NationStates Jolt Archive

I had an argument with my entire family the other day regarding nuclear power. Recent threads on the subject combined with constant posts by Tactical Grace regarding the current energy situation and its probable state in years to come have convinced me that nuclear power--combined with several other alternative energy sources--is a necessary stepping stone to finding a way to replace oil.

My family, however, sees differently.

They give the typical environmentalist reasons for not wanting nuclear power(it's not safe, it'll never be safe, there's a waste disposal problem, etc.) and all that jazz. My dad apparently has a personal vendetta against nuclear power, as he claimed to have worked in the industry and kept up with it since, and will fight any nuclear power attempt tooth and nail to the last of his ability. My little brother(such an awesome kid) even attempted to list all clean energy sources for me, though he fails to understand the complexities behind the situation.

Quite a bit lately I've been seeing my father as possessing much poorer judgement on a lot of subjects than I used to believe. I do, however, still trust what he says to an extent, so, in essence, I'm questioning what I thought previously. Is nuclear fission a necessary, useful step, or is it just a mistake? Are nuclear reactors safe now? Can we rid ourselves of the waste, in one way or another? When can we expect to see more nuclear plants showing up? And finally: how likely are those ignorant to fight/push for it, depending on which is the preferable alternative?

So your dad worked in that environment? Like what, Three-Mile?

I do think that nuclear fission is needed.

For the safety, modern reactors are "self stable", and cannot do any tchernobyl like meltdown. There is still a risk of radioactive contamination if precautions are not taken (and that's one of the reasons for which I strictly oppose any privatisation of nuclear energy, it should remain 100% state owned, and outside the market pressure), but there are also risks with most chemical industries, so...

For the waste disposal, I do believe there are solutions. Burrying them deep in a geologically stable place could do it, sending them to space could do it too, and I read in another thread Asimov' idea to send them on subduction zones, which seems smart to me. I'm not an expert of nuclear waste disposal, but I see many possibilities.

Sur-generators like the "Super Phenix" project looked also promising, and it's a pity we (in France) abandonned them because of the pressure of ecological organisations... I support them on most their struggle, but on this one, I really think they acted against their cause.

I believe nuclear fission and research into it is a key step in developing fusion power, which is clean and safe and enourmously outputting.

So your dad worked in that environment? Like what, Three-Mile?
He never specified, though it was probably something to do with the government, as he did a lot of government work in White Sands and other places in the 60's.

Kilobugya: Super Phoenix? Care to expand a bit more on what that might be?

I don't see nuclear power as necessary. Sure it appears cheaper than wind and other clean energy sources and nuclear waste reprocessing and or storage do not seem to pose huge or extremely expensive problems. But it's not necessary. If people decide to do without it they can. If we use wind and other clean sources of energy such as geothermal or closed cycle coal we will have to pay more, but not a great deal more. Environmentally friendly non nuclear power should cost less than twice as much as nuclear.

If all electrical power in the U.S.A. was produced by nuclear power it would cost around $250 per person to generate. If wind and other green power sources cost twice that much that would only be about an extra $1,000 a year for a family of four.

So no, I don't think nuclear power is necessary. But a lot of people won't want to pay the extra $1,000. In fact a lot of people are burning dirty coal because it is even cheaper than nuclear.

Kilobugya: Super Phoenix? Care to expand a bit more on what that might be?

"Super Phénix" was a french "surgenerator" project, able to produce electricity from various nuclear sources. The two primary uses were to convert military plutonium (from disbanded nuclear warhead) into less dangerous elements while producing electricity, and to convert some of the long lived wastes of classical nuclear power plants to wastes with a lower timespan, while producing electricity too.

It became a symbol of the antinuclear movement when a protestor was killed by the police during the building of the plant, and since it was a prototype, there were several troubles with it (no real danger, but it was very expensive to run and had a high unavailablity time), and it was abandonned in 1997 on the demand of the Green party, member of the coallition who governed France from 1997 to 2002.

"Super Phénix" was a french "surgenerator" project, able to produce electricity from various nuclear sources. The two primary uses were to convert military plutonium (from disbanded nuclear warhead) into less dangerous elements while producing electricity, and to convert some of the long lived wastes of classical nuclear power plants to wastes with a lower timespan, while producing electricity too.

It became a symbol of the antinuclear movement when a protestor was killed by the police during the building of the plant, and since it was a prototype, there were several troubles with it (no real danger, but it was very expensive to run and had a high unavailablity time), and it was abandonned in 1997 on the demand of the Green party, member of the coallition who governed France from 1997 to 2002.
I don't see why. It seems like the best idea to not only take care of excess nuclear arms but to simultaneously help at least partially get rid of nuclear waste. But then, there are some people--such as my father--who hear the words "nuclear power" and go ballistic in thinking it's such a horrible thing.

(And speaking of that, what I seriously hated about the argument was that my dad, realizing his points were being shot down, said something akin to "You read some stuff on the internet and think you're an expert" and everyone else just nodded and glared at me as if that settled the whole thing. I hate being ad hominemed by my own family. Not to mention that I'm capable of discerning fact from fiction when it comes to my sources of information. It is, in fact, the reason I posted this thread, in order to be more certain of that information.)

I don't see nuclear power as necessary. Sure it appears cheaper than wind and other clean energy sources and nuclear waste reprocessing and or storage do not seem to pose huge or extremely expensive problems. But it's not necessary. If people decide to do without it they can. If we use wind and other clean sources of energy such as geothermal or closed cycle coal we will have to pay more, but not a great deal more. Environmentally friendly non nuclear power should cost less than twice as much as nuclear.

Well, it's not a problem of cost, but of space and availability.

Wind, solar or hydroelectric energy aren't reliable, in the sense that it depends of the climate, how much there is sun, wind, water, ... It can be used in addition to other energy sources to reduce the amount of them, but we can't count on them. Especially solar, since we use more energy in winter, when there is less sun. And of solar energy, solar panels pollutes a lot to be produced.

For most of the other energy sources (closed cycle coal or alcohol, wind, ...), they need a lot of space. And we don't have it. If we want to provide food to every human being, and at the same time reduce the usage of dangerous chemicals in agriculture (which is much more important, ecologically speaking, than avoiding nuclear), and preserve "wild" areas, we just don't have the space.

Nuclear is required because it's reliable (we control the output) and doesn't take much space. We need such an energy source. But of course, if we can use more "clean" energy and less nuclear, it would be better. But the emergency is to quickly replace oil or other fossil energy sources, and that will require nuclear power.

It's cleaner than using oil or coal, which makes it a good step in the right direction.

The problem is what to do with the waste.

A good source of power could be the construction of tidal generators as well, since they create no waste.

We should really be trying to harness fusion power, as that creates no dangerous waste products at all and could generate an enormous amount of energy.

It's cleaner than using oil or coal, which makes it a good step in the right direction.

The problem is what to do with the waste.

A good source of power could be the construction of tidal generators as well, since they create no waste.

We should really be trying to harness fusion power, as that creates no dangerous waste products at all and could generate an enormous amount of energy.
Kilobugya has an excellent set of reasons for why we should use fission for now. Fusion is still decades away at best, and as such, we need a stepping stone, as affordable oil will essentially vanish over the next twenty years, by which point if we are not ready to utilize the next best source of cheap, abundunt energy, we will be, in essence, screwed.

Kilobugya's argument was, in fact, the exact argument I used in the argument with my family. They refused to concede any points, continuing to rail against it. What I would like, if possible, is a large set of facts I could give to them that would be enough to change their minds. My family is not a bunch of idiots. Or at least I hope they are not.

We should really be trying to harness fusion power, as that creates no dangerous waste products at all and could generate an enormous amount of energy.

Fusion itself doesn't create wastes, but the ITER project will. Fusion generates high-speed neutrons, which will make the container of the fusion core radioactive; the waste isn't produced directly by the fusion core, but what we put around it will become wastes.

Of course, we should still try to harness fusion power, to reduce those high-speed neutrons, or to learn to use their energy in a better way. But it'll require decennias until we can harness fusion in an economically and ecological viable way. And the day we did it, we'll have unlimited energy :)

Fusion itself doesn't create wastes, but the ITER project will. Fusion generates high-speed neutrons, which will make the container of the fusion core radioactive; the waste isn't produced directly by the fusion core, but what we put around it will become wastes.

