nuclear energy

[wellard]

nuclear energy

I have spent my whole life opposing this form of generating power but in the last five years or so I have been listening to some pretty convincing arguments that we should embrace this technology again. Oil as we know is running out, coal is causing too much damage to the environment but we still have vast stockpiles of it, old 1950's nuclear technology has caused immense health and logistical problems that still have not been addressed. So what direction do we go in and why?

[SpiritWarrior]

Clean/renewable energy. Solar, air hydro etc. can all match and improve on what we have now, and never run out. It can be stored in electricity or battery form. Always been a no-brainer IMO.

[Dragonshadow]

I'm with Spirit on the renewable energy.

[ElfBane]

Renewable AND nuclear. The problem with nuclear(at least in the US) is that the power plants aren't standardized, i.e., if you are trained to work at plant A, you can't easily transfer to plant B. That's because nuclear power is lightly(or not at all) regulated as far as standardization goes. This is because of naked, greedy Capitalism,,,,as it is practiced in the US. Profit first, safety last, and the public be damned.

For all the deluded Capitalists out there, here's the rule of thumb.....If the government has to bail your business out,,then the government reserves the right to regulate you.

[SecretMaster]

Go figure. The time an interesting discussion/potential debate occurs I'm a few hours before leaving on a small, four day vacation.

We are facing an energy crisis, and when I say that I don't mean high oil prices. It is aptly called an energy crisis because once fossil fuels become to costly to extract, we really are face with very limited options. It is something that needs to be addressed right now IMO, and the problem is it isn't.

My personal suspicion is that we did hit Peak Oil (Peak Oil Theory models state that global oil production would peak around 2005-2010). And if we haven't peaked in production yet, we are about to. Which means that the cost of oil will just keep rising and rising. Come 2040 or 2050 there is going to be a tremendous crisis on our hands when the entire oil market collapses.

Now nuclear is gaining a lot of momentum with many people because it is seen as a viable alternative to oil in terms of a new energy source. Ethanol has proven to be a bust, and Solar/Wind/Hydro right now need much more R&D to become a feasible option. There are a lot of nuclear advocates out there stating that we have enough nuclear fuel to last us for 200 hundred years and that it will power the world and blah blah blah blah.

I've had personal disputes with individuals on the lifespan of usable resources for nuclear fuel. From what I've read, at current consumption levels we have about 50-60 more years worth of uranium. Of course, that is with current consumption and if everyone made the jump to nuclear that number would sharply decline. You can extend (how long I don't know) the lifespan with Breeder Reactors which use other isotopes and "waste" materials but the cost to build these plants have been phenomenal, and it has been a major turnoff for most developers.

The other problem is with EROI (Energy Returned on Investment). We don't really know the EROI of nuclear, because it hasn't been widely studied and documented. However, the best studies and scenarios put the EROI of nuclear at 15:1, but the normal range I have seen is anywhere from 5:1 to 10:1. Fossil fuels have a much higher EROI (although it has been continuosly declining as we tap more and more oil). But again, the EROI of nuclear would also decline as we continue to use it.

Aside from the obvious nuclear waste which lasts thousands and thousands of year, nuclear also isn't as "green" as people make it out to be. The actual process of creating electricity via heating water through the heat given off by the reactor itself gives off little emissions. But people don't take into account that obtaining the uranium and refining it produces many many emissions of all sorts. You could make the same argument with oil & coal as well, but to say nuclear is "clean" is a little misleading IMO.

I'm not instantly dismissing nuclear as a power source. I think it will be used as a transition to a more viable energy source, potentially fusion (if it ever developes, which I hope it will) or maybe a switch to "alternative" renewable sources. But, what I listed above are just some of the major hurdles and problems that need to be addressed with nuclear.

[wellard]

Originally Posted by ElfBane For all the deluded Capitalists out there, here's the rule of thumb.....If the government has to bail your business out,,then the government reserves the right to regulate you.

Could not agree more ElfBane, but for the purpose of this discussion i will try not to get side tracked....

[SpiritWarrior]

I just don't see why the clean sources aren't a viable option. Yes, they need work to get them established correctly, there will be downtime, and money losses, but then there will be free, clean, continous and energy forever. And ever.

How are we not on this road yet? I mean, the conditions and climates of our own planet can provide us with a source of energy that is already running anyway but for the fact that we aren't converting it. The gains surely outweigh the losses. It would answer a huge part of the global warming issue, a huge part of the health hazard issue, and every part of the non-renewable energy issue. We could operate in a hybrid period as the changes get underway, then, like the casette tape and the CD, the older technology would simply phase out and become obsolete without anyone pushing it that way.

[wellard]

Originally Posted by SecretMaster My personal suspicion is that we did hit Peak Oil (Peak Oil Theory models state that global oil production would peak around 2005-2010). And if we haven't peaked in production yet, we are about to. Which means that the cost of oil will just keep rising and rising. Come 2040 or 2050 there is going to be a tremendous crisis on our hands when the entire oil market collapses.

First off, great post

Your post covers much ground and I will try and break it down for the purpose of discussion.

I agree that oil has reached peak oil (though many argue it has peaked several years ago) and the only way of offsetting this is to open up vast tracts of potential oil reserves like in Alaska and Antarctic. Are we prepared to do this, in fact can we stop people using this oil? If Australia 'owns' 70% of Antarctica who is going to stop us drilling there? I foresee, at least short term, nationalist self interest causing conflict between the haves and have not's. Example scenario - Japan in financial crisis due to no oil reserves, starts drilling in the Australian claimed area of Antarctica how can we stop them? It's a potentially ugly situation ....

Oh ... and enjoy your holiday

[wellard]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior I just don't see why the clean sources aren't a viable option. Yes, they need work to get them established correctly, there will be downtime, and money losses, but then there will be free, clean, continous and energy forever. And ever.

The problem is, and has been for decades, the costing, Spirit Warrior. People want this type of energy but the reliability and efficiency has always been overstated and is frankly way off the mark even now. Big business would be all over this like a rash if there was even a sniff of long term success but the truth is that until the cost of proven reliable coal powered central grid type power systems increases vastly then unfortunately it is a no go situation. ...... Unless there have been massive breakthrough's in technology that I have missed in the last year or so.

[Rikard T'Aranaxz]

fusion is the way to go