Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Still amazes me how Chernobyl is used as an example for why NOT to have nuclear. That was decades ago and as has been stated and can also be Googled the tech we have is a lot better; safer; cleaner and generally more stable.

FFS there exist submarines that run off nuclear. Not in my time of being alive have I heard of any nuclear subs going well..Chernobyl and killing everyone on board and poisoning the ocean for miles around.

A larger reactor would in theory be safer as it's easier to build sufficient cooling. I'm all for nuclear power. Way less harmful than coal.

Actually smaller reactors are safer as they can cool themselves by natural convection without requiring a lot of ancillary plant.

dogma wrote:After all, we may simply fall through the planet, and give birth to a new universe.

...we could be gods!

Nuclear is one of the better options as far as power generation goes at the moment.

Geothermal could be a good method of power production as well, especially at a local domestic level and nationally in areas where the underlying rock structure is suitable.

Until we get fusion going properly though, I think we will always have a problem with energy supply and pollution, whether nuclear or the more traditional coal and gas, or the increasing sight and sound pollution from wind/tide/etc.

I also don't want to go into biofuels and how some of them compete directly for resources required to feed ourselves etc.

Bring on the microcellular fuel production power of algae etc!

If we invent fusion then nuclear power plants would be more secure.And plasma engines(they already exist 40 years)will be much more faster.

Fateweaver wrote:Still amazes me how Chernobyl is used as an example for why NOT to have nuclear. That was decades ago and as has been stated and can also be Googled the tech we have is a lot better; safer; cleaner and generally more stable.

FFS there exist submarines that run off nuclear. Not in my time of being alive have I heard of any nuclear subs going well..Chernobyl and killing everyone on board and poisoning the ocean for miles around.

A larger reactor would in theory be safer as it's easier to build sufficient cooling. I'm all for nuclear power. Way less harmful than coal.

Chernobyl didn't even have good stuff then. They decided to experiment with cooling or something like that then it all went wrong from there.

I think it's currently the only viable alternative to coal and gas generation.


Wind power is a bad joke IMO, and I speak from experience! I'm sitting at an Energy Trading desk today on the coldest day so far this winter (-1C) with about a 2GW shortfall in my position due to the crappy performance of old thermal units. Of an installed 500MW of Wind power, I'm currently getting around 50MW. Why? Well as usual when it's cold here, we're sitting in an area of low pressure, so there's no wind.
end

Now Hydro and pumped storage, IMO they're the way to go. Unfortunately they also cause environmental damage but as with everything, there's a trade off to be made for the lights coming on when you flick the switch.

Tidal power for smaller countries like the UK, who have a lot of coastline and high tides.

Geothermal can be built as local schemes like taking heat from car parks.

It should be possible to drill down a couple of thousand metres nearly anywhere and get a useful temperature gradient.

It's much easier in places like Iceland where boiling water reaches the surface.

I don't know why Japan doesn't use geothermal power.

Fateweaver wrote:Still amazes me how Chernobyl is used as an example for why NOT to have nuclear. That was decades ago and as has been stated and can also be Googled the tech we have is a lot better; safer; cleaner and generally more stable.

FFS there exist submarines that run off nuclear. Not in my time of being alive have I heard of any nuclear subs going well..Chernobyl and killing everyone on board and poisoning the ocean for miles around.

A larger reactor would in theory be safer as it's easier to build sufficient cooling. I'm all for nuclear power. Way less harmful than coal.

The K-219, a Soviet Yankee class (Project 667A) nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine armed with 16 SS-N-6 missiles (two warheads each) and probably also two nuclear torpedoes, sank 600 miles northeast of Bermuda. It was powered by two nuclear reactors and 34 nuclear warheads were estimated to be on board.

The K-278 Komsomolets, the Soviet Mike class (Project 685) nuclear-powered attack submarine, sank off northern Norway following on board fires and explosions. The submarine was powered by one nuclear reactor and carried two nuclear torpedoes.

So accidents happen.
Im not bothered either way but I am all for Hydro power

Actually, in terms of global deaths, hydro has more direct deaths (deaths caused by either direct killings or by environmental damages [eg, cancer or other ailments]) on its hands than any other (except for maybe coal), due to the occasional dam bursting. ( 171,000 people died due to this one alone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam ) [sorry for wikipedia citation, but it does cite sources itself.]
compared to what, a few hundred plus a few thousand cancer victims for all nuclear disasters in total? I'd be more worried about a hydro electric dam than a nuclear power plant. when those things go, they go along with the next 100+ KM downstream.

on another note:
Coal produces more nuclear waste due to impurities and kills tens of thousands per year due to similar reasons (smoke inhilation and air impurities), and also produces tons of solid coal waste which is VERY toxic indeed. the only saving grace is that that stuff is no where near as radioactive as the stuff nuclear reactors produce. However, the stuff that nuclear reactors produce can also be used for medical isotopes, wheras coal plants release their nuclear waste (and other nasty stuff, IE, asbestos) directly into the atmosphere. Seriously you guys, ditch coal, get nuclear (I wish I had a lolcat for that). And then get fusion, since that's going to be possible very soon. and passive safety features can't be beat.

CaptainCommunsism wrote:compared to what, a few hundred plus a few thousand cancer victims for all nuclear disasters in total?

About 4,500 total (not counting the Japanese bombings, obviously). Less than coal mining, less than flooding due to hydroelectric, less than coal pollution.


