NationStates Jolt Archive

Modern nuclear reactors can generate all the power we need safely and without pollution. Why do environmentalists seem to hate them?

Chernoble

Modern nuclear reactors can generate all the power we need safely and without pollution. Why do environmentalists seem to hate them?
Last I heard, modern nuclear reactors do create pollution, just not carbon dioxide. The waste products from nuclear reactors are very, very toxic, and once you refine said waste products to get back useable nuclear fuel from them, you end up with a fairly small amount of frighteningly radioactive stuff that you just have to bury somewhere safe.
That said, nuclear is the only practical option the West has, so it'd better start building reactors now.
Some scientists in the U.S. are working on real-life versions of microwave plants (big solar panel in space beams microwave energy to collecting dish on ground) like the ones in Sim City 2000. They'd be even better!

Modern nuclear reactors can generate all the power we need safely and without pollution. Why do environmentalists seem to hate them?

Because they will be accused of having a W.M.D program :p

Chernoble
Not a modern nuclear reactor. Modern designs can run with no coolant and not melt down or explode.

Modern nuclear reactors can generate all the power we need safely and without pollution. Why do environmentalists seem to hate them?
The problem is that we don't know what to do with the spent fuel rods. Radioactive pollution can be terribly harmful. Though I personally prefer them to fossil fuel combustion.

Well, there's Chernobyl and Three Mile Island as good examples of disasters. These are actually quite easily preventable.
The real problems are the spent fuel rods. They take far too long to decompose, and where can they be stored until they're safe? Nevada just voted overwhelmingly against (actually, I think that was a a poll) the Yucca Mountain Waste Facility. It's this Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) sentiment that drives the anti-nuke movements.
However, it is one of cleanest, efficient, least hazardous and environmentally impacting (in an everyday manner) ways to produce electricity. See the US Department of Energy (http://www.doe.gov/) (doe.gov) for more info.
Currently, the US derives 20% of its energy from Nuclear power.

Last I heard, modern nuclear reactors do create pollution, just not carbon dioxide. The waste products from nuclear reactors are very, very toxic, and once you refine said waste products to get back useable nuclear fuel from them, you end up with a fairly small amount of frighteningly radioactive stuff that you just have to bury somewhere safe.
That said, nuclear is the only practical option the West has, so it'd better start building reactors now.
Some scientists in the U.S. are working on real-life versions of microwave plants (big solar panel in space beams microwave energy to collecting dish on ground) like the ones in Sim City 2000. They'd be even better!
I'd have to agree with you.
But then you end up with stuff like Breeders and Pebbel bed reactors that are incredibly safe, and they don't create as much waste.

Microwave is a long way off, because it'd be so expesnive to build giant solar panels. Heh Sim City 2000, Boooom!

Not a modern nuclear reactor. Modern designs can run with no coolant and not melt down or explode.

You asked a question on why environmentalists don't like nuclear Reactors. Chernoble and TMI are 2 examples why.

Environmentalists are against everything. However, the more environmentally harmful something is, the less likely they are to oppose it, because they know that sensible people will take care of that.

They just concentrate on opposing sensible stuff. They are people haters I suppose.

I'd have to agree with you.
But then you end up with stuff like Breeders and Pebbel bed reactors that are incredibly safe, and they don't create as much waste.

Microwave is a long way off, because it'd be so expesnive to build giant solar panels. Heh Sim City 2000, Boooom!
Not as much waste, I agree, but you still get some, and you have to do something with it.
I just read in the paper that they're seriously researching microwave plants as a possiblity. The energy benefits that you'd get would justify some high expenditure on the panels (fission reactors are more than a couple a thousand dollars, aren't they?), but yes, the beam missing would create problems.

Environmentalists are against everything.They just concentrate on opposing sensible stuff. They are people haters I suppose.
:headbang:

Some scientists in the U.S. are working on real-life versions of microwave plants (big solar panel in space beams microwave energy to collecting dish on ground) like the ones in Sim City 2000. They'd be even better!
Personally, I agree; the idea, if feasible, sounds very cool.

I am, however, reminded of the Terrorist Factor. You need to design very secure control facilities or someone could deliberately redirect the beam to strike major urban centers.

You also have to think about what to do during nighttime, since solar power satellites are likely going to be flying close enough to Earth to get caught in the nighttime shadow. In such cases, you'd have to bounce power from an exposed satellite off a sunlight-deprived nighttime satellite and then to a ground station.

I also have to wonder how superconductor research is coming along; a superconductor power cable from a geosynchronous satellite to a ground station.... Naaah, there's too much junk flying around in Earth orbit. The cable would get clipped.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
Founder and Delegate of The Realm of Ambrosia

:headbang:

Yes, excellent rebuttal.

I'm not a big fan of nuclear (fission) power because of the problem of what to do with the waste, but I think it's currently the best option we have for widespread use. Once we get around to developing fusion power, that'd be much better. Also, in certain areas, there are other feasable alternatives that are more environmentally friendly, such as wave farms & wind farms, solar, undersea currents, and even geothermal. I don't think the technology is there yet for the geothermal, and I don't know if undersea currents are used yet but I have heard talk about it.
As for the microwave thing, I always assumed the beam missing thing was just something SimCity made up to make the game more interesting :)

Environmentalists are against everything. However, the more environmentally harmful something is, the less likely they are to oppose it, because they know that sensible people will take care of that.
They just concentrate on opposing sensible stuff. They are people haters I suppose.


Yes, excellent claim.

He's right. I am against this forum and all those who utilise it.

Yes, excellent rebuttal.
It is really the only response I have left. That is the precise feeling I have when dealing with anti-environmentalists like you. You are an excellent specimen to show prejudice and stereotyping, by the by.

Yes, excellent claim.

