I guess solar energy is out of the question then?
Just a little story, I visited Nature & Youth (Norwegian: Natur og ungdom) in Norway with my physics class a year ago. They're an enviromental organisation, and gave us a lecture on the dangers of pollution, the imminent global warming, and other horrid news from our own nature. Then they went over to energy sources to replace the dirty sources like coal.
So I bring up nuclear power. The lecturer, a young woman, just looked at me for a while and said, "We won't even talk about nuclear power." So I gave her most of the arguments we have compiled here; clean, effective, and if proper care is taken, there are as good as no leakages of even the minor kind. She simply said that it's good on paper, but that "in reality, the dangers of dumping spent heavy materials outweigh the benefits".
What the fuck? Do you guys expect to live on "clean" energy when you complain whenever someone wants to build windmills along the coast or expand the water power in Norway? Take your pick; wildlife extinction and clean energy or wildlife preservation and nuclear energy. Jeez!
But as for disposing of nuclear waste (and there will be some, eventually); where and how? Someone else mentioned dumping it on the moon, and I sort of agree. Nothing lives there, and if dug far below the crust, chances are small any random rogue meteor might blast them in our directions. But of course, launching space craft with nuclear waste IS irresponsible...
... so how about a space elevator? Seriously though, where and how?
So I bring up nuclear power. The lecturer, a young woman, just looked at me for a while and said, "We won't even talk about nuclear power." So I gave her most of the arguments we have compiled here; clean, effective, and if proper care is taken, there are as good as no leakages of even the minor kind. She simply said that it's good on paper, but that "in reality, the dangers of dumping spent heavy materials outweigh the benefits".
What the fuck? Do you guys expect to live on "clean" energy when you complain whenever someone wants to build windmills along the coast or expand the water power in Norway? Take your pick; wildlife extinction and clean energy or wildlife preservation and nuclear energy. Jeez!
But as for disposing of nuclear waste (and there will be some, eventually); where and how? Someone else mentioned dumping it on the moon, and I sort of agree. Nothing lives there, and if dug far below the crust, chances are small any random rogue meteor might blast them in our directions. But of course, launching space craft with nuclear waste IS irresponsible...
... so how about a space elevator? Seriously though, where and how?
Nah, it's not a world government, it's a governing agency over power. I'd rather not have someone outside my country governing energy, though, then we have the same issues we have with oil.Sanjaya wrote:
Oh god, if you have an actual effective world governing power, the Christian fundamentalists are going to really flip out about that "end times" bullshit. You saw the hissy fit they threw about bar codes and the EU.ATG wrote:
This is why we need a REAL world wide governing power, that can regulate and distribute the power.
Cams right, there is no stopping nuclear power. It is the best, cleanest power there is.
Those who scream about global warming should be doing the most about making nuclear energy happen.
what if you dump so much toxic waste on the moon, its gonna be mad and refuse to come out at night? or grow arms and bitch slap the earth a few times. fuck im bored. spring break and no battle assembly...
Sorry I'm late to this thread. I have no idea what "electricity industry" you are in, but here in the states, there are plenty of clean options. One for example, which is becoming a big thing here in Wisconsin, is wind turbines. Another, is a small University in California built a power station, which supplies power to a pretty good size grid, running on waste from local restaurants. There are plenty alternatives. On another note, Nuclear power plants are by far the safest plants here in the states, yet they don't build them anymore. No one has ever died in the construction, or running of a Nuclear power plant in USA. They are making good strides as well dealing with the waste. Some places are now recycling that waste, and reusing it.CameronPoe wrote:
I work in the electricity industry. I can't see any alternative. Renewable energy is pretty much bullshit (apart from tidal maybe).liquidat0r wrote:
Who says they have to use nuclear power?
Last edited by psychotoxic187 (2007-04-16 17:52:28)
You overlook one small but incredibly significant fact: when the wind isn't blowing, there is no power. Supply must meet demand at all times, as such fossil fuel plants still need to be running at low output in case the wind backs off and during the periods of peak electricity demand (very hot: air conditioners switched on, very cold: heaters switched on) you generally have zero wind. As such wind power is nice but not a solution. The other alternatives of which you speak are small fry on the scale of what will be required to cater for our energy needs.psychotoxic187 wrote:
Sorry I'm late to this thread. I have no idea what "electricity industry" you are in, but here in the states, there are plenty of clean options. One for example, which is becoming a big thing here in Wisconsin, is wind turbines. Another, is a small University in California built a power station, which supplies power to a pretty good size grid, running on waste from local restaurants. There are plenty alternatives.CameronPoe wrote:
I work in the electricity industry. I can't see any alternative. Renewable energy is pretty much bullshit (apart from tidal maybe).liquidat0r wrote:
Who says they have to use nuclear power?