Of course, we should still try to harness fusion power, to reduce those high-speed neutrons, or to learn to use their energy in a better way. But it'll require decennias until we can harness fusion in an economically and ecological viable way. And the day we did it, we'll have unlimited energy :)
ITER Project? High-speed neutrons? You lost me. Fusion is just putting together atoms and harnessing the results, right? So...why would it produce any sort of radiation? The reason fission does is more due to the nature of the fuel required in order for it to be effective and economical, so far as I knew.

nuke is less undesireable then oil, coal, or any form of combustion but not as desireable as wind, solar and hydro, which in combination could do most of the job. nuke could be used to take up, temporarily some of the slack.

it isn't as bad as going back to coal for everything, which i certainly hope never happens, it just isn't the lilly clean uber panacea it was once pretended to be.

5 to 15 % of electricity coming from fission i can accept IF at least 73% of the rest of it comes from the wind/solar/hydro combination.

all sources of energy involve some compromise, but only combustion dumps so much carbon into the oceans and atmosphere as it does.

there's just no way nuclear can do the whole job though, or even most of it.
nor can ANY one source nor is any one source DOING SO NOW.

biomass is unfortunately still combustion, unless someone comes up with a biomass fuel cell. but for combustion limited to home heating and cooking it might be just fine.

if we use all nonfossil sources of energy togather intelligently we can replace the use of oil and coal as in time we will ultimately be forced to.

i just don't see any better solution then getting as much as possible from the wind/solar/hydro combination, and using everything else that doesn't involve combustion to fill whatever gap if any, is left by doing so.

if the use of nuclear can be avoided entirely that is desirable to. but first and formost is to get rid of the use of combustion to generate energy and propell transportation.

i don't love nuclear either, with all the problems it has, but will, if, and only if, neccessary, grant it a (small) roll to play

=^^=
.../\...

ITER Project?

The ITER project is the expermimental attempt to harness fusion power; it's an european-japenese project IIRC. It'll be mostly a high-scale experiment (not a real generator), but it may generate electricity too (well, they hope it'll generate more energy than the energy needed to run it).

High-speed neutrons? You lost me. Fusion is just putting together atoms and harnessing the results, right? So...why would it produce any sort of radiation? The reason fission does is more due to the nature of the fuel required in order for it to be effective and economical, so far as I knew.

The only way we have now to create fusion is between two "heavy hydrogen" (one proton, one neutron, deuteromium) ions. This create helium (two protons, one neutron), and a single neutron which is expelled at very high speed from the fusion. Those neutrons are the problem; to prevent relasing them in the "outside world" where they would be very dangerous, we need to trap them in protections around the fusion core; and those protections will become radioactive wastes after absorbing too much of those high-speed neutrons.

So we need either to control those neutrons better, or to manage to create fusions with "normal" hydrogen, or else we'll have wastes too. But I've no idea how much, or if it's long-time wastes (and I'm not sure anyone really knows for sure, discovering that is one of the goals of ITER, AFAIK).

The ITER project is the expermimental attempt to harness fusion power; it's an european-japenese project IIRC. It'll be mostly a high-scale experiment (not a real generator), but it may generate electricity too (well, they hope it'll generate more energy than the energy needed to run it).



The only way we have now to create fusion is between two "heavy hydrogen" (one proton, one neutron, deuteromium) ions. This create helium (two protons, one neutron), and a single neutron which is expelled at very high speed from the fusion. Those neutrons are the problem; to prevent relasing them in the "outside world" where they would be very dangerous, we need to trap them in protections around the fusion core; and those protections will become radioactive wastes after absorbing too much of those high-speed neutrons.

So we need either to control those neutrons better, or to manage to create fusions with "normal" hydrogen, or else we'll have wastes too. But I've no idea how much, or if it's long-time wastes (and I'm not sure anyone really knows for sure, discovering that is one of the goals of ITER, AFAIK).
Oh, I see. I'd suggest Helium-3, but I know that requires an even hotter reaction than this does.

So, it's things like this that we need fission for, to give us time to be able to make these advances. I wish the scientists of the ITER project luck, for whatever that's worth.

He never specified, though it was probably something to do with the government, as he did a lot of government work in White Sands and other places in the 60's.

Hmmm... it's entierly possible our fathers worked together....

Hmmm... it's entierly possible our fathers worked together....
Indeed. He doesn't talk much about it though, apart from the occasional mentionings of accidentely viewing top secret footage, the contents of which he has never revealed to me.

For most of the other energy sources (closed cycle coal or alcohol, wind, ...), they need a lot of space. And we don't have it. If we want to provide food to every human being, and at the same time reduce the usage of dangerous chemicals in agriculture (which is much more important, ecologically speaking, than avoiding nuclear), and preserve "wild" areas, we just don't have the space.

I think you're a little too worried about space. Wind turbine pylons only take up about 1% of the space on a windfarm. The rest of the space can be used for farming or other uses. There is no real reason why you couldn't build houses under them if you wanted to. There is also plenty of room on rooftops for solar hot water which is the cheapest form of power available to consumers in Australia.

Personally I think nuclear power is far superior to coal for environmental and safety reasons. I also think the low cost of nuclear makes the risks acceptable. However, it is not necessary. If people want to pay the extra money they can do without it. Unfortunately people can also do without it by burning large amounts of coal, which is bad, bad, bad!

Kilobugya has an excellent set of reasons for why we should use fission for now. Fusion is still decades away at best, and as such, we need a stepping stone, as affordable oil will essentially vanish over the next twenty years, by which point if we are not ready to utilize the next best source of cheap, abundunt energy, we will be, in essence, screwed.

Kilobugya's argument was, in fact, the exact argument I used in the argument with my family. They refused to concede any points, continuing to rail against it. What I would like, if possible, is a large set of facts I could give to them that would be enough to change their minds. My family is not a bunch of idiots. Or at least I hope they are not.

It would appear that you completely misinterpreted what I said.

I wasn't arguing "noo! nuclear power is teh evil!"

I was stating that it is a lot better than using coal and oil, and that it is good for now, and I think we should use it while we work on finding ways to efficiently produce power without much waste. I also pointed out one additional power source that should be looked into.

It would appear that you completely misinterpreted what I said.

I wasn't arguing "noo! nuclear power is teh evil!"

I was stating that it is a lot better than using coal and oil, and that it is good for now, and I think we should use it while we work on finding ways to efficiently produce power without much waste. I also pointed out one additional power source that should be looked into.
Oh. Well in that case I agree with you.

What many who point out(not talkin' about you here) alternative green/clean/whatever energy production to use instead of nuclear fail to realize is that nuclear is the cheapest, most abundant energy source we've got apart from fossil fuels. More to the point, a single nuclear power plant can produce a lot more energy--and more reliably--than a solar or wind plant. On that same token, we should be using them all in tandem. Nuclear will just become the backbone, as well it should, so we have enough time to develop fusion.

Oh. Well in that case I agree with you.

What many who point out(not talkin' about you here) alternative green/clean/whatever energy production to use instead of nuclear fail to realize is that nuclear is the cheapest, most abundant energy source we've got apart from fossil fuels. More to the point, a single nuclear power plant can produce a lot more energy--and more reliably--than a solar or wind plant. On that same token, we should be using them all in tandem. Nuclear will just become the backbone, as well it should, so we have enough time to develop fusion.


Yes. Of course, we have to be careful with it and maintain extensive safety measures at all times, but it's a hell of a lot better than fossil fuels.

And at the same time that we're searching for new and better alternative energy sources, we should be finding ways to safely get rid of the nuclear waste we have. I've heard suggestions of launching it into space (towards the sun would be best), but the issue there is expense and the risk of launch failures.

just so you guys know.. the radioactive life of the parts of ITER are around 150 years max..(plus it is very small in size) and is very insignificant

second...there are plans now for high speed neutron reactors (fission) for contruction in the U.S which will still produce radioactive waste but way less (about half of what it does now) and with a half life of around 300 years

just thought you guys should know :rolleyes:

oh and the waste can be dumped in outback oz
much cheaper than space and no one cares about it :p

oh and the waste can be dumped in outback oz
much cheaper than space and no one cares about it

I'm willing to store it in my backyard. I'll charge a dollar less than what it costs to shoot it into space.

so...your dad was a hippie?

