nuclear energy

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by Iron Greasel There is quite a lot of money to be had in selling functional solar power. There's a lot of money to be had in selling cars, and those are at least supposed to keep working for a long time. Good wristwatches really do function indefinitely with very little maintenance, but it's still a viable business strategy to make them.

But why do people keep suggesting this? The money to be had selling solar power doesn't compare to the money they are getting now so it's a no-brainer for them to stick with what they have.

My friend has a solar-powered water heater on his house. It cost him a one-time payment (few hundred) to set up and now he doesn't pay for hot water anymore. The thing has already paid for itself a few times, I would call that a loss to the electricity and gas companies.

[Carson Drayke]

This discussion seems kind of jumbled. There are large corporations involved in the oil industry and the power industry, but they are not the same and don't have the same lobby. The power industry has a significant interest in things like electric cars, since they'd be supplying the electricity. They have no reason to lobby for oil interests. Coal, oil, and natural gas are resources they have to buy, so they want to keep prices low for all of these. They can be active in personal solar power and wind power, or not, depending on whether they have a stake as seller/installer and whether there's governmental pressure to push this.

Large wind farms and solar colletor arrays are possible, and the technology has been steadily advancing, but the cost is still nowhere close to cheap, available coal. That's where their lobby comes in. Power companies will push against environmental regulations that force them to add massive equipment for emissions control. Ultimately, they'll pass the cost of this equipment to consumers, but obviously not without resentment from their customers, who are often the same ones who are pushing for stricter regulations.

It's unreasonable to say that because we can build amazing computers we can build something that will give us free unlimited energy, in the same respect that all the old "We can send a man to the moon, but we can't ___" arguments show faulty logic. Solar and wind power on a large scale will never be free, since the units and the network to distribute the electricity will always require significant upkeep. By nature, these plants will be spread out over large areas of largely unoccupied territory. Tens of thousands of these units will require a widespread labor force to operate and maintain.

Personally, I'm all for pushing this direction, I just hate to hear it oversimplified how gargantuan of an undertaking this is. There are significant pushes within the power industry to find a way to make this work but it will take a huge turnabout in our thinking and our legislation to implement it. Also, there are uses of coal that are very clean, but also currently prohibitively expensive. It's likely that we would still be using coal for a large portion of our power in the future, just in a different form.

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by Carson Drayke This discussion seems kind of jumbled. There are large corporations involved in the oil industry and the power industry, but they are not the same and don't have the same lobby. The power industry has a significant interest in things like electric cars, since they'd be supplying the electricity. They have no reason to lobby for oil interests. Coal, oil, and natural gas are resources they have to buy, so they want to keep prices low for all of these. They can be active in personal solar power and wind power, or not, depending on whether they have a stake as seller/installer and whether there's governmental pressure to push this. Large wind farms and solar colletor arrays are possible, and the technology has been steadily advancing, but the cost is still nowhere close to cheap, available coal. That's where their lobby comes in. Power companies will push against environmental regulations that force them to add massive equipment for emissions control. Ultimately, they'll pass the cost of this equipment to consumers, but obviously not without resentment from their customers, who are often the same ones who are pushing for stricter regulations. It's unreasonable to say that because we can build amazing computers we can build something that will give us free unlimited energy, in the same respect that all the old "We can send a man to the moon, but we can't ___" arguments show faulty logic. Solar and wind power on a large scale will never be free, since the units and the network to distribute the electricity will always require significant upkeep. By nature, these plants will be spread out over large areas of largely unoccupied territory. Tens of thousands of these units will require a widespread labor force to operate and maintain. Personally, I'm all for pushing this direction, I just hate to hear it oversimplified how gargantuan of an undertaking this is. There are significant pushes within the power industry to find a way to make this work but it will take a huge turnabout in our thinking and our legislation to implement it. Also, there are uses of coal that are very clean, but also currently prohibitively expensive. It's likely that we would still be using coal for a large portion of our power in the future, just in a different form.