I like horror scenarios like: They try to shoot the radioactive waste into the sun, but before leaving the atmosphere the rocket explodes and we all gonna be mutants
But honestly: Where shall we put the waste ?
The time it radiates is a little longer and nobody wants radioactive waste in his garden.
But honestly: Where shall we put the waste ?
The time it radiates is a little longer and nobody wants radioactive waste in his garden.
Nucear energy for the win... no seriously. It was a huge political topic some time ago and with the Federal election coming soon at the end of the year I expect it to become 'big' again.
Now as for the disposal of the waste:
Australia has the largest reserves of Uranuim in the world. If we were smart and didn't listen to the native peoples of those lands (c'mon folks, you would get pretty fucking rich), we could make a bundle of cash from selling our Uranuim.
What else does Australia have? A great big fucking desert in the middle of it! All we have to do is charge a nice little fee to take the nuclear waste back...
Mcminty.
Now as for the disposal of the waste:
Australia has the largest reserves of Uranuim in the world. If we were smart and didn't listen to the native peoples of those lands (c'mon folks, you would get pretty fucking rich), we could make a bundle of cash from selling our Uranuim.
What else does Australia have? A great big fucking desert in the middle of it! All we have to do is charge a nice little fee to take the nuclear waste back...
Mcminty.
Most countries that need it have it. The ones that don't have it either don't need it or are happy to use the abundant fossil fuels that are still about.CameronPoe wrote:
...that every country in the world will need nuclear facilities in the future to satisfy their energy requirements?
Man that IAEA is gonna be busy...
Fossil fuels are exhaustible and consumption of electricity is increasing exponentially.RicardoBlanco wrote:
Most countries that need it have it. The ones that don't have it either don't need it or are happy to use the abundant fossil fuels that are still about.CameronPoe wrote:
...that every country in the world will need nuclear facilities in the future to satisfy their energy requirements?
Man that IAEA is gonna be busy...
exhaustible
adjective
1. capable of being used up [ant: inexhaustible]
2. capable of being used up; capable of being exhausted; "our exhaustible reserves of fossil fuel"
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-04-17 02:35:07)
Now now, that middle of the desert is important. Some of us can't afford a trip to Germany to find an speed-unlimited road.mcminty wrote:
Nucear energy for the win... no seriously. It was a huge political topic some time ago and with the Federal election coming soon at the end of the year I expect it to become 'big' again.
Now as for the disposal of the waste:
Australia has the largest reserves of Uranuim in the world. If we were smart and didn't listen to the native peoples of those lands (c'mon folks, you would get pretty fucking rich), we could make a bundle of cash from selling our Uranuim.
What else does Australia have? A great big fucking desert in the middle of it! All we have to do is charge a nice little fee to take the nuclear waste back...
Mcminty.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Yes but you said...CameronPoe wrote:
Fossil fuels are exhaustible and consumption of electricity is increasing exponentially.RicardoBlanco wrote:
Most countries that need it have it. The ones that don't have it either don't need it or are happy to use the abundant fossil fuels that are still about.CameronPoe wrote:
...that every country in the world will need nuclear facilities in the future to satisfy their energy requirements?
Man that IAEA is gonna be busy...
exhaustible
adjective
1. capable of being used up [ant: inexhaustible]
2. capable of being used up; capable of being exhausted; "our exhaustible reserves of fossil fuel"
Developed nations already have nuclear power and once we move to complete reliance on nuclear energy no doubt we'll sell it to other countries without the need for them to build their own. That's assuming nuclear power is the way of the future, I'm still convinced there are other means of providing energy and more importantly, being more efficient in the way we use it. There won't be a nuclear power station in the Congo anytime soon.CameronPoe wrote:
...that every country in the world will need nuclear facilities in the future to satisfy their energy requirements
You point on fossil fuels being exhaustable is obvious and redundant seeing as nuclear fuel is also exhaustable. We have shit loads of fossil fuels left; plenty enough to last until we think of other ways to produce energy.
No it isn't. Nuclear fuel isn't going to run out.RicardoBlanco wrote:
You point on fossil fuels being exhaustable is obvious and redundant seeing as nuclear fuel is also exhaustable. We have shit loads of fossil fuels left; plenty enough to last until we think of other ways to produce energy.
Especially if we do move to fusion power at any time in the next 100 years (though effective startup and containment of fusion reactions is still way too inefficient for power production (more power used to start the reaction and contain it than is gained from it - it'll probably stay that way for a long time)). Heavy water can be found in the sea, we have plenty of sea and you need very little Deuterium (which can then be refined into Tritium if needed). Optimistically, this is what we will switch to before fossil fuels run out.