:fluffle: :mp5:

hehe...j/k

But come on, fearing Chernobyl-like effects are just stupid, they where doing an experiment and a nitwid at the controls didn't follow the safety-precautions and got an ok before he started it causing the whole thing to blow up in their face. Modern Nuclear Power is safe.

And about the waste: drill a hole and toss it in (encapsuled ofcourse...)

But come on, fearing Chernobyl-like effects are just stupid, they where doing an experiment and a nitwid at the controls didn't follow the safety-precautions and got an ok before he started it causing the whole thing to blow up in their face. Modern Nuclear Power is safe.

I wish I could buy the stupid Russian theory, however, when inadequately trained workers in a Japanese nuclear plant discovered liquid uranium dripping from a pipe they collected it in stainless steel buckets and poured it into a tub, pretty much creating an open air reactor. It gave out so much radiation several men died and a town had to be evacuated (temporarily). If the Japanese can be so incompetant, so can anyone else. Such incidents are likely to be very rare, but they can't be ruled out. However, we can look at coal mining deaths and say that nuclear is safer than coal.

I had an argument with my entire family the other day regarding nuclear power. Recent threads on the subject combined with constant posts by Tactical Grace regarding the current energy situation and its probable state in years to come have convinced me that nuclear power--combined with several other alternative energy sources--is a necessary stepping stone to finding a way to replace oil.

My family, however, sees differently.

They give the typical environmentalist reasons for not wanting nuclear power(it's not safe, it'll never be safe, there's a waste disposal problem, etc.) and all that jazz. My dad apparently has a personal vendetta against nuclear power, as he claimed to have worked in the industry and kept up with it since, and will fight any nuclear power attempt tooth and nail to the last of his ability. My little brother(such an awesome kid) even attempted to list all clean energy sources for me, though he fails to understand the complexities behind the situation.

Quite a bit lately I've been seeing my father as possessing much poorer judgement on a lot of subjects than I used to believe. I do, however, still trust what he says to an extent, so, in essence, I'm questioning what I thought previously. Is nuclear fission a necessary, useful step, or is it just a mistake? Are nuclear reactors safe now? Can we rid ourselves of the waste, in one way or another? When can we expect to see more nuclear plants showing up? And finally: how likely are those ignorant to fight/push for it, depending on which is the preferable alternative?
i agree with you. nuclear power is necessary for the time being to replace oil in the intervening decades before sustainable, reusable energy sources can be deployed sufficiently to meet demand.

with oil you get dangerous greenhouse gasses which contribute to climate change. at least with nuclear all you get is toxic gunk with a half life of 50,000 years and the possibilty of big bad disasters. i think thats actually an acceptable risk/trade-off: climate change and keeping the environment sustainable is worth that risk and price.

we should ship the toxic waste off into space imo (costly but better than having it on this planet... would require a cheaper way of getting it into space, but now i'm going off on a tangent)

They give the typical environmentalist reasons for not wanting nuclear power(it's not safe,It's safer than pretty much anything else so if that's not safe then what is?
it'll never be safe,Well if it's not safe then neither is anything else.
there's a waste disposal problem, etc.) and all that jazz.Waste disposal isn't a problem. Reprocess as much as you can, store what's left for breeders and then just bury the stuff that's left at least until it has decayed to the level of the ore it came from (less than a thousand years).

Or we could store it in the middle of forests to keep developers away (wildlife would actually thrive there just as it does around Chernobyl).
I don't see nuclear power as necessary.If you want your current living standards without destroying the environment it is. Maybe you don't but most of the people who vote do.
Sure it appears cheaper than wind and other clean energy sources and nuclear waste reprocessing and or storage do not seem to pose huge or extremely expensive problems. But it's not necessary. If people decide to do without it they can.Not very well.
If we use wind and other clean sources of energy such as geothermal or closed cycle coalGeothermal only works at very specific locations on the Earth. Closed cycle coal is not off the shelf technology and wind also only works when the wind is blowing which means that if you use wind you've got to have other more reliable sources such as coal or nuclear.

If the baseload is coal than wind has a place by reducing emissions from the coal plants but if the baseload is nuclear then wind seems kind of pointless.

Of course wind might also have negative effects because people think they are helping the environment by building a wind plant while not noticing that the power plant that their electricity comes from when there's no wind is putting CO2 into the atmosphere and somehow still managing to think that wind can somehow avert the need for nuclear.
we will have to pay more, but not a great deal more.I think that is very optimistic. The problem with most alternatives is that to be able to use them you need a massive excess of capacity (with nuclear you could get away with only having 120% of what you need but wind would need something like 400% due to the variability) so if you don't have coal or nuclear to absorb the demand when the wind isn't turning in one place then you're going to have a large cost blowout (and storage systems are going to be expensive along with the fact that we don't have much experience in them at power grid scale).
Environmentally friendly non nuclear power should cost less than twice as much as nuclear.Very unlikely.
I don't see why. It seems like the best idea to not only take care of excess nuclear arms but to simultaneously help at least partially get rid of nuclear waste.Yes well I find it strange that a certain so called environmental organisation (http://www.greenpeace.org) suggested quite seriously just burying weapons grade plutonium by putting it into a glass such that anyone with some knowledge of glass chemistry (not hard to get) could extract the weapons grade plutonium and start making bombs (they forgot to mention the last part) while opposing burning the stuff in reactors which would have resulted in something almost useless to a bomb builder.

Interesting to see that particular organisation lying about how many people were killed by Chernobyl (if they don't take into account the fact that there is a threshold then they're 'report' is useless).
Wind, solar or hydroelectric energy aren't reliable, in the sense that it depends of the climate, how much there is sun, wind, water, ...Hydro where it can be used is very reliable. It causes a lot of environmental destruction and is the most dangerous form of power statistically speaking but when the dam doesn't break and flood thousands of people they tend to work very well.
But of course, if we can use more "clean" energy and less nuclear, it would be better.Nuclear energy is clean though and if you've got nuclear on your grid there's not that much point for the others.
A good source of power could be the construction of tidal generators as well, since they create no waste.Almost. You probably waste something building them and you do need a lot of them to get much power.
We should really be trying to harness fusion power, as that creates no dangerous waste products at all and could generate an enormous amount of energy.Fusion was 30 years away, 30 years ago.

Maybe someone will get to scientific breakeven but that's a long way from engineering breakeven or commercial breakeven and you need the last one if you want fusion to be a contender.

Even p + B11 which is a hard to ignite produces on the order of the same neutron flux as a fission reactor and that's considered aneutronic. D+T which is what almost everyone doing serious fusion research is using creates a lot more.
Of course, we should still try to harness fusion power, to reduce those high-speed neutrons, or to learn to use their energy in a better way. But it'll require decennias until we can harness fusion in an economically and ecological viable way. And the day we did it, we'll have unlimited energyI don't see us being able to reduce the fast neutrons unless we use different harder to ignite fuels and the neutrons will be hard to use (about the only things we could use them for would be transmuting elements (putting lithium around the reactor would allow for tritium production) or heating up the reactor walls and then using that heat for power).
nuke is less undesireable then oil, coal, or any form of combustion but not as desireable as wind, solar and hydro, which in combination could do most of the job. nuke could be used to take up, temporarily some of the slack.How something which works most of the time could be less desireable than something which doesn't work most of the time while also producing less pollution and costing less is beyond me.
5 to 15 % of electricity coming from fission i can accept IF at least 73% of the rest of it comes from the wind/solar/hydro combination.You're never going to get 73% from wind/solar/hydro though.

Hydro in the west is pretty much at the limits, you can't build many more dams because the sites are all mostly taken and the ones which aren't you probably don't want to destroy. Maybe you could double Hydro capacity which is going to bring it to maybe 30%.

Wind and Solar are in a worse position because the wind doesn't blow all the time and we need power at night. Shutting off our industries at night when the wind isn't blowing isn't a good solution for the simple fact that if you get it wrong (which will be often) you're going to have people coming to work when the machines can't run or people not going to work when they can run. Not good.