Name me one sensible solution to our energy needs that environmentalists don't oppose.

They even oppose wind farms. Added to that, what is this whacky shit with recycling glass. If there is one thing that doesn't hurt to put in a landfill it is glass. (Of course we don't recycle tungsten which would make sense, because it is too good an idea for environmentalists to get behind.)

It is really the only response I have left. That is the precise feeling I have when dealing with anti-environmentalists like you. You are an excellent specimen to show prejudice and stereotyping, by the by.

Yes well at least I probably know something about environmental science though, and not just some hippy crap promulgated by a Poli-sci professor.

Name me one sensible solution to our energy needs that environmentalists don't oppose.
Hydrogen fuel.

They even oppose wind farms. Added to that, what is this whacky shit with recycling glass. If there is one thing that doesn't hurt to put in a landfill it is glass. (Of course we don't recycle tungsten which would make sense, because it is too good an idea for environmentalists to get behind.)
Now, you see, you just don't realise any of the facts of the situation. The human species now requires huge amounts of electricity to function in its current manner. It is not how nature had intended for the planet to be. There are currently no completely clean fuel options, but sensible environmentalists are not against nulear fission plants. It's merely the "not in my backyard" mindset, no-one wants the spent fuel rods near themselves. I don't know of any who oppose wind farms or solar energy, that seems ridiculous. I can understand being opposed to hydroelectric dams, since those effect the local environment, but I support it simply because it is healthier for the global environment. And what is this about recycling glass and tungsten? You're not making any sense there.

Yes well at least I probably know something about environmental science though, and not just some hippy crap promulgated by a Poli-sci professor.
You *probably* know something about it? Well, do you or don't you? :p

For all the radioactive waste, why don't we just pick some random uninhabited island and dump it there? It's just one island, no big enviromental pollution there.

For all the radioactive waste, why don't we just pick some random uninhabited island and dump it there? It's just one island, no big enviromental pollution there.
There's no perfect solution: even if you did that, what about birds that lived there, and the fish in the surrounding waters? They'd be in constant contact with radioactive materials which would shorten their life spans, cause birth defects, etc. Plus you still have to have people ship them there, and humans still come into contact with the waste. I agree with my roomate's idea on this one: send the waste into the sun :)

I agree with my roomate's idea on this one: send the waste into the sun :)
Very, very expensive in terms of energy expenditure.

Yes well at least I probably know something about environmental science though, and not just some hippy crap promulgated by a Poli-sci professor.
Really? Name all of the biogeochemical cycles. Describe convection currents and Coreolis effect. Tell me why it is that ATP inhibitors can be carcinogenic. How about what ATP inhibitors even are? Tell me what happens when fat-soluble pesticides go up the food chain. Explain, briefly, the importance of biodiversity, which happens to be the primary way to measure the health of any ecosystem. What is so bad about invasives? And do all of this without looking any of it up. I can come up with a near infinite supply of queries such as these, which I am sure you can not answer. I was not taught by a political science teacher. I've been taught by biology and ecology teachers. I haven't yet taken chemistry or physics, but I already know quite a bit about both subjects.

Very, very expensive in terms of energy expenditure.
Yeah, I know. It really isn't feasible. Too bad :)

Hydrogen is the best way to go about. As are Fuel Cells! :)

Hydrogen is the best way to go about. As are Fuel Cells! :)
I think you need electricity to generate hydrogen from seawater, though. For the electricity, it's looking like nuclear fission and solar panels are the way to go, I reckon.

I've heard that there is research into better ways to get rid of nuclear waste, such as burrying it in a fault line so that it gets absorbed by the earth, drilled to the bottom of the ocean in tight metal caskets or simply flung at the sun.

Wind farms, solar panels- good, safe. Sure, a few birds will get caught in the mills but that's better than the stuff coming from combustion plants and nuclear reactors. And that, Lacadaemon, comes from an environmentalist. The ones that oppose everything are not greenies- their name is idiot. With head up ass. Just like people who support Stalinism, faschism, and uber Christianism. Don't judge a movement by extremists.

Chernoble
Chernoble was a dipshit Russian plutonium producing reactor, not a modern American light water reactor.

With crappy maintenance as well. Crappy, just like everything else Soviet Communism did.

Chernoble was a dipshit Russian plutonium producing reactor, not a modern American light water reactor.

With crappy maintenance as well.

Nah! Just stupid people running it. Turning off ALL safeties and then they wonder why it blew up.

Chernoble was a dipshit Russian plutonium producing reactor, not a modern American light water reactor.

With crappy maintenance as well. Crappy, just like everything else Soviet Communism did.

Correction: Soviet Communism (Stalinism) was very good for oppressing people. That, and it industrialized a huge country in several decades.

Nah! Just stupid people running it. Turning off ALL safeties and then they wonder why it blew up.
No matter, Chernoble is overhyped, many an environmentalist paints the picture as if it was something completely beyond human control, but in reality, people had everything to do with it, and the incident could easily have been prevented.

No matter, Chernoble is overhyped, many an environmentalist paints the picture as if it was something completely beyond human control, but in reality, people had everything to do with it, and the incident could easily have been prevented.

Yep could've but now Chernoble is uninhabital and that is what the environmentalists point too.

Yep could've but now Chernoble is uninhabital and that is what the environmentalists point too.
actually, the area around Chernoble is inhabited. Sure the people have health problems, but they live there, and the other two (or is it one) reactor at the facility is still running.

actually, the area around Chernoble is inhabited. Sure the people have health problems, but they live there, and the other two (or is it one) reactor at the facility is still running.

Its a waste land dude. 80% of the facility went up in nuclear inferno due to the melt down.

I'd like to know what France does with their nuclear waste. They are 80% dependant on nuclear power. I think that adds up to being about the same number of reactors as here in the US. Any French on these forums care to explain how you deal with it?