Uranium is also quite an abundant resource and pretty much any nuclear fuel can be made from uranium. It is used at a much slower rate in power production than fossil fuels are too, so it lasts a long time.
Ive been thinking this for atleast 5-6 years now, we cant continue to use fossil fuels forever, and nuclear is the only other option atm. I think tidal has huge potential in a decade or so. Eg. Im sure the tidal power of the Thames could be harnessed to power London.
Yes it is. Uranium is the fuel used to produce nuclear energy. Are you suggesting there are infinite amounts of it on the planet?Bertster7 wrote:
No it isn't. Nuclear fuel isn't going to run out. Uranium is also quite an abundant resource and pretty much any nuclear fuel can be made from uranium. It is used at a much slower rate in power production than fossil fuels are too, so it lasts a long time.RicardoBlanco wrote:
You point on fossil fuels being exhaustable is obvious and redundant seeing as nuclear fuel is also exhaustable. We have shit loads of fossil fuels left; plenty enough to last until we think of other ways to produce energy.
Like I said, uraniaum is exhaustable just like fossil fuels.
Tidal power form the Thames would not be enough to power London. Not even close.Vilham wrote:
Im sure the tidal power of the Thames could be harnessed to power London.
Bertster mentioned uranium as one example of a nuclear fuel... it's undoubtedly true that Natural Uranium is exhaustible, but there are already indications that supplies can be extended infinitely through techs like breeder reactors which promise to produce more fissile material than they consume. But the practicality of those devices is definitely up for debate.RicardoBlanco wrote:
Yes it is. Uranium is the fuel used to produce nuclear energy. Are you suggesting there are infinite amounts of it on the planet?Bertster7 wrote:
No it isn't. Nuclear fuel isn't going to run out. Uranium is also quite an abundant resource and pretty much any nuclear fuel can be made from uranium. It is used at a much slower rate in power production than fossil fuels are too, so it lasts a long time.RicardoBlanco wrote:
You point on fossil fuels being exhaustable is obvious and redundant seeing as nuclear fuel is also exhaustable. We have shit loads of fossil fuels left; plenty enough to last until we think of other ways to produce energy.
Like I said, uraniaum is exhaustable just like fossil fuels.
Better wording might be that nuclear fuel is a potentially renewable resource.
You're of course correct: uranium is exhaustible. But fossil fuels are in far greater peril and we don't need them just for energy - they are used in synthetics and plastics. I can't imagine an eternity beyond 2100 without anything made of plastic or where only billionaires can buy things made of plastic. The amount of energy we can garner from nuclear sources gives us several hundred (thousand maybe) years to sort out finding a real and practical source of renewable energy.RicardoBlanco wrote:
Yes it is. Uranium is the fuel used to produce nuclear energy. Are you suggesting there are infinite amounts of it on the planet?Bertster7 wrote:
No it isn't. Nuclear fuel isn't going to run out. Uranium is also quite an abundant resource and pretty much any nuclear fuel can be made from uranium. It is used at a much slower rate in power production than fossil fuels are too, so it lasts a long time.RicardoBlanco wrote:
You point on fossil fuels being exhaustable is obvious and redundant seeing as nuclear fuel is also exhaustable. We have shit loads of fossil fuels left; plenty enough to last until we think of other ways to produce energy.
Like I said, uraniaum is exhaustable just like fossil fuels.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-04-17 16:27:31)
Not to mention that when waste disposal is handled properly, nuclear power plants are far better for the environment than fossil fuel plants.CameronPoe wrote:
You're of course correct: uranium is exhaustible. But fossil fuels are in far greater peril and we don't need them just for energy - they are used in synthetics and plastics. I can't imagine an eternity beyond 2100 without anything made of plastic or where only billionaires can buy things made of plastic. The amount of energy we can garner from nuclear sources gives us several hundred (thousand maybe) years to sort out finding a real and practical source of renewable energy.RicardoBlanco wrote:
Yes it is. Uranium is the fuel used to produce nuclear energy. Are you suggesting there are infinite amounts of it on the planet?Bertster7 wrote:
No it isn't. Nuclear fuel isn't going to run out. Uranium is also quite an abundant resource and pretty much any nuclear fuel can be made from uranium. It is used at a much slower rate in power production than fossil fuels are too, so it lasts a long time.
Like I said, uraniaum is exhaustable just like fossil fuels.
I'd prefer wind or geothermal or hydroelectric or solar over nuclear, but if nuclear power was regulated well then I'd have no problem with it.