Storing energy is going to cost a lot and probably be a general engineering nightmare while using other power sources would prevent you from getting most of your power from unsustainable wind and solar sources (if it can't power our civiliastion it doesn't deserve the name sustainable because it isn't).

The only promise I see for solar power on a large scale are things called Space Solar Power Satellites.

As for wind, let us not forget that the power in wind is proportional to the cube of the velocity and that there is nothing we can do about it (its a law of physics thus we can't change it).
there's just no way nuclear can do the whole job though, or even most of it.Nuclear is the only power source that can do most of the job. That is why it is so important.
if the use of nuclear can be avoided entirely that is desirable to.It can't be and even if it could it would not be.
i don't love nuclear either, with all the problems it hasYeah, like what?

Pollution? Lowest greenhouse gas emissions, waste disposal and plant decommisioning costs built into the cost of electricity (which nothing else does). No luck there

Safety? Only power source that has a thick containment (ok, it is the only one which could actually have one) and in the US has killed less people then wind. Guess it's not his one either.

Econonics? Despite having the environmental costs including in the cost of electricity is able to compete with everything even undercutting coal in many cases. Can't be the cost of power. Also almost immune to increases in fuel cost. Nope, can't be this.

So what are the problems then?
The only way we have now to create fusion is between two "heavy hydrogen" (one proton, one neutron, deuteromium) ions. This create helium (two protons, one neutron), and a single neutron which is expelled at very high speed from the fusion.D+D will work and we can fuse them but the most serious projects use D+T because that's easier to ignite though it releases a neutron with almost every fusion (as opposed to D+D which releases a neutron on only about half the fusions with a proton on the rest (and a very small amount of aneutronic reactions)).
I think you're a little too worried about space. Wind turbine pylons only take up about 1% of the space on a windfarm.With the rest of the space being pretty much useless.
The rest of the space can be used for farming or other uses. There is no real reason why you couldn't build houses under them if you wanted to.Would you really want to live underneath something that makes a lot of noise? Would you want to sleep every fourth day under something that is constantly making lots of noise? Didn't think so.

They aren't as quite as their proponents claim they are.

You've also got maintence of the turbines to deal with which when you get a lot of them can quickly become a headache.

Not to mention that there are cases of large wind turbines sheding their blades (so far no one has been killed by that but if you put houses underneath it's only a matter of time before someone is killed).
There is also plenty of room on rooftops for solar hot water which is the cheapest form of power available to consumers in Australia.If the water is good enough not to corrode the thing away it can pay for itself over many years in cost savings.
Yes. Of course, we have to be careful with it and maintain extensive safety measures at all times, but it's a hell of a lot better than fossil fuels.The western world seems to have done pretty well with that including Three Mile Island (which was a success story when you consider that no one died despite it being pretty close to the worst thing that could have happened to the reactor).
But come on, fearing Chernobyl-like effects are just stupid, they where doing an experiment and a nitwid at the controls didn't follow the safety-precautions and got an ok before he started it causing the whole thing to blow up in their face. Modern Nuclear Power is safe.Not just that. The reactor design itself was flawed.

Let's see: Reactor that is unstable at low power running at low power in a transient that made it even more unstable and a flawed control rod design.

Then add some electrical engineers that don't know about nuclear engineering designing an experiment of what might happen during an accident which is run while the reactor has most of the control rods removed just to maintain low power during the Xenon transient (along with some safety systems disabled).

Then we get to the fact that there was no containment structure (something half as thick as a western containment would've prevented the spread of radioactive stuff).

Those RBMKs were an accident waiting to happen and one can understand why the EU is making the shutdown of them a requirement for membership (though they have all had upgrades to improve safety and are operating under new procedures so they're probably pretty safe, not as safe as a western reactor or Russian PWR but still safer than most other power sources).
I wish I could buy the stupid Russian theory,The RBMKs were so badly designed and Chernobly so badly operated that the 'stupid Russian theory' as you call it is about the only thing that makes any sense.
however, when inadequately trained workers in a Japanese nuclear plant discovered liquid uranium dripping from a pipe they collected it in stainless steel buckets and poured it into a tub, pretty much creating an open air reactor.That was a processing plant not a power plant. They were doing something routine but hadn't followed safety procedures and ended up pouring too much of the Uranium containing liquid (for Uranium to be a liquid it has to be over a thousand degrees so it was something that had U dissovled in it among other things).
It gave out so much radiation several men died and a town had to be evacuated (temporarily).Three died. The evacuation was probably not strictly necessary but the old saying that it is better to be safe than sorry does have still have some meaning.
If the Japanese can be so incompetant, so can anyone else. Such incidents are likely to be very rare, but they can't be ruled out. However, we can look at coal mining deaths and say that nuclear is safer than coal.The worst accident since Chernobyl claimed three lives. Doesn't sound so bad.
with oil you get dangerous greenhouse gasses which contribute to climate change.Yes. Coal and Natural gas do the same.
at least with nuclear all you get is toxic gunk with a half life of 50,000 yearsNot quite accurate. Nuclear waste is composed of many different substances with different half lives and the stuff with shorter half lives is the more active stuff so it tends to lose its activity pretty quickly (down to the level of the ore the fuel came from after about a thousand years, less from more advanced reactor designs).

The nastiest stuff though is the stuff that's between the really short highly active things that decay quickly and the long half-life Plutonium that doesn't have much activity because the medium half life stuff has enough activity to be really dangerous but a long enough half life to stay around a while.
and the possibilty of big bad disasters.With western designs you can pretty much discount a reactor accident hurting the public.
we should ship the toxic waste off into space imo (costly but better than having it on this planet... would require a cheaper way of getting it into space, but now i'm going off on a tangent)Sounds like a waste of money to send nuclear waste into space (though Sr90 might be useful in RTGs and is one of the nastier components of nuclear waste) considering that it'd probably be safer buried in a desert somewhere.

Though lowering the cost of getting into space is something that we should do anyway (the closest thing to serious competition to nuclear is SSPS and that requires good space capabilities).

oh and the waste can be dumped in outback oz
much cheaper than space and no one cares about it :p

I'm not necessarily interested in shooting nuclear waste into space. It's unnecessarily dangerous, I think. I was simply speaking of using nuclear as a stopgap to maintain industrialized technological civilization, so that we can afford to get into space. Once we've properly developed space-resources we shouldn't have a problem with basic resource shortages for centuries to maybe aeons to come.

we should ship the toxic waste off into space imo (costly but better than having it on this planet... would require a cheaper way of getting it into space, but now i'm going off on a tangent)

Beanstalk...

Just two thoughts (which probably have been mentioned before but I'm too lazy to read all the posts :eek: ) on the matter of nuclear power.

1) (Enriched) Uranium, which is the regular nuclear fuel is not unlimited on this planet and it will eventually run out in the next 40 years, even earlier with increased demand. So, going nuclear is not a solution but a postponement of the problem of from where to get energy.

2) Nuclear waste is indeed a big problem. Just think of the half-life of all that nuclear waste - 3000-5000 years is nothing (and now compare that to the recorded history of man!). Besides, nobody wants that crap in their backyard.

The two final storage areas in Germany, for example, were put closest to the inner-German border. Then came the reunification and the planned single facility is in the middle of Germany. As to the safety regulations for that salt deposit I'm really not convinced that the place will be safe for the next 10,000+ years. Biggest problem - no water must get into the area, etc.

While I'm not completely dumb when it comes to nuclear power, I'm not really up to par when it comes to fission (or fusion). Didn't one of those produce radioactivity as well (chamber walls, or s.th.?). Anyway, I say they should go ahead with their development and studies

(After all, how would we power our impulse-engines if not via our fusion reactors :D)

Oh, one more thought: Please stop proposing sending our nuclear waste into space on specially made space shuttles ("sure it'll be expensive...") - that is a stupid idea. Think about the amounts that would have to be shot into space, and then think about the hazard of a rocket exploding and spreading all that crap in the atmosphere. No, thank you. Bad idea!

So from everything I've heard, it seems my argument was correct. My family were just being stubborn.

Does anyone have a huge fact sheet that I can just print out? I'd like to keep some of this information on hand if possible.

So from everything I've heard, it seems my argument was correct. My family were just being stubborn.