I'd like to know what France does with their nuclear waste. They are 80% dependant on nuclear power. I think that adds up to being about the same number of reactors as here in the US. Any French on these forums care to explain how you deal with it?

http://www.google.com/

That's cool.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html
The French actually recycle the nuclear waste. According to PBS, "the contribution of a family of four using electricity for 20 years is a glass cylinder the size of a cigarette lighter."
Why the hell can't we do that here in the US?

Really? Name all of the biogeochemical cycles. Describe convection currents and Coreolis effect. Tell me why it is that ATP inhibitors can be carcinogenic. How about what ATP inhibitors even are? Tell me what happens when fat-soluble pesticides go up the food chain. Explain, briefly, the importance of biodiversity, which happens to be the primary way to measure the health of any ecosystem. What is so bad about invasives? And do all of this without looking any of it up. I can come up with a near infinite supply of queries such as these, which I am sure you can not answer. I was not taught by a political science teacher. I've been taught by biology and ecology teachers. I haven't yet taken chemistry or physics, but I already know quite a bit about both subjects.

Yes well I happen to know physics and chemistry as well. Your questions are silly and I can answer them all apart from that piffle about biogeochemical which sounds like a "buzzword".

Any yes, environmentalist whackos do oppose wind farms. And if you can't figure out why we should recycle tungsten not glass then your grasp of the whole thing is poor.

I will also add that hydrogen is not a fuel per se, since it requires energy to manfacture, therefore it can never be a primary energy source.

(Adenosine Triphosphate, pshaw. Do you even know how that is made or what it is for).

Chernobyl...Three Mile Island

(Damn Soviets...)

It would make an ok transition into better fuels though.

Any yes, environmentalist whackos do oppose wind farms. And if you can't figure out why we should recycle tungsten not glass then your grasp of the whole thing is poor.

If you can't work out why to recycle glass, then your grasp is fairly poor. The reason is that making new glass takes more energy than recycling it.

Wind farms are not a horrible idea. However, they're just not practical for large-scale energy generation, cause problems for migrating birds, and are an eyesore. There's not a great deal to recommend them as a primary energy source.

http://www.google.com/
Type French Nuclear-waste into google and "I'm feeling lucky"

Result: http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/rw/rw.html

FRANCE HALTS NUCLEAR TESTING
Greenpeace continues international campaign against nuclear tests and for a comprehensive test ban treaty

Modern nuclear reactors can generate all the power we need safely and without pollution. Why do environmentalists seem to hate them?

The main oppositions to nuclear power are the questions of its safety and the waste. If it were perfectly safe, nobody would have an issue with it - there is no "People for the Ethical Treatment of Molecules Society" that I am aware of.

If we deal with more powerful technologies, we need to be more aware of the consequences of mistakes, and the nuclear industry has had an extremely poor safety record, even discounting Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. If security and reliability improve, fewer people would oppose the technology. The problem is that one mistake can cause global consequences, so accountability must be increased as well.

Waste is the other big issue. Humans have a long history of using their environment in a non-sustainable fashion and not caring about the consequences (wide-scale deforestation almost everywhere, oil spills, etc.). Creating waste without proper disposal methods is short-sighted and ignores the fact that there may not be a good solution to what to do with waste. Remember we're dealing with long-term radioactivity, so solutions like burying it, even in salt domes or geologically stable areas, generally look at far too short a time scale.

Solutions such as flinging it off in space are just like littering, and we may well regret that in the not too distant future (there are already a large number of "dead" objects in orbit around the earth, which is causing space flights problems today), and shooting it into the sun is a really scary idea. If our calculations that the effect is negligible are wrong, the effects will be catastrophic.

In short, it's not the technology environmentalists are against, it's the non-sustainable environment attitude that they oppose.

If you can't work out why to recycle glass, then your grasp is fairly poor. The reason is that making new glass takes more energy than recycling it.

Wind farms are not a horrible idea. However, they're just not practical for large-scale energy generation, cause problems for migrating birds, and are an eyesore. There's not a great deal to recommend them as a primary energy source.

It only takes more energy if you are doing it in your own kitchen. If you actually examine the logistics of much of the US's glass recycling, then you will find that it is more efficient to make new glass. (Not always but quite often).

As glass is basically a rock, there is no downside to putting it in a landfill. Thus anyone who expends a moments though would realize that glass recylcing is really just a feel good thing in general.

Tungsten on the other hand......

actually, the area around Chernoble is inhabited. Sure the people have health problems, but they live there, and the other two (or is it one) reactor at the facility is still running.

For a good idea of what it's like, check out Elena's ride (http://www.kiddofspeed.com/default.htm).

the nuclear industry has had an extremely poor safety record, even discounting Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

Wow, how wrong can you get. The nuclear industry has a great safety record. There are a couple hundred nuclear reactors floating around in the oceans today. Nuclear powered carriers and subs have been around for decades, and, the American ones anyway, have a great record of safety. They've traveled around the world mulitple times without problem.
In the US, there are over 100 reactors working. Aside from Three Mile Island, they've been producing electricty cheaply, efficiently, and safely.

Waste is the other big issue. Humans have a long history of using their environment in a non-sustainable fashion and not caring about the consequences (wide-scale deforestation almost everywhere, oil spills, etc.). Creating waste without proper disposal methods is short-sighted and ignores the fact that there may not be a good solution to what to do with waste. Remember we're dealing with long-term radioactivity, so solutions like burying it, even in salt domes or geologically stable areas, generally look at far too short a time scale.
I generally disagree with the French, but they've got a good idea with the waste here. They recycle it, and pretty efficiently I hear. They even import other countries' nuclear waste and recycle it for a profit.

and shooting it into the sun is a really scary idea. If our calculations that the effect is negligible are wrong, the effects will be catastrophic.
Oh God, I can see it now: SAVE THE SUN. If we did have the resources and technology to shoot waste into the sun it would be the perfect solution. The thing's a MILLION TIMES greater in volume than Earth with temperatures in the MILLIONS of degrees. I think the sun can take care of itself.

