BF2S Forums How come no Canidate is discussing this? (nuclear power)

Locoloki wrote:

Spark wrote:

Locoloki wrote:

yeah, your right, i forget the wires would collapse under their own weight

Plus you'd probably lose most of the current along the way.

its only 62 miles i dont know how much it would lose...

I don't know what world you are living in, but for that to work, you need geosynchronous orbit. 

Wikipedia wrote:

Every satellite in geosynchronous orbit has an average altitude of about 35,780 km (about 22,233 miles).

22,233 miles.

Dilbert_X wrote:

The nuclear waste problem is a long way from being solved.
Deep ocean subduction zones?

I personally have no problem with nuclear power. We have several million square miles of desert in the middle of Australia. Use it.

Nuclear power needs large amounts of water for the thermal energy cycle. They really need to be on the coast within useful transmission range of the actual user.

The problem is greatly reduced now that the dangerous isotopes can be eliminated quickly.  Most nuclear waste decays with a half-life of less than about 50 years or so.  That is certainly manageable.  And with the lack of greenhouse emissions, I don't see how this is a bad option.  The energy demand in western nations will only increase, and the simple fact is that fossil fuels and wind/solar simply cannot keep up.

PureFodder wrote:

I always wondered why NMR's lost the N when they got moved into hospitals. It that's true then my opinion of the world has just decreases a little further.

It's true.  Pretty damn pathetic, I think.  Nuclear is the scientific "N" word to the lay-person.

Last edited by SenorToenails (2008-02-07 01:32:45)

David.P wrote:

Nuclear waste. It takes eons for it to decay, And if we went solely nuclear where would we bury it?

In space aboard newly-developed economy shuttles, if we weren't already dumping so much money into the Middle East.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-02-07 06:06:37)

Liberal-Sl@yer wrote:

Were the fuck is the disscusion on nuclear power to eliminate pollution from fossil fuels? I mean it's sitting right there but everyone is fucking blind to it! I just don't get why we arn't building reactors. I mean we have made serious advancements in that area.

Topic too hot to handle?


I think it because the candidates don't want to battle on global warming issues.

I think its ether this year on in 2012/? That CERN in EU fire up there massive "anti-matter reactor" the next step up from nuke I belive.

xRBLx wrote:

I think its ether this year on in 2012/? That CERN in EU fire up there massive "anti-matter reactor" the next step up from nuke I belive.

It ain't a reactor... Doubt we even have the tech to harness the power of anti-matter.

and to the shooting it to the sun idea... What if the rocket blows up? GG

mtb0minime wrote:

If I'm not mistaken, Japan has lots of nuclear reactors, right? They're a bunch of small ones though. We won't have a Chernobyl or 3-Mile Island if we build small reactors; have a couple for every major city. And as for the waste, I think it'd be better to have just a little area of nuclear waste in the middle of the desert than polluting the entire atmosphere and causing everyone problems.

The size of the reactor has very little to do with the potential for a Three-Mile Island or Chernobyl.  With modern reactors, another Chernobyl is quite literally impossible.

Deadmonkiefart wrote:

I think we should be building solar panels and wind generators.

Wow, I'm sorry but thats fucking ignorant. Wind and solar do not work on a large scale.

From the limited information I have read regarding nuclear power, it isn't really just environmental groups that are stopping us from building nuclear power plants, it is a combination of a few different reasons.

Here is an interesting study done by a number of professors at MIT in backgrounds including Chemistry, Engineering, Institutional Policy, Energy, etc.  Granted, the report was released about 5 years ago, but still an interesting study and brings up thoughtful points.  The study was conducted to possibly see what developments in nuclear energy policy could (should) happen in the next 50 years, not to address the continuing progress of the science behind it.  Among the conclusions they came up with regarding nuclear energy:

• Cost. In deregulated markets, nuclear power is not now cost competitive with coal and natural gas.However, plausible reductions by industry in capital cost, operation and maintenance costs, and construction time could reduce the gap. Carbon emission credits, if enacted by government, can give nuclear power a cost advantage.
• Safety. Modern reactor designs can achieve a very low risk of serious accidents, but “best practices” in construction and operation are essential.We know little about the safety of the overall fuel cycle, beyond reactor operation.
• Waste. Geological disposal is technically feasible but execution is yet to be demonstrated or certain. A convincing case has not been made that the long-term waste management benefits of advanced, closed fuel cycles involving reprocessing of spent fuel are outweighed by the short-term risks and costs. Improvement in the open, once through fuel cycle may offer waste management benefits as large as those claimed for the more expensive closed fuel cycles.
• Proliferation. The current international safeguards regime is inadequate to meet the security challenges of the expanded nuclear deployment contemplated in the global growth scenario. The reprocessing system now used in Europe, Japan, and Russia that involves separation and recycling of plutonium presents unwarranted proliferation risks.