Does anyone have a huge fact sheet that I can just print out? I'd like to keep some of this information on hand if possible.

Friend, you may as well not bother. I have an obstinate father too and if there's one thing I've learned, once dad makes up his mind that's it. He and I debate issues like this frequently, and no matter how reliable my source is or where it came from, it's never going to change his mind. If my source is the news, he points out the news media is corrupt. On the other hand, if the news agrees with him. I am still wrong because I DON'T listen to the news.

Sometimes people believe what they believe because of emotion, not reason. From what you've said, your dad is very emotionally invested in this issue. That means you're never going to change his mind with rational arguments. All you're going to do is anger him more as he struggles to save face in the ever growing pile of facts and figures you will present to him.

Some people will hang onto a position like a badger because they're afraid to lose face by changing their mind. It's really unfortunate because all they really accomplish is losing your respect, not gaining it.

Amazing that some dads seem to also like to answer the the question "Why not?" simply with "No."

Friend, you may as well not bother. I have an obstinate father too and if there's one thing I've learned, once dad makes up his mind that's it. He and I debate issues like this frequently, and no matter how reliable my source is or where it came from, it's never going to change his mind. If my source is the news, he points out the news media is corrupt. On the other hand, if the news agrees with him. I am still wrong because I DON'T listen to the news.

Sometimes people believe what they believe because of emotion, not reason. From what you've said, your dad is very emotionally invested in this issue. That means you're never going to change his mind with rational arguments. All you're going to do is anger him more as he struggles to save face in the ever growing pile of facts and figures you will present to him.

Some people will hang onto a position like a badger because they're afraid to lose face by changing their mind. It's really unfortunate because all they really accomplish is losing your respect, not gaining it.
Oh that I recognize. My sisters and little brother are a different story however, and it is them that I want the facts for, as they are young and open minded.

I was simply speaking of using nuclear as a stopgap to maintain industrialized technological civilization, so that we can afford to get into space. Once we've properly developed space-resources we shouldn't have a problem with basic resource shortages for centuries to maybe aeons to come.That's the basic idea (and about the only competition nuclear is likely to have for a long time is power from space). Though if you want to do ambitious space missions you'll probably want nuclear rockets and reactors.
1) (Enriched) Uranium, which is the regular nuclear fuel is not unlimited on this planet and it will eventually run out in the next 40 years, even earlier with increased demand. So, going nuclear is not a solution but a postponement of the problem of from where to get energy.At present usage on a once through fuel cycle using converter reactors we should have enough for more than a hundred years. Costs will go up as more is mined but in that case it simply means that more of the stuff is available (fuel costs are a pretty small portion of the cost of nuclear power so it won't have that much effect on the end user).

Breeder reactors can use the Uranium dug out of the ground over a hundred times more efficiently so the Uranium would last longer (and they could use nuclear waste from non-breeders quite well too) so we shouldn't have any real problem.
2) Nuclear waste is indeed a big problem. Just think of the half-life of all that nuclear waste - 3000-5000 years is nothing (and now compare that to the recorded history of man!). Besides, nobody wants that crap in their backyard.Middle of the desert.

It'll be down to below the level of the ore the Uranium was mined from after about a thousand years so it'd be pretty safe by then (no more dangerous then Uranium ore).
As to the safety regulations for that salt deposit I'm really not convinced that the place will be safe for the next 10,000+ years. Biggest problem - no water must get into the area, etc.The Oklo reactor a couple of billion years ago (back when natural Uranium had enough U235 for light water to start a reactor up) showed that there would be minimal transport even if it isn't contained (and that reactor had a lot of water running through it while it was running).
(After all, how would we power our impulse-engines if not via our fusion reactors :D)Good question.
Does anyone have a huge fact sheet that I can just print out? I'd like to keep some of this information on hand if possible.Some of the stuff from the Uranium Information Centre (http://www.uic.com.au/) might be useful to you.

Though as for convincing your dad it sounds like it'd be like :headbang:

Nuclear fission power is a good idea for the following reasons.

1. Everyone hates nuclear power.
a. Republicans hate nuclear power because it's dangerous to their two favorite interest groups, oil companies and coal power companies.
b. Democrats hate nuclear power because they hear "nuclear" and think of the bomb and automatically flip out at any reference to the bomb.

2. Republicans hate democrats.

3. Democrats like everything that Europe does.

4. So, if we remind the Republicans that Democrats hate nuclear power, this will overcome their lesser urges to support coal and gas, and force them support nuclear power. Concurrently, we remind the democrats that Europe gets a lot of energy from nuclear power, and they will automatically revert to "worship Europe" mode and swallow down the bitter taste and support nuclear power.

Tada!

(thank you somethingawful)

I think nuclear energy is a better option economically than other low emission power sources currently available. However, the question we were asked was, is nuclear power necessary? And the answer is, no it isn't. There are other sources of power available and in addition people always have the option of using less power.

It's not too difficult to calculate how much poorer the U.S. would be if they used low emmision alternatives as opposed to nuclear power. We will assume these alternatives have twice the cost of nuclear power. Current windpower is about 3 cents a kilowatt-hour as opposed to about 1.9 for nuclear, so this does not seem an unreasonable estimate. I don't care where this energy comes from or how practical people think it is. I'm just assuming it will cost twice as much as nuclear.

As everyone knows, the U.S. produces about 3.9 trillion kilowatt-hours a year. If this was generated by nuclear power it would cost about $250 per person. If alternatives cost twice as much as nuclear then as the U.S. personal GDP is about $42,000 the average American will be about 0.59% poorer.

If you think that alternatives will cost three times as much then Americans will be on average about 1.18% poorer.

Obviously Americans can afford to do without nuclear power should they decide to do so.

Of course we are not faced with a question of should we have all nuclear or all alternatives. We are more realistically faced with a question of should we have more nuclear, more alternatives or more coal? Although nuclear appears to be a winner in terms of cost and appears to be low risk, I believe that the extra cost of wind will not be percieved as too high by much of the public due to nuclear's bad rep, and so a considerable amount of wind generating capacity will be built in addition to a nuclear build up.

The ITER project is the expermimental attempt to harness fusion power; it's an european-japenese project IIRC.

The US, Russia, China, India, and Korea (and I think Canada and Austraila, but I'm not sure about those two) are also partners. It's a major international project. No one wants to be left out when the oil is gone. http://www.iter.org/

There was a big fight over who got to host it (it came down to France and Japan). France won by agreing to give Japan big contracts for parts and research. And if it actually works, Japan will also get the first non experimental reactor.

Andaluciae: That was funny, thanks for the laugh (though to be honest I don't think it'd work all that well myself).
However, the question we were asked was, is nuclear power necessary?I think it is. Unless you want a crash programme to develop space industry which would probably be a good thing in and of itself would seem to be unnecessary with nuclear power available (I have a feeling the anti-nuclear activists would attack SSPS's just as much as they attack fission).

The other part of the question was whether it would be a huge mistake which I think most of us can agree it wouldn't be.
And the answer is, no it isn't. There are other sources of nuclear power available and in addition people always have the option of using less power.Well of course there are other sources of nuclear power. Instead of using Uranium we could use Thorium which is more abundant.

But I realise that you actually didn't mean that and were refering to such things as hydro, solar and wind. Only hydro is reliable enough to be a baseload option (and we are going to need baseload) while wind only works when the wind blows and solar only works when the sun shines.

For small amounts of power they work pretty well but if you demand that a grid be made up mostly of those sources then you start to have a problem. The only reason Denmark has been able to get away with such an overreliance on wind power is because they could always buy hydro from Norway or nuclear from France when the wind wasn't blowing.

You might be able to get away with lots of wind but you'd need to have a massive overcapacity to deal with the fact that the wind won't be blowing at all sites and that at many it might only blow at half speed (thus only one eighth power) at most sites, etc as well as energy storage to deal with times when it isn't blowing at any sites.

Solar suffers the same problems though it is a bit more predictable.

Any politician proposing rolling blackouts when the wind isn't blowing will not stay in office very long. If that is the result from large scale use of wind or solar then those who promise nuclear power will not have much trouble winning elections against the anti-nukes.
It's not too difficult to calculate how much poorer the U.S. would be if they used low emmision alternatives as opposed to nuclear power.Actually it's quite difficult to do, I don't really know the answer myself.