It only takes more energy if you are doing it in your own kitchen. If you actually examine the logistics of much of the US's glass recycling, then you will find that it is more efficient to make new glass. (Not always but quite often).

I have a hard time believing this. Glass recycling uses less energy because it can be processed at a lower temperature than is required to create new glass from the raw materials. There are other issues, such as collection and sorting, but the net effect still generally falls well onto the side of recycling.

As glass is basically a rock, there is no downside to putting it in a landfill. Thus anyone who expends a moments though would realize that glass recylcing is really just a feel good thing in general

The negative is that there is a lot of glass used each year and, if not recycled, it all has to go somewhere. This means bigger trash dumps.

To quote the British Glass (http://www.britglass.co.uk/aboutglass/eden_article.asp?ID=21&type=Env) web site:


Five Reasons To Recycle Glass

1. Glass recycling saves energy.
Making new glass from recycled glass needs much less energy and reduces pollution.

2. Glass recycling conserves the environment.
Recycling your glass saves hundreds of thousands of tonnes of raw materials from being quarried each year and then thrown away in rubbish dumps. This conserves the countryside for everyone.

3. Glass recycling creates employment.
Jobs are created by glass collection schemes and at recycling centres which crush and clean the recycled glass.

4. Glass recycling increases public awareness of the problem of rubbish.
Everyone can help the environment by recycling their glass. This is a first step towards becoming environmentally aware.

5. Glass recycling cuts waste disposal costs.
By weight, glass makes up about 8 per cent of our rubbish. Glass recycling reduces the collection and disposal costs of our rubbish.

Wow, how wrong can you get. The nuclear industry has a great safety record.

Then why do we keep hearing about failed or incomplete safety checks on a regular basis? Sure, the facilities are engineered for redundancy, and that has saved us more than once, but human errors and complacency are letting us down.

Here's a sample article from the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/691669.stm). You can find many such reports on the web.

Oh God, I can see it now: SAVE THE SUN. If we did have the resources and technology to shoot waste into the sun it would be the perfect solution. The thing's a MILLION TIMES greater in volume than Earth with temperatures in the MILLIONS of degrees. I think the sun can take care of itself.

And if you're wrong? We don't get a second chance, ever. And we can't test any of these theories.

Then why do we keep hearing about failed or incomplete safety checks on a regular basis? Sure, the facilities are engineered for redundancy, and that has saved us more than once, but human errors and complacency are letting us down.

Here's a sample article from the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/691669.stm). You can find many such reports on the web.



And if you're wrong? We don't get a second chance, ever. And we can't test any of these theories.
Can't we make a mini sun and throw mini nuclear waste into it?

I have a hard time believing this. Glass recycling uses less energy because it can be processed at a lower temperature than is required to create new glass from the raw materials. There are other issues, such as collection and sorting, but the net effect still generally falls well onto the side of recycling.



The negative is that there is a lot of glass used each year and, if not recycled, it all has to go somewhere. This means bigger trash dumps.

To quote the British Glass (http://www.britglass.co.uk/aboutglass/eden_article.asp?ID=21&type=Env) web site:

Yeah, I think number 3, is the real reason. Typically lefty make work.

Can't we make a mini sun and throw mini nuclear waste into it?

I'm sure I don't need to point out time when models failed to reflect reality due to unforseen complications.

It would be simpler and safer to find a sustainable and long-term solution.

(Which, for the record, I believe is nuclear power.)

Yeah, I think number 3, is the real reason. Typically lefty make work.

Actually, I thought that one was thrown in to appeal to the righties. Go figure.

I'm sure I don't need to point out time when models failed to reflect reality due to unforseen complications.

It would be simpler and safer to find a sustainable and long-term solution.

(Which, for the record, I believe is nuclear power.)
I mean to test the experiment.

It would answer the question, but I agree with would still need to fine a way to get rid of waste as a backup plan.

frankly i am amazed at the sheer dumbness of this thread
take a guess at how many people died at three mile island (the answer is zero)
take a guess at how many people died in the us from nuclear power plants ever (the answer is still zero)
i dont know the exact stats on cherynobyl, but i feel confident that not too many people died from that
nuclear power is amazingly safe today, and there is no reason to expect it would fail
even homer simpson can work at a plant with out it blowing up
And if you're wrong? We don't get a second chance, ever. And we can't test any of these theories.
he's not wrong
you can throw every last nuclear weapon we have into the sun and the power from all those explosions would not even equal the power that the sun produces in tiny fraction of a second
the problem w/ shooting crap into the sun is the problem of launches
if even one fails out of a thousand, we'd have nuclear crap (or whatever) spread over thousands of miles over the earth (that's bad)
Any yes, environmentalist whackos do oppose wind farms. And if you can't figure out why we should recycle tungsten not glass then your grasp of the whole thing is poor.
well, enviromentalist wackos also do a whole lot of other crazy shit, so i'm not surprised here
I haven't yet taken chemistry or physics, but I already know quite a bit about both subjects.
so i presume you're a high school freshman blowing crap out of your ass

It seems like everyone thinks nuclear power is cheap and way more effiecent than coal or oil or natural gas power plants. In reality they are too expensive to be justified which is why they don't build them in the US anymore. They simply don't produce enough energy to justify the huge construction and maintence costs. Saftey and envrionmental concerns aside they are just not worth it.

very untrue; the only reason they are not built anymore is because of safety concerns and congress being too weak spined to get anything done over there without a few skyscrapers being taken down

very untrue; the only reason they are not built anymore is because of safety concerns and congress being too weak spined to get anything done over there without a few skyscrapers being taken down

This is what the all mighty Wikipedia says about the subject

Nuclear has lower fuel costs but higher operating and maintenance costs than coal. In recent times in the United States these operating costs have not been low enough for nuclear to repay its high investment costs. Thus new nuclear reactors have not been built in the United States. Coal's operating cost advantages have only rarely been sufficient to encourage the construction of new coal based power generation. Around 90 to 95 percent of new power plant construction in the United States has been natural gas-fired. These numbers exclude capacity expansions at existing coal and nuclear units.

