open All Channels
seplocked Out of Pod Experience
blankseplocked Coal vs Nuclear
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

Author Topic

Lia'Vael
Caldari
Migrant Fleet
Posted - 2010.08.22 16:03:00 - [61]
 

Edited by: Lia''Vael on 22/08/2010 16:33:09
Edited by: Lia''Vael on 22/08/2010 16:04:40
Edited by: Lia''Vael on 22/08/2010 16:03:05
I've been glossing over a little seeing people complain that there isn't a lot of uranium, that is so but there is an alternative to uranium in large quantities in virtually every single country which dwarf the complete supply of all uranium isotopes, Th. The MSRE (Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment) proved valuable for an inherently safe epithermal thorium breeder reactor. MSRE used three fuels through the experiment, plutonium-239, uranium-235, and uranium-233, the last was 233 uranium tetraflouride which was the result of the thorium breeding. MSRE proved without a doubt the technology is there and that a thorium breeding reactor is a viable option for energy generation given the abundance of Th. Not to mention that to process Th to be used as fuel is not as resource intensive as uranium and in it's natural state it is fairly safe to handle as well as its cost is very low and is actually considered a waste from mining rare earths.

EDIT; spelling also a quick note I'm surprised people missed my comment on the first page about thorium, its like number 7.

Also the MSRE took place for 5 years from 1964-1969, we have the technology, scientifically we have no blockades, the only thing stopping us from advancing this technology that can help us is fear brought about by ignorance.

Jack Airron
Gallente
Wrecking Shots
-Mostly Harmless-
Posted - 2010.08.22 16:28:00 - [62]
 

Originally by: ceaon
what you like more the coal centrals or nuclear centrals ?


i go for coal Shocked because trees can fix/recycle the crap this coal leave in teh air but until today i don't know if anyone managed to fix/recycle the radioactive waste, the approach to radioactive waste is like keeping the rotten food in bag because nobody have invented the recycle bin


Nuclear, The great thing with Nuclear is that you can use the radioactive waste to power a second slightly reconfigured Reactor.

Also if we do some day acquire Fusion i think humanity will have secured its future.

Reiisha
Veto Corp
Posted - 2010.08.22 19:36:00 - [63]
 

Originally by: Phosphorus Palladium
Oceanic windfarms, as I pointed out a few posts up, do provide a significant percentage of energy in some parts of the world.
Reliability in the sense of constant energy production is only relevant if no good energy storage is available.


True, but the cost of maintaining those installations is quite high, and the risk of losing them due to a slightly higher than average storm is even higher. It doesn't work in most parts of the world.

Originally by: Phosphorus Palladium
Same as above realy. Solarfarms make real sense as soon as we find a way to store electric energy efficiently.
The overproduction from sunny days is then used to fill the shortage on cloudy days.


I'm still very sceptical about the amount of surface needed to actually produce the energy we consume on a daily basis. Storage or not, that is the real killer. If you produce less than you use the solution isn't good enough.

Originally by: Phosphorus Palladium
I am not a big fan of hydro energy, it does work well however. Just ask the chinese about their huge hydro installations.
Problem is that the direct environmental damage of flooding can be immense.


That's what i meant. Too costly :)

Originally by: Phosphorus Palladium
Research suggests that geothermal energy can cause earthquakes.
As such it seems to be not qualified as a source for large amounts of energy.


Tectonics, see? ^^

Originally by: Phosphorus Palladium
Nuclear energy is a decent short term solution to gain energy. In the long run it is problematic due to uranium and other materials needed for nuclear reactors being finite. So in general, despite safety and storage problems for nuclear waste, its main drawback is it is a non renewable energy form.


If thorium becomes usable for this as has been mentioned earlier in the thread, the point becomes moot. Nuclear plants don't need much at all to operate for decades, and we don't use that particular resource for anything but nuclear power generation - I think it's worth trading coal/gas for uranium and thorium. Ultimately it's less polluting and a good stepping stone to better sources.