One of the things that needs to be realised is that the cost figures for wind and solar now are probably an underestimate of what it would cost if nuclear and fossil fuels weren't providing a subsisdy by taking up the slack when the wind isn't blowing or the sun ain't up (which would require massive overcapacity and storage systems if you don't have them).

The other is that cheap energy is often a requirement for some industries (e.g. aluminium mining) and so an increase in energy costs is going to really hurt those industries which may be important to a countries economic health and lead to large job losses as they become uncompetitive with countries which use cheaper power sources (whether nuclear or coal).

There is also a limit to energy conservation and if we want our modern comforts we are not going to be able to see massive reductions in energy usage (and politicians who propose that everyone should go without their air conditioners aren't going to get many votes) and our population is growing too fast anyway not to mention that it is immoral to deny those in the third world a high standard of living for ideological reasons.
The US, Russia, China, India, and Korea (and I think Canada and Austraila, but I'm not sure about those two) are also partners. It's a major international project. No one wants to be left out when the oil is gone. http://www.iter.org/Australia AFAIK was never involved and Canada withdrew in 2003.

Fusion is something that might someday be a good power source but right now we can't use it and the 30 years away 30 years ago complaint might be valid for all time (though I hope not).

Worth investigating but I wouldn't be under the illusion that it's going to be the short term solution there are a lot of things that have to be solved to get fusion either to global warming or the running out of oil (which will mean our transportation will need something else).

Still, if we can get it to work then we'd have unlimited energy for pretty much as long as we need it with almost no environmental impacts (and applying the technology to spaceflight would make things a lot easier).

Of course we are not faced with a question of should we have all nuclear or all alternatives. We are more realistically faced with a question of should we have more nuclear, more alternatives or more coal? Although nuclear appears to be a winner in terms of cost and appears to be low risk, I believe that the extra cost of wind will not be percieved as too high by much of the public due to nuclear's bad rep, and so a considerable amount of wind generating capacity will be built in addition to a nuclear build up.

Actually, renewables are generally competitive with fossil fuels and nuclear, and the cost is falling as technology improves. Some of the higher price is due to artificially high polysilicon prices which stem from a shortage of capacity due to demand from the semiconductor and solar industries. Once that's worked out in 2007 and 2008, the price per kWh for solar will fall considerably.

A mix of power sources is best. Wind, solar, and tidal/wave are all complementary (when it's cloudy, it's usually windier with more waves) and can be smoothed out by biomass or clean coal. Nuclear is cheap and abundant, and improvements in reactor technology, reprocessing, and reduced cost (not to mention easier regulatory processes) will ensure nuclear plays a bigger role in power generation along with coal and alternatives.

Natural gas power needs to go; we can generate all other types of power with our own resources, but right now we are dependent on natural gas from abroad and the power source is much more vulnerable to higher prices than coal. The remaining oil power plants need to be shutdown, and they pretty much all are.

Also, France gets almost all of its power from nuclear. They have not had any problems and they have an abundant source of cheap and clean energy...we should use them as a model for modern nuclear technology, not resort to scare tactics like Chernobyl that absolutely do not reflect a modern, well staffed and designed nuclear power plant.

Well of course there are other sources of nuclear power. Instead of using Uranium we could use Thorium which is more abundant.

Whoops! Looks like I made a mistake there. Thanks for pointing it out.

But do you agree with my back of the envelope estimates? If you think that low emission alternatives will cost 3 time more than nuclear and if we had a 60% nuclear 40% alternative economy, then the U.S. would very roughly be 0.47% poorer than an all nuclear economy? If you don't agree, why not? Remember these figures assume 3 cents per kilowatt-hour to generate wind and 2.7 cents per kilowatt-hour to deal with variability or the use of another sorce of alternate power that doesn't have such variability issues.

I am intersted in getting to the truth and would appreciate it if anyone can point out flaws in my thinking. And for some reason I feel the need to point out to you that I am actually in favour of nuclear energy. For some strange reason I feel that we are somehow fighting each other when I think we should actually be learning from each other.

Actually, renewables are generally competitive with fossil fuels and nuclear, and the cost is falling as technology improves. Some of the higher price is due to artificially high polysilicon prices which stem from a shortage of capacity due to demand from the semiconductor and solar industries. Once that's worked out in 2007 and 2008, the price per kWh for solar will fall considerably.

Dear Vetalia,

I have trouble getting reliable sources for energy costs. The amounts I've been using per kilowatt-hour, 1.9 cents for nuclear and 3 cents for wind are apparently accurate, (Wind could come down further. It is 2.5 cents in some areas.) but I haven't found good sources for quite a few other energy sources. Do you have any good links?

This is all very well thought out and written here, however there is this phenomena called transportation, which happens to be the very core of our modern society and that is completely reliant on oil. One phenomena that uses up more energy than all the electrical needs in any country. Battery powered engines are inefficient and pollutant in a sinuous and non-apparent way, hydrogen fuel cells suffer from the same limitations, alcohol produced from sugar cane plantations?? not enough arable terrain on the planet, I have no answer and am not sure what to think or make of a possible de-globalisation.

At present usage on a once through fuel cycle using converter reactors we should have enough for more than a hundred years. Costs will go up as more is mined but in that case it simply means that more of the stuff is available (fuel costs are a pretty small portion of the cost of nuclear power so it won't have that much effect on the end user).
I seriously doubt that. The real cost of nuclear power would already be enormous when you take out all the government funding.


Breeder reactors can use the Uranium dug out of the ground over a hundred times more efficiently so the Uranium would last longer (and they could use nuclear waste from non-breeders quite well too) so we shouldn't have any real problem.
Ah, now - Germany had a facility where they tested the breeder reactor and we got rid of it. Too lazy to dig up the real reason as to why - but there's gotta be a good reason to cancel such a project.

Middle of the desert.
And since when does Germany have large enough deserts for that, Mr. Smartypants? :p

You know that you shouldn't just give it to the folks who do have deserts, right?

It'll be down to below the level of the ore the Uranium was mined from after about a thousand years so it'd be pretty safe by then (no more dangerous then Uranium ore).
Down under the earth or not, there was a reason to it that they wanted to store it where the salt used to be. And you really don't want any water mixed with your highly radioactive, reactive nuclear waste.

The Oklo reactor a couple of billion years ago (back when natural Uranium had enough U235 for light water to start a reactor up) showed that there would be minimal transport even if it isn't contained (and that reactor had a lot of water running through it while it was running).
That is different from storing nuclear waste safely sort of uncontrolled for millenia.

Fusion is something that might someday be a good power source but right now we can't use it and the 30 years away 30 years ago complaint might be valid for all time (though I hope not).

Worth investigating but I wouldn't be under the illusion that it's going to be the short term solution there are a lot of things that have to be solved to get fusion either to global warming or the running out of oil (which will mean our transportation will need something else).

Still, if we can get it to work then we'd have unlimited energy for pretty much as long as we need it with almost no environmental impacts (and applying the technology to spaceflight would make things a lot easier).

Well, according to ITERs own web site, if all goes according to plan, there won't be a commercial fusion generator until 2050. So we're looking at close to 50 years before fusion becomes practical. And that's if it even works. It's strictly a long term deal.

In the interval, we'll likely use coal as it's cheap and abundant. An enviromental nightmare, but cheap and abundant. Personally I'd rather see nuclear and renewables as they are beter in the long term. But the market is rarely interested in the long term. It's all about short term profits, and coal is the best bet for that.

Battery powered engines are inefficient and pollutant in a sinuous and non-apparent way,

No, battery powered engines are much more efficent than internal combustion engines. If we took all the oil used in the U.S. for cars and trucks and burned it to generate electricity to power electric cars and trucks it would require less than half the amount of petroleum currently used. This would cut pollution by more than half. Also it is easier to install pollution control equipment at an immobile power plant than on every car. Nuclear power or other low emission energy sources could be used which would result in vast improvements on current levels of pollution. To power all cars and trucks on electricity would require U.S. power production to increase by about one fifth.