Hydrogen fuel.
Hydrogen fuel is a way to store energy, not generate it. No tokamak reactor in the world has ever hit an energy break even point. Try again.

Yes, nuclear is generally good, high clean power output, low levels of harmful waste produced (when compared to burning fossil fuels), but one of the major factors in why so few countries are using it is the initial cost to build the facilities and keep them running.

Ideally, the way to go is to harness Solar power. The sun produces so much energy, which is transmitted to us as heat and light... so why not harness this free, near-infinate* energy source?. (* Lasting a few million years at least, assuming the solar plates are in a working condition)

Statistically, the USA uses 90% of the worlds power, and having a miniscule population when compared to the landmass, surely theres plenty of room to set up a few collection stations here and there.

They'd be silent, could be at ground level so theres no 'eye-sores' created, they could be built in the middle the desert so theres no NIMBY side to it.

Yes..they would cost a lot to construct, but the overall cost of electricy would be greatly reduced (No machinary and staff needed to quarry for fossilfuels or to mine for radioactive materials)
The power would also be created instantly, by the electrons moving from the N to the P-type plates within the solar cell (If you really wanted to know the technical side), whereas Nuclear and Fossil fuels rely on heating water to produce steam to turn turbines. (They'd also be no need for the huge cooling towers or smoke stacks)

Solar power is clean, efficient and (overall) very low costing.
So why not go solar?

The thing with Nuclear power.
Uranium is mined, processed and reacted (to heat the water, etc), and it them becomes Plutonium, which can be reprocessed and taken to another form of nuclear power plant, this is then reacted etc... and the radioactive waste is left over. Eventually this waste will convert into lead, but this takes many halflifes (quite a while). If there was a way to isolate the radioactive materials and decrease its halflife, then this could be recycled efficiently.

Hydrogen Fuel cells.. yes..they sound amazing..but think about how they are produced... Water is taken and 'broken up' into Hydrogen and oxygen, but in order to do this..you must first give the elements atoms enough energy to break the bonds. This is done by burning tonnes of fossil fuels.
So to create Hydrogen Cells..you need to create just as much.. if not more.. pollution in the process... for all of this (and a lower cost) you might as well just stick to burning the fossil-F's

(All of the above is UK-GCSE Highschool Science, if I've missed anything out or made any errors, I apologise and wholeheartedly blame my teachers ^_^)

Solar power at best works half the time, assuming no clouds, fog, or smog. Also, the panels need to be replaced often, and are expensive to build. Plus, solar energy is a very low yield energy source, think about how many mobile plants there are and how many photosynthetic animals you've seen.

Yes well I happen to know physics and chemistry as well. Your questions are silly and I can answer them all apart from that piffle about biogeochemical which sounds like a "buzzword".
You know some environmental science without even recognising biogeochemical cycle? Oxygen cycle ring a bell? How about the nitrogen, carbon, and hydrologic cycles?

And if you can't figure out why we should recycle tungsten not glass then your grasp of the whole thing is poor.
I can, it's just that it seems silly to be arguing about tungsten recycling when we are pumping biocides and carcinogens into our environment. Is tungsten even used all that much? I know it can be quite a handy material, but I don't think I've ever seen it actually used.

(Adenosine Triphosphate, pshaw. Do you even know how that is made or what it is for).
Do you really want me to get into Krebs cycle? I can not help but notice you answered none of my questions, only making some comment about ATP. Do you know what chemical ATP inhibitors can be carcinogenic? I'll give you a clue: it has to with fermentation.

Why do plants need to be more mobile than they already are?
During the day they photosynthesise enough to store food for that day, and then by night, they live off of that stored food until the next morning, when they begin photosynthesis again.

This wouldn't happen with animals, as they evolved a very differnt way.

As long as you can see on Earth, a solar cell will work there (they make use of ANY photon of light, not just ones from the sun)
Even with clouds, fog, smog etc.. there will still be light, and the cell will work. Even if not at its optimum efficiency, but it would still work.
They don't have to be replaced often, a solar cell is made up of 2 sheets of impure silicon (one material with an extra electron the other, without an electron) with an interface between the two to allow electrons to pass, causing an electrical current.
If mass produced, they are very cheap to construct.
Think about it..what costs more.. mining for coal, oil or natural-gas... or quarrying for silicon? (which is also used for electrical components)

Solar power has been tested in quite a few of the 'sunnier' developing countries. Having a few solar cells on the roof, houses in these countries are self-sufficient as they provide and store enough electrical energy during the day, to last the night... until the next morning.
If this means that you can't boil your kettle, watch TV AND use the microwave at once, then so be it... Humans can adapt easily.
Yes, the change for come countries (for example, North America) would be slightly more dramatic than others (eg North Africa) as lifestyes are differnt, but if one culture can use solar power efficiently, making a few sacrifices to have the wonders of electricity that we all now enjoy, then so be it!
Its either that, or stick another pannel on the roof...

As for the low energy yield, the more scientific research which is put into something, generally the more efficient it becomes.
Or just build as many solar cells so that the required power levels are met.