Originally by: Phosphorus Palladium
If you check "cold fusion" on wikipedia, you will find that many "serious" scientists do not even want to be associated with it, since they find it utopic. The understanding seems to be it wont work in any foreseeable timespan. Since I am not a scientist, I can not judge wether this is true or not.


Cold fusion is a non-issue. It's a fairytale. "Normal" fusion is what i'm talking about - Go read up on JET. They're getting closer every year, just not that fast.

Originally by: Phosphorus Palladium

Some forms of energy gathering you forgot are: BIO, Wave energy (as someone mentioned a bit up), Lightning.

Personally there is no question to me, that the only good long term solution to energy supply is to go fully renewable.
Renewable energies are infinite (within a few hundred million years at least), and as such to me it is a no brainer that these energies eventually are far superior to any finite ways of generating energy.

As long as we can not go fully renewable, nuclear power is a way to bridge the gap. But new energy installations should follow the renewable path.


Bio: Needs too much energy put into it, at the moment. Science fiction at best.
Wave: Too risky. You don't want to erode the ocean streams, which you *will* do, and cause even more damage than coal/gas plants do right now.
Lightning: As far as i know, not predictable, and very unreliable as an energy source.

Hence, fission (nuclear power plants) for now, combined fission/fusion in the near future, and hopefully full fusion in the future, which uses only hydrogen which we have in abundance.

Viktor Fyretracker
Caldari
Emminent Terraforming
O.G.-Alliance
Posted - 2010.08.22 19:56:00 - [64]
 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candlewood_Lake

Is an example of how the electric grid can "store" power, basically setups like this are the only feasible method for power storage with current engineering.

Of course it still requires a big place to put a lake, this one near my home town is Small in Mw output but still takes up a large part of a state.


I guess a Positive offset of any type of Hydro is the Lake becomes an economic gain to the area.
Problem in China is they did not do the research, Three Gorges is not in the most stable area for a Dam and is one reason it could have problems. Compare to ones like Hoover Dam which are anchored into solid rock walls.(honestly though to see Hoover in person, it really could be one of the man made wonders of the world, how they built things like that and the Empire State Building without all the fancy load testing of today is amazing).

Arianhod
Red Dwarf Mining Corporation
space weaponry and trade
Posted - 2010.08.22 22:44:00 - [65]
 

I'm going to throw my 2 pence in, but I can only really comment on the UK and Europe as thats all I know off the top of my head.

I'm in favour of projects like the Severn Barrage which would create a 15GW tidal powerplant. As I understand it this would provide around 1/4th of the counties 60GW peak
Other things would be developing our tidal power in the North Sea with mass production and deployment of things such as this beauty. No emissions during operation and has a predictable curve of operations. What with the Scottish Highlands near the North sea, there would be minimal transmission losses from there to pumped storage schemes, even without HVDC transmitting excess power to the south.

As I understand it Scotland alone has a predicted tidal capacity of around 7.5GW with an additional 14GW of Wave. The Pelamis could harvest this and there is plans for a shoal of them off of Orkney.

In summation thats just Scotland and Severn, total of 15+14+7.5GW=36.5GW, almost the entire British electricity base load of 40GW.

So we would need something more to add into all of this, but I'm of the opinion that since the bulk of this would be base load assuming it is all used, meaning we could use solar plants in North Africa pumping juice into a pan EU network to account for the peak usage of power during the day. Probably ones of this design rather than solar panels.

Intense Thinker
Minmatar
Posted - 2010.08.22 22:50:00 - [66]
 

I like clean nuclear power... look at Pripyat, no one there litters at all and it's all because of the nuclear plant Very Happy

Musical Fist
Gallente
NAP Coalition
Posted - 2010.08.22 22:52:00 - [67]
 

Edited by: Musical Fist on 22/08/2010 22:53:01
WTB Citation

Lets just have fat idiots produce energy by riding exercise bikes attached to a generator, this will solve the obesity problem that is always overlooked.

Killing 2 birds with 1 stone, its clean its efficient and it helps everyone.