You make some apt observations but bear in mind the simplification of the tasks need is not indicitive of the magnitude of these tasks. I am simply repeating myself and perhaps making it sound like a very small, simple step. No, I have acknowledged it will require a revamp, but in the same thought I also recall how technology trickles in and eventually mushrooms given time and success. One of my points is that the trickle seems to have been stopped by lobbying and special interests.

The cost argument isn't really a viable one IMO. I see the initial costs as paying for themselves. You may invest a large amount but when the thing is up and running, it starts to repay you. I would play down the notion that the technology would require "significant upkeep" by comparing it to what they pay coal miners atm. The maintaneance of a self automated machine is alot less than paying someone per hour + benefits. Example, why pay someone to cold call 6000 phone numbers a day when you can buy a machine that does it for perhaps the price of employee paychecks? Sure, you'd have to dig out the money for an "advance" but in two weeks time you simply gotta make sure your machine is working every so often.

I think it is unreasonable and frankly naive to assume because we can make strides in other technological areas, that we cannot make strides in here. With every other technological advancement we have made the same pattern is consistent (lightbulbs, telephones, photography, craft flight) is this so different? It's not like we're just beginning to experiment with it, we know well how it works at this stage. It is far from new and shiny but for some odd reason people want to see it gather cobwebs. So to me, something doesn't add up. My rational assessment is suppression, with sufficient reasoning to suggest this.

[thecarrotdude]

My opinion is that nuclear energy is the way to go. It is extremely safe, I think our worst disaster was 3 mile island, and no one died. Nuclear plants, contrary to popular belief, wont explode like nuclear bombs. The waste produced can be treated and safely stored. Nuclear fission produces NO green house gases.

The worst nuclear incident was Chernobyl where only 31 deaths occurred.
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/nuclear.htm
this site has more about this stuff.

I didn't bother reading many of the previous posts so I may have repeated something.

Someone mentioned something about fusion earlier - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER
http://www.iter.org/a/pictures_html/...ttom-large.jpg this is a picture of it
they're building some gigantic thing in france that does some thing with fusion

Originally Posted by thecarrotdude My opinion is that nuclear energy is the way to go. It is extremely safe, I think our worst disaster was 3 mile island, and no one died. Nuclear plants, contrary to popular belief, wont explode like nuclear bombs. The waste produced can be treated and safely stored. Nuclear fission produces NO green house gases. The worst nuclear incident was Chernobyl where only 31 deaths occurred. http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/nuclear.htm this site has more about this stuff. I didn't bother reading many of the previous posts so I may have repeated something. Someone mentioned something about fusion earlier - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER http://www.iter.org/a/pictures_html/...ttom-large.jpg this is a picture of it they're building some gigantic thing in france that does some thing with fusion

As I said earlier, nuclear energy should be a transition energy source. There are greenhouse gases associated with nuclear, and the energy gains on nuclear aren't too stellar.

As for the whole solar discussion... the problem is right now it isn't feasible in any way to power the earth via solar. Solar powering calculator is one thing, but powering cities and the vast majority of human civilization is another. The main limitation with solar is that you need a whole heck of a lot of land to produce not that much power. The other limitation is that solar panels, mainly photovoltaics, use a lot of rare/expensive materials. We simply don't have the resources to make solar power plants en masse for the future. Again, I'm all for more R&D, and hopefully it will yield something.

I would also like to direct people to this little graph that one of my professors devised. His name is Charles Hall and he is one of the leading energy experts/scientists in the world today.

http://www.theoildrum.com/files/ch_balloon_tod.png

I think this perfectly shows the predicament we are in. Regardless of what people want to believe, as of right now if fossil fuels were to collapse we wouldn't have the ability to produce enough energy in the U.S. Hell if oil alone were to collapse we wouldn't last very long with coal and natural gas. The fact that the U.S. alone uses more energy than all the total photosnythesis occuring on this planet today should start ringing some bells in the heads of our leaders...