(The reason for the extensively long posts... its 4:37am and I'm bored... but I think this will be my last reply for a few hours)

The problem is that we don't know what to do with the spent fuel rods. Radioactive pollution can be terribly harmful. Though I personally prefer them to fossil fuel combustion.
There are several designs of reactors that get around this problem, but the government won't let any commercial ones be built because they produce plutonium, although it is later used up in the continual nuclear reaction.

Why do plants need to be more mobile than they already are?

The reason we see no plants that move as much as animals is because photosynthesis does not yield enough energy to do so. Solar power has similar limitations. You just can't get enough power.

. If our calculations that the effect is negligible are wrong, the effects will be catastrophic.
Given how big the sun is, and the fact that it's basically a giant fusion reactor, I don't really think there would be problems.

I didn't find anything comparing nuclear to solar but here's a report comparing it to Coal, Gas, and Oil.
www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm
It's far more efficient and cheaper.
"Uranium, however, has to be processed, enriched and fabricated into fuel elements, and about two thirds of the cost is due to enrichment and fabrication. Allowances must also be made for the management of radioactive spent fuel and the ultimate disposal of this spent fuel or the wastes separated from it. But even with these included, the total fuel costs of a nuclear power plant in the OECD are typically about a third of those for a coal-fired plant and between a quarter and a fifth of those for a gas combined-cycle plant."

It seems like everyone thinks nuclear power is cheap and way more effiecent than coal or oil or natural gas power plants. In reality they are too expensive to be justified which is why they don't build them in the US anymore. They simply don't produce enough energy to justify the huge construction and maintence costs. Saftey and envrionmental concerns aside they are just not worth it.
Not true, given the current price of oil they are more expensive to operate that is true, however if newer designs were allowed to be built in the US the problem could be alleviated.

I didn't find anything comparing nuclear to solar but here's a report comparing it to Coal, Gas, and Oil.
www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm
It's far more efficient and cheaper.
"Uranium, however, has to be processed, enriched and fabricated into fuel elements, and about two thirds of the cost is due to enrichment and fabrication. Allowances must also be made for the management of radioactive spent fuel and the ultimate disposal of this spent fuel or the wastes separated from it. But even with these included, the total fuel costs of a nuclear power plant in the OECD are typically about a third of those for a coal-fired plant and between a quarter and a fifth of those for a gas combined-cycle plant."

Yeah the fuel costs are lower but maintence and building costs are way way higher which makes them economically unfeasible. See my earlier post.

Around 90 to 95 percent of new power plant construction in the United States has been natural gas-fired. These numbers exclude capacity expansions at existing coal and nuclear units.
This is true, but that was because nat. gas was very cheap for a certain period of time. It is no longer cheap and currently many of those plants are either running low or are in the process being shut down. For that matter, I know of at least two on the outskirts of chicago suburbia that were never finished.

Yeah the fuel costs are lower but maintence and building costs are way way higher which makes them economically unfeasible. See my earlier post.
I'm trying to find numbers that either prove or disporve what you're saying. I'm not having much luck. Here's something I dug up. I really wish it was more official looking, but it's late and I'm honestly not very good at internet research. I'd love to see something more concrete, but here ya go...
http://www.io.com/~hcexres/tcm1603/acchtml/nukes.html
If you scroll towards the bottom and look under Busbar Cost there's a siple table that compares Nuclear, Coal, and Oil.
Nuclear has a greater capital cost than both,
A smaller fuel cost,
And a maintenance cost greater than oil, but less than coal.
Nuclear is cheaper in total.

Quote:
Oh God, I can see it now: SAVE THE SUN. If we did have the resources and technology to shoot waste into the sun it would be the perfect solution. The thing's a MILLION TIMES greater in volume than Earth with temperatures in the MILLIONS of degrees. I think the sun can take care of itself.


And if you're wrong? We don't get a second chance, ever. And we can't test any of these theories.

The sun burns HYDROGEN, tons of it EVERY DAY!!! How will a bit of nuclear waste hurt it?? Even if you throw a BALL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE THE SIZE OF THE EARTH, would it effect it? How much bigger than the earth is the sun, volume wise?? You can't use your environmental mindset in this regard, there is no valuable ecosystems, no endangered species on the sun.

When we get ready to start firing waste into the sun, we'll send you first to warn the sun of the damage we might be doing to it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lacadaemon
Yeah, I think number 3, is the real reason. Typically lefty make work.

Actually, I thought that one was thrown in to appeal to the righties. Go figure.

Can't we all just get along? I have a left handed brother, for goodness sake! Can't you guys just stop your hatemongering?

I dream of a world where a left handed leader can shake the hand of a right handed leader in peace. (think about it, a lefty and righty shaking hands, get it, think about it)

I know, I know, your talking politics, I just thought it a humorous comparison

Yes, nuclear is generally good, high clean power output, low levels of harmful waste produced (when compared to burning fossil fuels), but one of the major factors in why so few countries are using it is the initial cost to build the facilities and keep them running.

Ideally, the way to go is to harness Solar power. The sun produces so much energy, which is transmitted to us as heat and light... so why not harness this free, near-infinate* energy source?. (* Lasting a few million years at least, assuming the solar plates are in a working condition)

Statistically, the USA uses 90% of the worlds power, and having a miniscule population when compared to the landmass, surely theres plenty of room to set up a few collection stations here and there.

They'd be silent, could be at ground level so theres no 'eye-sores' created, they could be built in the middle the desert so theres no NIMBY side to it.

Yes..they would cost a lot to construct, but the overall cost of electricy would be greatly reduced (No machinary and staff needed to quarry for fossilfuels or to mine for radioactive materials)
The power would also be created instantly, by the electrons moving from the N to the P-type plates within the solar cell (If you really wanted to know the technical side), whereas Nuclear and Fossil fuels rely on heating water to produce steam to turn turbines. (They'd also be no need for the huge cooling towers or smoke stacks)

Solar power is clean, efficient and (overall) very low costing.
So why not go solar?