Simeon Tor
Picon Fleet
New Eden Research.
Posted - 2010.08.22 23:04:00 - [68]
 

Originally by: Musical Fist
Edited by: Musical Fist on 22/08/2010 22:53:01
WTB Citation

Lets just have fat idiots produce energy by riding exercise bikes attached to a generator, this will solve the obesity problem that is always overlooked.

Killing 2 birds with 1 stone, its clean its efficient and it helps everyone.


I see a flaw in your plan, what happens when there are no more obese people?

Viktor Fyretracker
Caldari
Emminent Terraforming
O.G.-Alliance
Posted - 2010.08.22 23:29:00 - [69]
 

What about governthermal energy? where by we put heat extractors in government buildings and use the hot air from politicians to generate power.

as a side we can burn the bull**** they spew as well!

Lia'Vael
Caldari
Migrant Fleet
Posted - 2010.08.22 23:38:00 - [70]
 

Originally by: Intense Thinker
I like clean nuclear power... look at Pripyat, no one there litters at all and it's all because of the nuclear plant Very Happy


Ah yes I was wondering when the example of mindless ignorant fear would show its face, thank you.

Chernobyl was a tragedy but it is not a reason to say nuclear energy is bad.

The accident was caused by multiple factors, deficiency in overall reactor design of the RBMK-1000, deviation from test procedure, and a deficient safety culture, not only at the Chernobyl plant, but throughout the Soviet design, operating and regulatory organizations for nuclear power that existed at that time.

Chernobyl was a lesson to respect the dangerous and to not half-ass.

Malaclypse Muscaria
Posted - 2010.08.23 00:13:00 - [71]
 

Originally by: Simeon Tor
Originally by: Musical Fist
Edited by: Musical Fist on 22/08/2010 22:53:01
WTB Citation

Lets just have fat idiots produce energy by riding exercise bikes attached to a generator, this will solve the obesity problem that is always overlooked.

Killing 2 birds with 1 stone, its clean its efficient and it helps everyone.


I see a flaw in your plan, what happens when there are no more obese people?

There will always be enough obese people around, by virtue of the First Law of Gustodynamics: "The tastiness of any given food item is directly proportional to how fat it makes you".

Lance Fighter
Amarr
Posted - 2010.08.23 00:41:00 - [72]
 

Originally by: Lia'Vael
Originally by: Intense Thinker
I like clean nuclear power... look at Pripyat, no one there litters at all and it's all because of the nuclear plant Very Happy


Ah yes I was wondering when the example of mindless ignorant fear would show its face, thank you.



Ah, I was wondering how long it would take for someone to be trolled in this thread. Thank you.

Citrute
The High and Mighty
Posted - 2010.08.23 01:13:00 - [73]
 

Claims about adverse effects from low levels of radiation are often based on a so-called linear non-threshold model. The model assumes, for example, that if an exposure of n millirem kills 50 percent of a population, then 0.1 n will kill 5 percent, 0.01 will kill 0.5 percent and so on. There is no evidence for this model. Background radiation from natural sources varies around the world from an annual dosage of less than 100 to over 10,000 millirem. (Residents of Ramsar, Iran, receive up to 26,000 millirem a year!) Studies have not found increased cancer or other illnesses in areas with naturally high radiation

Fifty plant and emergency workers died of acute radiation exposure in the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in the U.S.S.R., the worst nuclear accident in history. The explosion contaminated more than 200,000 square kilometers with radioactive fallout, but radiation in parts of this zone is now lower than in Finland and other regions of the world with naturally high radiation. The International Agency for Research on Cancer estimates that radiation releases from Chernobyl caused a slight increase in thyroid cancer but adds that "smoking will cause several thousand times more cancers in the same population." So far, there have been no excess deaths among the 200,000 "liquidators" who helped clean up the mess from Chernobyl compared with controls.

The waste from coal-burning plants is much greater in volume and more harmful than from nuclear generators. If you, as an average American, got all your electricity from nuclear plants, you'd generate one kilogram of nuclear waste during your lifetime, enough to fit in a soda can. If you got all your electricity from coal, you'd generate almost 70 tons of waste. Coal plants emit far more radioactive materials than nuclear plants do; each year a 1,000-megawatt coal plant disperses about 27 metric tons of uranium, thorium and other radioactive substances. Coals plants also emit mercury and other toxins, in addition of course to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. An estimated 24,000 Americans die prematurely per annum because of pollution from coal plants; in China, the number is 400,000.