Here is the other caveat that comes with 'alternative' sources. One of the main reasons why oil is so attractive and wonderful for our civilization is that it is a stored energy source that is transportable/usable in liquid form. The majority of our oil consumption is used for transportation. There really is no other fuel that can be used as a replacement. Which means that if we make a switch off of oil, we have to develop a whole new set of battery technologies and a more efficient power grid for our cars. I think that is one of the huge things that people frequent miss when discussing about turning away from oil.

[SpiritWarrior]

But I am also talking Hydro, Wind power too atop the Solar options. Our planet could power itself as it is designed to do in nature. These three could easily be a viable replacement for our energy sources now. The countless days that go by could be used right now to charge batteries from the wind, water and sun that are present every day. I mean if we already know cars can run on air when equipped with a converter, with gas prices as they are why are we not all doing it yet? The answer isn't that hard to come to.

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior But I am also talking Hydro, Wind power too atop the Solar options. Our planet could power itself as it is designed to do in nature. These three could easily be a viable replacement for our energy sources now. The countless days that go by could be used right now to charge batteries from the wind, water and sun that are present every day. I mean if we already know cars can run on air when equipped with a converter, with gas prices as they are why are we not all doing it yet? The answer isn't that hard to come to.

Ahh but the key prhase right there is "as it is designed to do in nature".

And I would argue that we have far surpassed what is "designed to do in nature." Just look at the chart I linked. Humans consuming more energy than all the plant life creates is extremely out of 'normal boundaries'. We are certainly not a sustainable society. It would be impossible to be sustainable with our current population levels. Hell, a case study was done on Costa Rica (which is an extremely viable and attractive candidate to develop sustainability) and it was shown that it cannot be sustainable with its current consumption and population.

Again, there may be some wonderful breakthrough in technology that allows us to harness renewable energy with huge gains, but I am doubtful. I hate to be all doom and gloom, as I myself am an optimistic individual, but the reality is very much different. When the oil market finally collapses, which models say circa 2040-2050, it is going to be one hell of a thing to live through. Of course, if it happens at all. I'll be the first to say that everything we know could be entirely wrong; its happened before. But so far the models have been pretty on track and accurate. But if it does happen, things will be very very different.

But then again, this is why I'm an Environmental Biology major with a minor is Energy and Energy Management. What we are talking about right now is what I want to address and tackle in my life. Maybe I'll save the entire planet...

[SpiritWarrior]

Maybe i'll join you.

I dunno, I see no other result than natural, renewable energy. I think it is inevitable. In the meantime man seems to want to experiment with his own flawed creations that damage the planet he lives on. I feel like we erred big time. Even ancient civilizations utilized natural, clean energy sources...where did we go wrong you ask? Money is where. But, like I said I think it is inevitable, just waiting around for our race to get their shit together and realize there are energy sources that have always been there for us and that they don't destroy the planet and poison our kids in the process.

[Rikard T'Aranaxz]

Originally Posted by SecretMaster As I said earlier, nuclear energy should be a transition energy source. There are greenhouse gases associated with nuclear, and the energy gains on nuclear aren't too stellar.

What greenhouse gasses? I cant think of a way how that would happen with nuclear decay

Originally Posted by Rikard T'Aranaxz What greenhouse gasses? I cant think of a way how that would happen with nuclear decay

The process of boiling water to spin turbines (creating electricity) which uses the heat from a nuclear reaction itself does not create any greenhouse gases. But that is only looking at one slice of the picture. Extraction and refinement and enrichment of the ores we use create tremendous greenhouse gases and have huge costs to the environment. But again, its a two-way street with other energy sources as well. You could make the same argument for oil, but from what I've heard/read treating uranium and enriching it is much more environmentally damaging than refining crude oil.