The thing with Nuclear power.
Uranium is mined, processed and reacted (to heat the water, etc), and it them becomes Plutonium, which can be reprocessed and taken to another form of nuclear power plant, this is then reacted etc... and the radioactive waste is left over. Eventually this waste will convert into lead, but this takes many halflifes (quite a while). If there was a way to isolate the radioactive materials and decrease its halflife, then this could be recycled efficiently.

Hydrogen Fuel cells.. yes..they sound amazing..but think about how they are produced... Water is taken and 'broken up' into Hydrogen and oxygen, but in order to do this..you must first give the elements atoms enough energy to break the bonds. This is done by burning tonnes of fossil fuels.
So to create Hydrogen Cells..you need to create just as much.. if not more.. pollution in the process... for all of this (and a lower cost) you might as well just stick to burning the fossil-F's

(All of the above is UK-GCSE Highschool Science, if I've missed anything out or made any errors, I apologise and wholeheartedly blame my teachers ^_^)

Yeah, all of this debate isn't very useful, as nobody has shown the costs of these various energy alternatives. Yeah, solar sounds good and all, but exactly how much more does it cost to make a given amount of power with solar than with coal or oil? Because there is a point where I would say, screw the environment because this is way way way cheaper. I'm not saying forget about alternatives, but if soemone shows that conventional power generation is just plain way cheaper, wait until the cost of producing power in friendly ways goes down (or oil hits 100 bucks a barrel), either way.

Hydrogen fuel.


Now, you see, you just don't realise any of the facts of the situation. The human species now requires huge amounts of electricity to function in its current manner. It is not how nature had intended for the planet to be. There are currently no completely clean fuel options, but sensible environmentalists are not against nulear fission plants. It's merely the "not in my backyard" mindset, no-one wants the spent fuel rods near themselves. I don't know of any who oppose wind farms or solar energy, that seems ridiculous. I can understand being opposed to hydroelectric dams, since those effect the local environment, but I support it simply because it is healthier for the global environment. And what is this about recycling glass and tungsten? You're not making any sense there.

Personally i agree with almost everything here
by the way some environmentalists age agianst wind farms only because of the fact that you would have to clear massive amounts of land to get sufficient energy

Lacademon. For someone who seems so educated you are extraordinarily closed minded. You keep making Generalisations and assumptions, which means you summarily fail the BS test.

You keep using the word "they"

There is no they, there is never a they. I am not a part of they, no one here is a part of what you define as they. "They" is just a concept you are using so you can simplify everything and avoid thinking on any meaningful level. You are talking outta your ass. Generalisations get you nowhere.

I am a bigass enviro and I dont oppose Wind farms or Nuclear power. But unlike you I am willing to see the inherent problems in them. To which solutions can be found.

And for those of you dissin hydrogen Its obvious you havn't been keeping with the recent advances inthe field. I recommend you read up. Because it is the future.

Where the hell the Tactical Grace? Why hasn't he come and demolished you all yet?

Quote:
The sun burns HYDROGEN, tons of it EVERY DAY!!! How will a bit of nuclear waste hurt it?? Even if you throw a BALL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE THE SIZE OF THE EARTH, would it effect it? How much bigger than the earth is the sun, volume wise?? You can't use your environmental mindset in this regard, there is no valuable ecosystems, no endangered species on the sun.
.

side note the sun does not BURN hydrogen it fuses it to ceate helium

Name me one sensible solution to our energy needs that environmentalists don't oppose.

They even oppose wind farms. Added to that, what is this whacky shit with recycling glass. If there is one thing that doesn't hurt to put in a landfill it is glass. (Of course we don't recycle tungsten which would make sense, because it is too good an idea for environmentalists to get behind.)

I agree about the environmentalists, but you shouldn't be overzealous about opposing environmentalists - this only means you'll end up opposing the environmental issue itself. Who wants the destruction of a nice natural environment in favor of project suburbs? That'd be the Soviets in my book. You should aim at protecting the environment. Good that you've already noticed that environmentalists don't do that. (Like opposing nuclear power - there's an easy way to reduce CO2 emissions, and NO! NO! NO!)

But recycling glass makes sense: recycling glass is a valuable raw material. Same with paper, aluminum and metal. The fact that the thing is not used any more as written on the label doesn't mean that it should be thrown away. (Of course, there are people who throw away clothes as they have used them, but they're morons.)

Lacademon. For someone who seems so educated you are extraordinarily closed minded. You keep making Generalisations and assumptions, which means you summarily fail the BS test.

You keep using the word "they"

There is no they, there is never a they. I am not a part of they, no one here is a part of what you define as they. "They" is just a concept you are using so you can simplify everything and avoid thinking on any meaningful level. You are talking outta your ass. Generalisations get you nowhere.

I am a bigass enviro and I dont oppose Wind farms or Nuclear power. But unlike you I am willing to see the inherent problems in them. To which solutions can be found.

And for those of you dissin hydrogen Its obvious you havn't been keeping with the recent advances inthe field. I recommend you read up. Because it is the future.

Where the hell the Tactical Grace? Why hasn't he come and demolished you all yet?


Yes, hydrogen has come along in the last while, hasn't it. But hydrogen is not a means of generating power like coal, oil, or solar power it. Coal an doil come from the ground and the sun provides light for solar cells, but hydrogen does not exist free in the earth's environment. The way to get hydrogen is to break water into oxygen and hydrogen, which takes power to do, and you get some of that power back when you run a fuel cell or whatever other hydrogen powered thing you are talking about. Hydrogen is unique in that it can be made from water and can power vehicles. This is unique because the other fuels we use for vehicles are refined from hydrocarbons that are non-renewable. This still doesn't change the fact that the hydrogen has to *come* from somewhere, and it takes *energy* to get it in that useable state.