Hydropower has killed many more people than nuclear power. About 1,000 Americans have died in dam collapses in the past 100 years. Dam collapses caused by a typhoon in China in 1975 killed 26,000 people immediately; another 145,000 people later died of disease and famine. The output of hydroelectric plants is decreasing because of droughts, possibly brought on by global warming.

Source: Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy,
Gwyneth Cravens

Reiisha
Veto Corp
Posted - 2010.08.23 05:12:00 - [74]
 

Originally by: Citrute
The waste from coal-burning plants is much greater in volume and more harmful than from nuclear generators. If you, as an average American, got all your electricity from nuclear plants, you'd generate one kilogram of nuclear waste during your lifetime, enough to fit in a soda can. If you got all your electricity from coal, you'd generate almost 70 tons of waste. Coal plants emit far more radioactive materials than nuclear plants do; each year a 1,000-megawatt coal plant disperses about 27 metric tons of uranium, thorium and other radioactive substances. Coals plants also emit mercury and other toxins, in addition of course to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. An estimated 24,000 Americans die prematurely per annum because of pollution from coal plants; in China, the number is 400,000.


Another reason for me to back nuclear energy. Over the same amount of time, the amount of waste generated by a nuclear plant is much, much smaller than of a coal/gas plant producing the same energy (or plants, considering nuclear power output).

JordanParey
Suddenly Ninjas
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
Posted - 2010.08.23 05:17:00 - [75]
 

Originally by: Obsidian Hawk
Well nuclear is #1. And the byproducts would come into existance anyway whether you use it in a reactor or not. I do think more research should go in into re-using the by products.

- Coal, oil, natural gas - great sources for back up power and should be used minimally not as a primary source.

Hydro - still works great cept when there is extended drought conditions.

Solar / wind. - Wind is nice, but has really ruined the landscape of a lot of areas, - see southern california as a reference.

Solar - Im waiting for thin film panels to be more abundant. Current pannels are to bulky, but the new thin film is great, and if all houses had one side of teh roof as thin film we wouldnt need a lot of these large scale power generators.


I just drove through the area of Southern California that you speak of, there isn't much worth looking at anyway, bro. Just (for a lot of it, anyway) a big ****ty desert with windmills in it.

Niccolado Starwalker
Gallente
Shadow Templars
Posted - 2010.08.23 09:02:00 - [76]
 


Watched a program yesterday on Discovery named sci-fi science, where they looked on antimatter as fuel for future spaceships. Maybe one day it can fuel the world with energy too?? Unless ofcource it takes us into a great black hole Cool


Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
Posted - 2010.08.23 09:11:00 - [77]
 

Originally by: Niccolado Starwalker
Watched a program yesterday on Discovery named sci-fi science, where they looked on antimatter as fuel for future spaceships. Maybe one day it can fuel the world with energy too?? Unless ofcource it takes us into a great black hole Cool



Not likely. There's the tiny little problem that making antimatter takes way more energy than you get from using it. This is fine for space where you are willing to accept a high up-front cost to minimize the fuel mass of your ship, but it makes antimatter completely worthless as an energy source for civilization as a whole.


And then there's the whole "massive radiation produced from the reaction" and "incredibly dangerous to store" problems, even if we somehow find an antimatter source that is a net energy gain.

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2010.08.23 09:17:00 - [78]
 

Antimatter is like hydrogen, it is not an energy source, you can only use it to store energy.

Sergeant Spot
Galactic Geographic BookMark Surveying Inc.
Posted - 2010.08.24 02:44:00 - [79]
 

My real life job involves keeping a varity of Emergency response equipment serviceable. Among other things, this includes dosimeters, radiacs, etc.