Here are their recommendations for addressing the above-mentioned problems:

• We support the Department of Energy (DOE) 2010 initiative to reduce costs through new design certification, site banking, and combined construction and operation licenses.
• The government should also share “first mover” costs for a limited number of power plants that represent safety-enhancing evolutionaryreactor design.We propose a production tax credit for up to $200/kWe of the plant’s construction cost. This mechanism creates a strong incentive to complete and operate the plant and the mechanism is extendable to other carbon-free technologies. The government actions we recommendaim to challenge the industry to demonstrate the cost reductions claimed for new reactor construction, with industry assuming the risks and benefits beyond first- mover costs.
• Federal or state portfolio standards should include incremental nuclear power capacity as a carbon free source.
• The DOE should broaden its long-term waste R&D program, to include improved engineered barriers, investigation of alternative geological environments, and deep bore hole disposal. A system of central facilities to store spent fuel for many decades prior to geologic disposal should be an integral part of the waste management strategy. The U.S. should encourage greater harmonization of international standards and regulations for waste transportation, storage, and disposal.
• The International Atomic Energy Agency should have authority to inspect all suspect facilities (implement the Additional Protocol) and should develop a worldwide system for materials protection, control, and accountability that goes beyond accounting, reporting, and periodic inspections. The U.S. should monitor and influence developments in a broad range of enrichment technologies.
• The DOE R&D program should be realigned to focus on the open, once-through fuel cycle. It should also conduct an international uranium  resource assessment; establish a large nuclear system analysis, modeling, and simulation project, including collection of engineering data, to assess alternative nuclear fuel cycle deployments relative to the four critical challenges; and halt development and demonstration of advanced fuel cycles or reactors until the results of the nuclear system analysis project are available.

I found it interesting that this MIT study places great emphasis on a once-through fuel cycle, especially to combat possible weaponization scenarios.  That is a viewpoint not echoed by the Federation of American Scientists, who recommend continued reprocessing as a means of cutting down on the possible environmental concerns.  It is an interesting contrast, given FAS' fundamental opposition to nuclear weapons proliferation.  Here is a nice little sequence of the idea they (FAS) advocate, in adolescent comprehension form:



http://www.fas.org/ssp/fc/

Now this post is strictly based off the policy/infrastructure decisions of why it may not be discussed, not sociological or political concerns.  Don't forget that incredible amount of opposition comes from those who have vested interests in the status quo (traditional power companies, mining companies, etc).

PS - I have not been sitting on this information, waiting for this post.  I saw this topic last night and decided to look into the very relevant question (in my opinion) of why nuclear power is not more prevalent.  This is just a small amount of information I found and am still reading.  I recommend doing that (looking up the available information) before mindlessly posting the reasons why no candidate talks about it.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2008-02-07 12:20:01)

Because your long term foreign policy is to fleece the oil out of the middle east under the guise of nation building. Don't need nukes.

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

None of this addresses the vast amounts of water required.  Just ask the folks in the souther US about that.  They have had to reduce or shut down nuclear plants because the severe drought has created problems with the vast amounts of water needed for steam creation, and cooling.  That means the only place such plants could be built with a guaranteed supply of water is along the coast, but then you may need to add desalination of water to the cost.

Water is used in many already existing power plants - steam or vapor turbines to release energy.  I happened across this link that discusses a possiblity of using nuclear power to increase hydrogen production as an alternative means of energy but also as a desalination process.

The technology of coupling nuclear energy and desalination plants already has taken hold in Japan and Kazakhstan, where commercial facilities have been operating since the 1970s. India is among countries seeking to expand the base of national and international experience through a demonstration plant it is building at Kalpakkam in the southeast of the country.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2008-02-07 12:45:59)