No, battery powered engines are much more efficent than internal combustion engines. If we took all the oil used in the U.S. for cars and trucks and burned it to generate electricity to power electric cars and trucks it would require less than half the amount of petroleum currently used. This would cut pollution by more than half. Also it is easier to install pollution control equipment at an immobile power plant than on every car. Nuclear power or other low emission energy sources could be used which would result in vast improvements on current levels of pollution. To power all cars and trucks on electricity would require U.S. power production to increase by about one fifth.
The problem is that the infrastructure of the electricity network is just not designed for the sheer amount of energy necessary to reenergize the batteries of cars. Furthermore, you have to factor in the cost of replacing all ~80 million vehicles.

Actually, renewables are generally competitive with fossil fuels and nuclear, and the cost is falling as technology improves.A lot of that seems to be due to generous subsidies though (nuclear has often had what seemed to be anti-subsidies in many places). Still, when you factor in environmental costs pretty much everything becomes cheaper than coal.
A mix of power sources is best.Probably true.
Wind, solar, and tidal/wave are all complementary (when it's cloudy, it's usually windier with more waves) and can be smoothed out by biomass or clean coal.Biomass does have efficiency problems, namely that plants are only about 1% efficient so you'd need a lot of land area unless you don't need large production. Clean Coal sounds like an oxymoron to me although I understand that they propose putting the CO2 into the ground which might work. Still given that coal plants tend to be expensive and clean coal will probably be even more so it doesn't make much sense to use them as peaking plants.
Natural gas power needs to go;Agree there. Methane is more useful for other things and it's also quite dangerous and those in Europe are having higher prices because of what the Russians are doing.
The remaining oil power plants need to be shutdown, and they pretty much all are.Shutting down the oil power plants will mean more oil for automobiles and aviation which is where we're going to need it.
But do you agree with my back of the envelope estimates?I don't see any reason to doubt your calculations but I'm not sure they were based on accurate assumptions. I did list some reasons why I don't think the cost estimates being thrown around for wind, solar, etc when they take up most of the grid would be accurate and what you'd need to spend big on to ensure that the power grid can be somewhat stable.
This is all very well thought out and written here, however there is this phenomena called transportation, which happens to be the very core of our modern society and that is completely reliant on oil.Very correct. Though right now we can easily switch power generation over to things which don't cause global warming whereas switching our transportation (with the exception of large ships which could be nuclear powered) to something else would be very hard since we really don't have a technology better than oil.
Battery powered engines are inefficient and pollutant in a sinuous and non-apparent way,Electric motors are efficient, it's just that the energy density of a battery is crap. Simply put we don't have any batteries good enough to give such a vehicle the range of a petrol or diesel powered vehicle (though they are great for city driving).

The main pollution from a battery powered vehicle is from the generation plant (which if nuclear or another clean source won't exist) and from the disposal of used batteries. Most Lead Acid car starter batteries are recycled so we could probably deal with it in much the same way.
hydrogen fuel cells suffer from the same limitations,It's still an energy density limitation that causes hydrogen powered cars to have inferior range. A hydrogen combustion engine would still give decent range for many people and the higher efficiency of a fuel cell might be enough to make it have almost the range of a petrol vehicle.
alcohol produced from sugar cane plantations?? not enough arable terrain on the planet,I'll have to agree here.

Of course another possibility would be to just create artificial fuels with the same properties as petrol and diesel and which can run in unmodified engines.

As for dealing with transportation. What I'd do is first start by trying to make the electricity be generated by clean sources which will mainly mean nuclear with bits of wind, solar, etc mixed in but I wouldn't rely on them as the primary sources.

Then I'd be working on lowering the cost of naval reactors to get them fitted to large ships (and probably getting the enrichment levels needed down to 20% or lower, maybe new reactors would be needed and not just modifications of submarine reactors) although probably only to new ones. That will reduce fuel price impacts on international shipping and make the oil that would otherwise be burned there available for other uses.

Then one could find a way of using our cars, trucks and planes without pollution with the oil lasting a little bit longer.
I seriously doubt that. The real cost of nuclear power would already be enormous when you take out all the government funding.The fact that fuel costs are a small part of the cost of nuclear power is fact which leads to the fact that a fuel cost increase would have very little effect on the cost of nuclear power.

It doesn't matter whether the government is providing large subsidies or whether the government and anti-environmental organisations are creating anti-subsidies.
Ah, now - Germany had a facility where they tested the breeder reactor and we got rid of it. Too lazy to dig up the real reason as to why - but there's gotta be a good reason to cancel such a project.A large part of it is that with the current low cost of Uranium breeders just can't compete because they do cost more to build and operate despite having lower fuel costs in the low term.
And since when does Germany have large enough deserts for that, Mr. Smartypants?

You know that you shouldn't just give it to the folks who do have deserts, right?Some of the countries which do have deserts are countries you could trust to handle it properly.
That is different from storing nuclear waste safely sort of uncontrolled for millenia.No. Storing nuclear waste uncontrolled for millenia is actually exactly what happened at Oklo.

Oklo was a natuarl nuclear reactor. It created nuclear waste just like the ones we use but unlike us nature didn't bother keeping water away from the waste.

The problem is that the infrastructure of the electricity network is just not designed for the sheer amount of energy necessary to reenergize the batteries of cars.

Um, we increase generating capacity all the time. I mean if we replace internal combustion cars with electrics over a period of 20 years we only have to increase capacity by 1% a year. That is so doable.

Furthermore, you have to factor in the cost of replacing all ~80 million vehicles

People replace cars all the time. Currently the extra cost of an efficent hybrid is paid back by the fuel you save. So if people would just replace their cars with more efficent ones at the normal time they would replace there car there is little extra cost. No problem. It would only be massively expensive if we tried do something like replace internal combustion engines within five years or something extremely unlikely like that.

I don't see any reason to doubt your calculations but I'm not sure they were based on accurate assumptions. I did list some reasons why I don't think the cost estimates being thrown around for wind, solar, etc when they take up most of the grid would be accurate and what you'd need to spend big on to ensure that the power grid can be somewhat stable.

Europe has invested a lot in wind power and so the figure of 3 cents a kilowatt-hour seems accurate (2.5 cents in some areas). It is also not unreasonable to expect further reductions in cost. For most national grids winds variability is not a large problem until it becomes about 15% of the power generated. So even if we assume that half the power generated by wind is wasted due to its variability once it supplies 40% of the power, it should still cost only about 3 times as much as nuclear power.

Um, we increase generating capacity all the time. I mean if we replace internal combustion cars with electrics over a period of 20 years we only have to increase capacity by 1% a year. That is so doable.That's true. You should have excess capacity at any time no matter what because sometimes power plants break down (though they do tend to be pretty damn reliable).

So maybe it'd be an extra percent or two growth on top of what we already have to deal with. Not that big a deal really.
People replace cars all the time. Currently the extra cost of an efficent hybrid is paid back by the fuel you save.Depending on how you drive it. If most of your driving is on highways with no congestion and high speed limits you're probably not going to save anything (you'd be better off with a smaller car or a diesel engine in that case). For city driving though you really will save money though.

Provided the Hybrid is actually intended for efficiency, the Lexus hybrids for example typcially use the electric motor to increase the power output and get very little efficiency improvement (to think they're made by the same company that makes the Prius).
So if people would just replace their cars with more efficent ones at the normal time they would replace there car there is little extra cost.If people were to replace SUV's and V8's with four cylinder cars then the extra cost would actually be negative. High fuel costs seem to be having that effect.
No problem. It would only be massively expensive if we tried do something like replace internal combustion engines within five years or something extremely unlikely like that.The big problem I see is getting the infrastructure needed to support refueling the vehicles. I don't see a problem with production of electricity if you're willing to use nuclear and the lower range of electric and hydrogen cars would probably be acceptable to most people but they can't exactly use them if they can't find a place to charge them or a hydrogen pump at the local service station (and hydrogen would require a lot more precautions when filling your car up then petrol or diesel) which is one of the reasons hybrids are the first to get widespread use (if you can call their use widespread).
So even if we assume that half the power generated by wind is wasted due to its variability once it supplies 40% of the power, it should still cost only about 3 times as much as nuclear power.I don't think saying that half the power generated is wasted is accurate. It'd be more like half the capacity is wasted due to there being no wind or not enough wind which is probably only accurate for some sites.