Having looked HEAVILY into real actual nuclear events, I prefer nuclear power. I am perfectly happy to make a city sized area glow for 10,000 years in order to power the planet for the next several centuries (and if by that time we can't ship it to Mars, or some moon of Saturn, we're probably already dead, and NOT from that city sized glowing area...)

In short, pick a stable spot, place waste there. Get on with life.

Ever sinse the Hockey stick chart tried to ignore the medieval warm period and little ice age, I've known that climate change "AS DESCRIBED BY AL GORE, MANN, HANSON, etc" is a lie. Having said that, I have more concern about crud in the air than properly stored nuclear waste.

If I gotta choose one (and I do...), then I'd rather have the nukes.

Intense Thinker
Minmatar
Posted - 2010.08.24 03:06:00 - [80]
 

Originally by: Lance Fighter
Originally by: Lia'Vael
Originally by: Intense Thinker
I like clean nuclear power... look at Pripyat, no one there litters at all and it's all because of the nuclear plant Very Happy


Ah yes I was wondering when the example of mindless ignorant fear would show its face, thank you.



Ah, I was wondering how long it would take for someone to be trolled in this thread. Thank you.


I love you, Lance Very Happy

Lance Fighter
Amarr
Posted - 2010.08.24 05:59:00 - [81]
 

Originally by: Intense Thinker
Originally by: Lance Fighter
Originally by: Lia'Vael
Originally by: Intense Thinker
I like clean nuclear power... look at Pripyat, no one there litters at all and it's all because of the nuclear plant Very Happy


Ah yes I was wondering when the example of mindless ignorant fear would show its face, thank you.



Ah, I was wondering how long it would take for someone to be trolled in this thread. Thank you.


I love you, Lance Very Happy
Love you too ugh

Viktor Fyretracker
Caldari
Emminent Terraforming
O.G.-Alliance
Posted - 2010.08.24 06:31:00 - [82]
 

Originally by: Intense Thinker
I like clean nuclear power... look at Pripyat, no one there litters at all and it's all because of the nuclear plant Very Happy


And just think of the Turkeys they produce there, I hear that nobody has to fight over the drumsticks again even a family with more than two kids...... Patented Chernobyl "No Fight" Turkeys. Geese and Chickens available on demand, Ducks if we could get em to land.

Mara Rinn
Posted - 2010.08.24 07:31:00 - [83]
 

Originally by: Lance Fighter
100 years ago, what type of power were we using? was there a SINGLE nuclear reactor in operation? No, there wasnt. The first nuclear power plant was put into operation around 60 years ago.


100 years ago, we had less than a fifth of the current population and electricity was used for electric lights, and noone had fridges in their homes (they had ice boxes perhaps).

Quote:
Now, im willing to accept that current levels of usage will increase. However, you must also be willing to accept that we will find more.


If current levels of consumption increase, we'll run out of oil some time around 2030, we'll run out of coal about the same time, we'll run out of uranium around 2040, and we'll have nothing left to fuel any kind of reactor even in the initial research stage right now.

Quote:
Lets look at oil for instance - as oil prices rise, it becomes profitable enough to drill deeper for oil.


As oil prices rise it also becomes more profitable to use other fuel sources, or buy more renewable generation.

Quote:
I see the same thing happening with fissile material... Right now, we might only be using uranium (and plutonium), but that doesnt mean we wont be able to find other stuff in the future.


Other stuff we find in the future will be in lower abundance. We won't be able to replace current generation with any new radioactives such as thorium. If we can lift the ban on breeder reactors there's some hope of making better use of the uranium we currently have.

Quote:
We will probably keep changing power sources every 50-100 years until we find one that breaks the laws of physics...


Alternately, we could find ways to drastically reduce our consumption, along with figuring out sane ways of keeping the world's population at sustainable levels.

M'ktakh
Posted - 2010.08.24 08:11:00 - [84]
 

Nuclear, coupled with hydro.

To put it simply, there are many, many more uses, all of them better, for coal, than simply burning it. Before chemistry switched to oil, it used, you guessed it, coal. Coal chemistry is a currently underutilised field, but It will have to take off once oil starts to become scarce.

