premier facility. The EU, China and Russia lobbied for Cadarache in France, while the US, South Korea and Japan supported the Japanese town of Rokkashomura.
Both France and Japan continue to vie for the project's main site. But representatives from the EU and Japan apparently thrashed out a deal in Geneva, Switzerland on 5 May outlining the responsibilities of the country that will host ITER and those of the country that will miss out on the reactor.
Source and full article here |
Evidently talks are proceeding on the next generation for fusion. As far as fission goes, one has to only look at the article I posted earlier to see part of the problem with fission, namely what to do with the byproducts. The fission process itself is unstable if not carefully watched, monitored, and controlled, leads to disaster. Yes I know that there are triple redundancy safe-guards. I also know from working in non-nuclear applications that those types of safe-guards are never 100% safe and effective.
Fusion should be far more safe in the sense of byproducts to deal with. It is the safety aspect that truely worries me. I don't think the economics are going to be a problem as it seems those sort of talks on who is going to host this facility are already in progress.
_________________
"Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo."
- H. G. Wells (1866-1946) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| esoterik_appeal |
| Posted: Sat May 14, 2005 10:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 13 May 2005
Posts: 24
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kestasjk |
| Posted: Sun May 15, 2005 12:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 07 May 2005
Posts: 74
|
| It is safe economical and environmental.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Monkey |
| Posted: Sun May 22, 2005 10:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 22 May 2005
Posts: 16
Location: The Canopy
|
| kestasjk wrote: |
| It is safe economical and environmental.. |
Since when is it environmental.....?? What do you do with all that radioactive waste that takes billions of years for the half lifes. It may be economical but, fuck economics over the environment and safety.
_________________
All things appear and disappear because of the concurrence of causes and conditions. Nothing ever exists entirely alone; everything is in relation to everything else.
-Buddha |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| cleft |
| Posted: Sun May 22, 2005 11:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 05 May 2005
Posts: 149
|
Safe? Ask the folks that still live around Chernoble how safe they feel it is when things go wrong. You don't have to stop with just talking to the locals either. Go on past that small area to other countries. Once contamination is out of containment it is in the enviroment for what is essentially forever. No design is 100% foolproof, no matter how it is billed. The elements that make the radioactive process work are also stressful on the equipment that processes the fluids.
The economics are also debatable in the sense that the waste must be cared for forever too; at least compared to our life spans. Very few companies are going to have the stablitily over the long haul to plan and take care of such wastes considering the timespan involved. All it takes is something unplanned for and you have an economic disaster. On such a scale it will bankrupt any corporation to clean the damage, (if it can be contained) and the fines that would follow that would be submitted by the governments. In many cases that could be easily many countries. Add to it the instability of worrying about some terrorist using such as a target of oppurtunity or as a primary target and you have all the makings of major problems that no corporation could stand to pay for out of pocket. No matter what sort of fine, cleanup costs, ect. there are still the unconsidered costs to health and human suffering that would follow any "mistake".
I guess my viewpoints of what is safe and economical might not jive with what the industry considers.
_________________
"Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo."
- H. G. Wells (1866-1946) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Monkey |
| Posted: Sun May 22, 2005 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 22 May 2005
Posts: 16
Location: The Canopy
|
| cleft wrote: |
Safe? Ask the folks that still live around Chernoble how safe they feel it is when things go wrong. You don't have to stop with just talking to the locals either. Go on past that small area to other countries. Once contamination is out of containment it is in the enviroment for what is essentially forever. No design is 100% foolproof, no matter how it is billed. The elements that make the radioactive process work are also stressful on the equipment that processes the fluids.
The economics are also debatable in the sense that the waste must be cared for forever too; at least compared to our life spans. Very few companies are going to have the stablitily over the long haul to plan and take care of such wastes considering the timespan involved. All it takes is something unplanned for and you have an economic disaster. On such a scale it will bankrupt any corporation to clean the damage, (if it can be contained) and the fines that would follow that would be submitted by the governments. In many cases that could be easily many countries. Add to it the instability of worrying about some terrorist using such as a target of oppurtunity or as a primary target and you have all the makings of major problems that no corporation could stand to pay for out of pocket. No matter what sort of fine, cleanup costs, ect. there are still the unconsidered costs to health and human suffering that would follow any "mistake".