It doesn't take much of a drop in wind speeds to really reduce the power generated by a wind turbine (dropping the wind speed down 25% drops the power output by about 58%) so unless you get a site that has really steady wind (they do exist but probably not in the amount needed to supply most of a power grid) you have really unsteady power from wind.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china.html

A contribution from China; safe nuclear design.

Technology comes to the rescue; the physics of the reactor prevents a meltdown.

It's probably Homer Simpson-proof for crying out loud.

The Germans had good experience with their pebble bed when they were running it. The South Africans are also doing quite a bit of work on a pebble bed reactor.

The phrase Homer Simpson proof is an accurate one to describe them.

No, battery powered engines are much more efficent than internal combustion engines. If we took all the oil used in the U.S. for cars and trucks and burned it to generate electricity to power electric cars and trucks it would require less than half the amount of petroleum currently used. This would cut pollution by more than half. Also it is easier to install pollution control equipment at an immobile power plant than on every car. Nuclear power or other low emission energy sources could be used which would result in vast improvements on current levels of pollution. To power all cars and trucks on electricity would require U.S. power production to increase by about one fifth.

That's not surprising in the US, where small is a 3ton piece of metal with a v8. But for example the much hyped Prius( 4,8 ltrs - 100km)consumes more than an Opel Corsa (4.6 ltrs - 100km), the vehicle class most sold in Europe, small.

That's not surprising in the US, where small is a 3ton piece of metal with a v8. But for example the much hyped Prius( 4,8 ltrs - 100km)consumes more than an Opel Corsa (4.6 ltrs - 100km), the vehicle class most sold in Europe, small.

It would be interesting to see what sort of mileage an Opel Corsa could get with a hybrid power train.

Hybrids are generally heavier, so until the technology improves, a lot, it will be difficult to compete with gas not to mention diesel engines. One engine is always going to be lighter and more efficent than two, so hybrids are basically freaks for publicity stunts. I'm waiting for hydro cells to start-off, then we'll see.

Hybrids are generally heavier, so until the technology improves, a lot, it will be difficult to compete with gas not to mention diesel engines. One engine is always going to be lighter and more efficent than two, so hybrids are basically freaks for publicity stunts. I'm waiting for hydro cells to start-off, then we'll see.

Hybrids are freaks? The 2008 Prius is supposed to get about 40 km to a litre, with a faster acceleration than the current Prius, using lithium-ion batteries. And it's very easy to go from a hybrid to a plug in hybrid that can get part of its power from the grid. Currently with todays gasoline prices the extra cost of an efficent hybrid more than pays for itself with fuel savings and there are month long waiting lists for current models. Hydrogen cells that are better than lithium-ion batteries would be nice but hybrids seem to be taking off without them.

(Not that a car has to be a hybrid to be efficent. A German company apparently plans to market a lightweight 2 seater internal combustion engine car that is supposed to get 60 km to the litre.)

That's not surprising in the US, where small is a 3ton piece of metal with a v8.No. Batteries and electric motors are more efficient than internal combustion. Doesn't matter what the engine size is.

It's just that you can store more energy in petrol or diesel than you can in even the highest energy density batteries (i.e. Li-ion which has a very nasty suprise for anyone who buys a car powered by them).
But for example the much hyped Prius( 4,8 ltrs - 100km)consumes more than an Opel Corsa (4.6 ltrs - 100km), the vehicle class most sold in Europe, small.Yes. But the Prius is a larger vehicle than the Corsa. You'd be better off comparing it to the Opal Astra (and making a smaller hybrid than the Prius isn't impossible).
Hybrids are generally heavier, so until the technology improves, a lot, it will be difficult to compete with gas not to mention diesel engines.A hybird with a diesel could do a lot better than anything non-hybrid.
One engine is always going to be lighter and more efficent than two,Not always. A hybrid would need a smaller internal combustion engine since that engine would only need to provide enough power for normal driving and could rely on the electric motor(s) to provide the power or torque needed for starting off from the lights, overtaking or climbing hills.

Batteries and electric motors are more efficient than internal combustion engines but given that the power stored in the batteries came from the petrol engine that isn't going to be a big deal. But it does allow for the internal combustion engine to be designed to be a more efficient engine since it can be designed to run under optimal conditions. Hybrids can also turn the engine off when it isn't needed (say when the car is stopped saving quite a lot of fuel).

They also typically have regenerative breaking which allows them to recover some of the energy that went into acceleration while slowing down (provided you don't race up the lights).

The idea that hybrids will find it difficult to compete is just absurd (provided the car makers don't do what Toyota did with the Lexus hybrids).
The 2008 Prius is supposed to get about 40 km to a litre, with a faster acceleration than the current Prius, using lithium-ion batteries.Lithium Ion means you'll be buying new batteries every few years.

If you don't intend your car to last that long it might be fine but a hybrid with dead batteries isn't exactly likely to hold its value as well as one with a battery technology that lasts (and if you keep the car for many years you'll want batteries that don't need replacing too often).

No. Batteries and electric motors are more efficient than internal combustion. Doesn't matter what the engine size is.


A hybird with a diesel could do a lot better than anything non-hybrid.
Not always. A hybrid would need a smaller internal combustion engine since that engine would only need to provide enough power for normal driving and could rely on the electric motor(s) to provide the power or torque needed for starting off from the lights, overtaking or climbing hills.



They also typically have regenerative breaking which allows them to recover some of the energy that went into acceleration while slowing down (provided you don't race up the lights).




The diesel engine would provide power for normal driving... That's the least energy efficient way you could setup a hybrid, the diesel or gas engine are best used for the high output needs, not the opposite.
If the Prius is supposed to compete with bigger cars, not fuel efficient ones... Then its' purpose ins't fuel efficiency. It's maintaining the american, fuel unaware, way of life. It isn't pure chance that it's a complete flop in europe.
Regenerative breaking, which part of that system is unique to hybrid vehicles!?
Either change fuels completely, or not at all. At the expense of any real shift in awareness and energy efficiency.
The only presently viable alternative to petroleum based fuels for road vehicles I see, are hydrogen fuel cells, with the hydrogen being produced via electrolisis in nuclear power plants.

The diesel engine would provide power for normal driving... That's the least energy efficient way you could setup a hybrid, the diesel or gas engine are best used for the high output needs, not the opposite.No. It is the most efficient way to set it up. The idea is that at low speeds it runs on electric unless the batteries need charging and at high speeds it uses the IC engine which is set to run most efficiently at the normal power level of driving and which doesn't have the capability of running at a higher power level (so if you only have the IC engine you wouldn't have the power to overtake). Just the use of a less powerful engine designed to produce maximum power alone is enough to reduce fuel consumption considerably. Add to that the fact that the maximum power output is over a more narrow rpm range and you can get pretty significant fuel economy increases.

Of course such a car would probably not be something you'd want to drive which is where the electric part comes in. Should you need extra power instead of having a bigger less efficient engine you can get the power from the batteries and you can even reclaim energy that would otherwise be lost when breaking. It can also turn the engine off when it is stopped instead of idling and wasting fuel.
If the Prius is supposed to compete with bigger cars, not fuel efficient ones... Then its' purpose ins't fuel efficiency. It's maintaining the american, fuel unaware, way of life. It isn't pure chance that it's a complete flop in europe.The Prius isn't exactly competing with very big cars. It's the size above the Opal Corsa which is what an American would call a compact.

BTW: There actually are people who need a bigger car than the Opal Corsa nor is there anything that would prevent someone making a car that size a hybrid.
Regenerative breaking, which part of that system is unique to hybrid vehicles!?It also exists in electric vehicles but it doesn't exist in anything that doesn't have electric motors or batteries.
Either change fuels completely, or not at all.That would be nice but we would need to create an entirely new infrastructure for that to work. It's possible but it'll probably be a while before every service station has hydrogen pumps for you to fill 'er up.

Hybrids are a useful way of reducing emissions and oil usage until we can change over to a better fuel (and if we use hydrogen fuel cells we'll probably need to make them hybrids as well due to the slow response of fuel cells).
The only presently viable alternative to petroleum based fuels for road vehicles I see, are hydrogen fuel cells, with the hydrogen being produced via electrolisis in nuclear power plants.I tend to agree there.