Fission does create nuclear waste, but that can be hidden somewhere. So what's the real problem? I only realized it on Tuesday when my great physics teacher pointed it out to me...

Nuclear waste is not actually at its hottest radioactivity now as it will be later. When the waste decays, it produces radioactive daughters. In fact, these daughters will decay into more radioactive daughters all through a long chain of radioactive atoms from uranium and plutonium until it becomes simple atoms. At Yucca Mountain, the radioactive waste will be at its hottest thousands of years after its charter has expired.

Furthermore, it will be difficult to transport the waste to Yucca Mountain in the first place. The safest way - to prevent almost certain spillage from a truck accident - would be to use new railways. But the USA has not made much of any railroads in half a century, and the project would be very costly.

Nuclear waste is much better than coal waste, at least. Coal, for obvious economic reasons, is not refined before burning. But what is in the coal? Usually coal-burning will spew up, for example, tremendous amounts of mercury into the air every day. At least fission won't do that.

Hydrogen, by common sense, is not the solution to energy problems. It's a basic matter of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It takes energy to make hydrogen. You won't get as much energy back as you put into making it. Some energy will be lost in the process.

My teacher explained that a more practical idea would be to devise a way to store energy. We would keep existing power plants and supplement the power with alternative energy sources for spare use. That does not mean that we would build capacitors the size of power plants. It means that we could change the electrical energy into potential energy by - for example - pumping water to the top of a tower. Then, when we want the electricity, we would let the water fall through turbines. It's not the most efficient conversion, but it would give us electrical reserves using alternative energy sources.

Solar power is clean, efficient and (overall) very low costing.
So why not go solar?

Here’s why...What would we do at night

Some would say that we could build a few plants (nuclear, coal, ect...) to power the system. But the peek hours for power consumption (here in the US) are 6:00 PM to 10:30 PM, this means that these "night time" power plants would need to be able to produce more power than the solar plants did during that day. That sounds reasonable, only having to run pollutant producing power plants at night but power plants cant be turned on and off like a light switch, it cost money manpower and produces extreme amounts of ware and tare on the system (look what California’s rolling blackouts did to the system during the energy crisis)

I've also herd people say that the solar plants could charge a network of batteries. Sure that sounds like the perfect solution until you look at the cost of setting up that network. The price of the batteries alone is astronomical, plus BATTERYS DIE, so add in maintenance costs and replacements.

Solar is currently too large (physical area vs. energy produced) too inefficient and expensive to be the major staple of our power grid. Solar works best on a small scale especially for home owners, not as a nation wide solution




Hydrogen Fuel cells.. Yes. They sound amazing. But think about how they are produced... Water is taken and 'broken up' into Hydrogen and oxygen, but in order to do this. You must first give the elements atoms enough energy to break the bonds. This is done by burning tons of fossil fuels.
So to create Hydrogen Cells. You need to create just as much. If not more. Pollution in the process... for all of this (and a lower cost) you might as well just stick to burning the fossil-F's

I couldn’t agree with you more here. Hydrogen is decades away from being efficient, even through electrolysis you can only get about a 30% conversion rate. That means that 70% of the energy needed to produce hydrogen fuel goes to waste in some form. The energy used to make hydrogen is made in pollution producing natural resource sucking power plants, and now you need more of it. This entirely defeats the purpose of hydrogen fuel. (currently the only produce known to man to have a 100% conversion rate is anti-matter, but that’s a whole other topic). Scientists from INELL recently stated that they could get a 40 % conversation rate, that’s a great improvement but it’s still not good enough. On top of that it was based on a computer simulation, so it’s not for sure. The only way to produce cost effective hydrogen without excess pollution is through nuclear power, which brings us back to the original debate...what to do with the spent fuel rods. Nevada’s Yucca Mountains are a sufficient solution for now but 50 years from now we will need another way.

PS. Launching spent fuel rods anywhere into space is dangerous. Anyone remember the Columbia disaster...well imagine a payload of spent nuclear fuel on that ship. It blew up over Texas; they found pieces of it in Washington. You think Chernobyl was bad, just imagine...

I've driven by inactive nuclear power plants all my life since I live in the state of WA.

There was the Satsop Nuclear Power Plant and the Trojan Power Plant, both shut down after construction due to stupid laws and crazy expenses involved with abiding by those laws....

We could have had alot cheaper power on the west coast and no black outs if they didn't shut those down! Damn WA State Democrats!

or oil hits 100 bucks a barrel.

Sleep safe my friends...oil will never hit $100 a barrel and stay there. At around $75 a barrel it’s cheaper to turn coal into synthetic oil.

dont belive me Google it (http://google.com) (im too lazy to find you a direct link)

Compleetly random but somebody might care :rolleyes:

We could have had alot cheaper power on the west coast and no black outs if they didn't shut those down! Damn WA State Democrats!

You think you have it bad...I live in the PRC (Peoples Republic of California) if all the long haired hippies out here had their way they would have demolished our power plants years ago

Long Live the Amish they say :rolleyes:

Link 1 (http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,65936,00.html)
Link 2 (http://www.wired.com/news/autotech/0,2554,66111,00.html)

While you read those. I'll be off watching Tv

Link 1 (http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,65936,00.html)
Link 2 (http://www.wired.com/news/autotech/0,2554,66111,00.html)

While you read those. I'll be off watching Tv

I've got one more for you;

http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/footnmouth/zwaste2.html

Chernobyl...Three Mile Island

(Damn Soviets...)

It would make an ok transition into better fuels though.

Chernobyl was the USSR

TMI was American and nothing happened at TMI because of the safeties that kicked in.