I guess my viewpoints of what is safe and economical might not jive with what the industry considers. |
My point exactly, thank you cleft. Right on..
_________________
All things appear and disappear because of the concurrence of causes and conditions. Nothing ever exists entirely alone; everything is in relation to everything else.
-Buddha |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| funzone36 |
| Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 19 Nov 2005
Posts: 21
|
| Quote: |
| What is your view on current use of fission power and/or possible future uses of fusion power. could it be safe? could it be economical? could it be enviromental? is it any of these things already? |
It's safe. It's environmental. It's NOT economical. Nuclear reactors require billions of dollars to create and you need 10000 reactors for large-scale production. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Neutrino |
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 7:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 02 Nov 2005
Posts: 980
Location: Columbus, OH
|
| Chernobyl was a dump of a reactor, you can hardly use that as the standard for future reactors. It was an unsafe wreck. And even if it were up to safety standards of the time, that's no reason to think that safety wouldn't improve as technology and understanding does. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| wallaby |
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 10:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 03 Jul 2005
Posts: 1375
Location: Australia
|
| it was also 3 days before the russians were forced to admit that the reactor was in a melt down and ask for help. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ophiolite |
| Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 8:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 4804
Location: Scotland
|
| funzone36 wrote: |
| Nuclear reactors require billions of dollars to create and you need 10000 reactors for large-scale production. |
This is nonesense. Please seek to justify it. 25% of Scotland's electricity is being produced from two nuclear reactors. Two old, inefficient reactors. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| funzone36 |
| Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 2:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 19 Nov 2005
Posts: 21
|
"To produce enough nuclear power to equal the power we currently get from fossil fuels, you would have to build 10,000 of the largest possible nuclear power plants."
http://www.energybulletin.net/2311.html
All information gathered from the above link. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ophiolite |
| Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 4804
Location: Scotland
|
Funzone would you try to be more precise in your posts. There is a difference between large scale production and power equal to that currently derived from fossil fuels.
I would not have been so disparaging of your claim had you phrased it accurately.
That said it is still faulty. The author of the quote is talking about all the power currently derived from fossil fuels. That includes all the automobiles, airplanes and ships. The amount required from power stations is considerably less than that total.
The author may be a professor of physics, but he appears to be unaware of the potential size of current nuclear power stations.
He is also being rather precious in assuming that all the hydropower and the growing use of wind, tidal and other alternative energy sources will not continue.
You suggest that oil is cheaper. Consider this: http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm
A pertinent extract:
French figures published in 2002 show (EUR cents/kWh): nuclear 3.20, gas 3.05-4.26, coal 3.81-4.57. Nuclear is favourable because of the large, standardised plants used. This was before the recent substantial increase in fossil fuel prices which would tilt the economics very much in favour of nuclear. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| funzone36 |
| Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 19 Nov 2005
Posts: 21
|
| Quote: |
| French figures published in 2002 show (EUR cents/kWh): nuclear 3.20, gas 3.05-4.26, coal 3.81-4.57. |
That is only nuclear power generation. I was referring to the cost of constructing a nuclear power reactor vs. the cost of extracting oil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ophiolite |
| Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 4804
Location: Scotland
|
Not a relevant comparison. For nuclear the fuel costs are lower, the capital costs are higher. Fossil fuel costs are rising and will continue to rise. Nuclear capital costs would fall with increasing numbers of power stations. I am not seeking to prove that nuclear is cheaper, merely that it is on a par with fossil fuel costs and does not have the environmental impact when properly managed.
Earlier reference was made to the effects of Chernobyl. Lets mention, then, the 5000 miners who die in China each year to deliver fuel for their power station. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