After all, if you have to choose between using fossils for chemistry and using fossils for heat, which do you choose?

Tatanka Marcussen
Gallente
Core Impulse
Posted - 2010.08.24 08:11:00 - [85]
 

Didn read the hole tread cuz im lazy.

But what if you could find something thats alot better then Nuclear and Coal?

The Ultimate Garbage Disposal

(theres some in us if i rememeber correctly on test basis)

Intense Thinker
Minmatar
Posted - 2010.08.24 08:54:00 - [86]
 

Originally by: Viktor Fyretracker
Originally by: Intense Thinker
I like clean nuclear power... look at Pripyat, no one there litters at all and it's all because of the nuclear plant Very Happy


And just think of the Turkeys they produce there, I hear that nobody has to fight over the drumsticks again even a family with more than two kids...... Patented Chernobyl "No Fight" Turkeys. Geese and Chickens available on demand, Ducks if we could get em to land.


We could use some Comp B or comp C-4 to blow the radiation up into the air... that'd probably get a few ducks Very Happy

Viktor Fyretracker
Caldari
Emminent Terraforming
O.G.-Alliance
Posted - 2010.08.24 19:03:00 - [87]
 

Originally by: Intense Thinker
Originally by: Viktor Fyretracker
Originally by: Intense Thinker
I like clean nuclear power... look at Pripyat, no one there litters at all and it's all because of the nuclear plant Very Happy


And just think of the Turkeys they produce there, I hear that nobody has to fight over the drumsticks again even a family with more than two kids...... Patented Chernobyl "No Fight" Turkeys. Geese and Chickens available on demand, Ducks if we could get em to land.


We could use some Comp B or comp C-4 to blow the radiation up into the air... that'd probably get a few ducks Very Happy


If the Duck started to glow green do you think it would be like a shooting star if it flew fast enough?

RFID
Gallente
Proposition Thirteen
Posted - 2010.08.24 19:08:00 - [88]
 

Originally by: ReaperOfSly
Nuclear obviously. It doesn't pollute, it generates a tremendous amount of energy, the problem of dealing with byproducts is dealt with by digging a deep enough hole, and it irritates eco-****s. What's not to like?


One way to deal with the waste is to put it back into the system. It's called a breader reactor, like most of those used in Europe. The only byproduct is weapons grade plutonium. What's not to like?

Lance Fighter
Amarr
Posted - 2010.08.24 19:09:00 - [89]
 

Unfortunatly, I'm currently poasting from my phone, so you won he recieving the long-winded reply you were probably hoping for Mara.

However

I will say that your random numbers are completely random. Many of he things you said seem to have no real basis in fact, and well, I'm having trouble believing the rest of them. With that said, I will say that I doubt we will run out of ALL of the fuel we currently know how to burn before we develop some other method of fuel.
Also, uranium is not the only thing that nuclear reactors will consume, and really, there are other ways we can make energy. While I agree that eventually we will run out of fuel, it should be mentioned that there will ALWAYS be electricity available to those who can pay for it, simply because of the mechanics o supply and demand.
With all that said, I fully support the construction of new nuclear reactors, as I still think they are considerably better than coal or oil reactors.

If you can pardon my horribad spelling on my phone, that is.

Intense Thinker
Minmatar
Posted - 2010.08.24 19:55:00 - [90]
 

Originally by: Viktor Fyretracker
Originally by: Intense Thinker
Originally by: Viktor Fyretracker
Originally by: Intense Thinker
I like clean nuclear power... look at Pripyat, no one there litters at all and it's all because of the nuclear plant Very Happy


And just think of the Turkeys they produce there, I hear that nobody has to fight over the drumsticks again even a family with more than two kids...... Patented Chernobyl "No Fight" Turkeys. Geese and Chickens available on demand, Ducks if we could get em to land.


We could use some Comp B or comp C-4 to blow the radiation up into the air... that'd probably get a few ducks Very Happy


If the Duck started to glow green do you think it would be like a shooting star if it flew fast enough?


If it got up really really high, otherwise it would look like a tracer round


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only