How things should go down: Build geothermal in spots where ground heat is close to the surface, build hydroelectric near easily damable rivers, build wind on top mountains and stuff (maybe... wind's not very energy dense), build tidal in coves and stuff (where tides are high). Anywhere where it's economical to build these plants, you might as well. This isn't going to cover everything though, not without wasting a ton of money.

Next, build nuclear plants near large cities, and other areas where there's a huge power requirement. Then finish off with coal plants in places where nothing else is viable.

Solar doesn't get plants, except for some places that are so far away from other plants they can't use a better source. What solar does get is roof tiles and things along those lines, when it's economical to do get them in place (and save money on the building's utilities - primarily water heating).

How to do this? I'm not sure. Stop harassing nuclear plants for petty things and start taxing plants more heavily for their pollution?

However if you divide the deaths from cancer by the megawatts produced, nuclear power is over 27,000 times more dangerous than coal.

Bah, everything causes cancer. Apparently diet sodas (or anything with Nutrisweet causes cancer). The body itself causes cancer.

I've never really understood the waste argument for denying nuclear power. The mines where we get nuclear fuel are not safe. Typically nothing lives in them. Why can't we just put the stuff back when we're finished with it? It's not like we don't live on a multi trillion tonne ball of dirt and metal. We have the technology to put this crap so far underground that satan will wonder what the cubes are on his lawn. There are much bigger problems inherent with trying to go green at the moment, an equivalent number of solar panels will generate such an unequal amount of waste to a nuclear plant that it's honestly not even worth talking about. Same with wind turbines.

Nuclear power plants are the greenest method of producing power en masse we as a species have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:However if you divide the deaths from cancer by the megawatts produced, nuclear power is over 27,000 times more dangerous than coal.

That number can't possibly account for coal mine related sickness and death, black lung in china alone should account for enough to tip the balances.

r3n3g8b0y wrote:

youbedead wrote:

r3n3g8b0y wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Ketara wrote:I think Red Mage is the best character ever.

Fixed.

Stop fixing everything orkeo!

Also it's dangerous as feth and this planet can't handle any more excess waste!

in what way re they more dangerous then coal and how do they produce excess waste

First off i know where you're goin with this, and im well aware off the fact that coal produces way more co2 but what happens if a coal plant feths up? It burns down...yay!What happens to a nuclear plant?BBBBBBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMM!!! and you can't live in an area of 400km around the plant for the next 40 years happened before, will happen again! Excess waste? You're not European, that' s why can't know about the Castor Trains that drive around Europe 24/7!Their load?Tonnes and tonnes of atomic waste...no excess waste, sure!





THINK CHERNOBYL PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Q. Can a nuclear plant blow up like a bomb?

A. No. A bomb converts a large part of its U-235 or plutonium into fission fragments in about 10^-8 seconds and then flies apart. This depends on the fact that a bomb is a very compact object, so the neutrons don't have far to go to hit another fissionable atom. A power plant is much too big to convert an important part of its fissionable material before it has generated enough heat to fly apart. This fact is based on the fundamental physics of how fast fission neutrons travel. Therefore, it doesn't depend on the particular design of the plant."

i'm all for nuclear power and i'm a kiwi. Everyone over here acts like were so eco freindly because we don't use nuclear power when half of the power we produce is fossil fuels.

To be honest, I think my state only runs on hydroelectricity because we have so many fething rivers.

Hydro Still has my vote
Learn to swim and we need a bit of natural ( drown ) selection ..

Paraguay stopped running on hydro for about 15 minutes yesterday.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8355294.stm


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:However if you divide the deaths from cancer by the megawatts produced, nuclear power is over 27,000 times more dangerous than coal.

That number can't possibly account for coal mine related sickness and death, black lung in china alone should account for enough to tip the balances.

I made up that statistic. I have no idea at all about the relative death rates from coal mining and uranium mining. I was just fed up with people pulling figures out of the air to justify a position.

And I would have got away with it except for you damn kids!

Ah the nuclear debate. The one where everyone who watches movies thinks is the worst thing ever, and most engineers (me included, electrical), realize though that its not the ultimate solution, its a hell of a lot better than our other current generation concepts. Lets break it down simply:

Wind Power: Very small efficiencies, very low output, high maintenance, high cost, high startup, and not self-sustaining. Renewable, if fickle.

Hyrdro Power: Decent efficiency, naturally obstructive, high loss, but high output. Not technically renewable, and very unstable. Very expensive, very high risk, not universal.

Tidal Power: Excellent source, excellent efficiency, excellent output, entirely renewable, extreme high cost, extreme high risk, extreme maintenance, extremely unstable. (note, though it seems dangerous, that is with current tech. In the future, I see this becoming a mainstay)

Solar: The only 100% renewable source, currently low efficiency and low output though. Cost is averaging out, but application is near universal. Can only operate during the day, in good conditions, so it will always have to be augmented. Near-future developments will make solar ubiquitous for auxiliary power needs, and almost perfect for developing countries and area in open, arid environments.

Fossil: Guaranteed manufactured power source, obvious consequences of pollution, discovery, and supply. Not renewable. Technology can only take us so far in making it efficient.

Nuclear: High output, high efficiency, high universality, not renewable but more sustainable, expensive start up, cheap operation. With modern technology and strict adherance to design regulations, Nuclear is an extremely viable source before technology catches up with Tidal and Solar. And even then, it will be in conjunction with those for a long long time.

Problem is, people have no clue what they are talking about when speaking of "the bomb", or, "meltdowns".

As much as Hollywood and video games want you to think otherwise, Nuclear plants do NOT explode like a nuclear weapon. In fact, a meltdown is caused by failure in cooling systems, which then allows the ubiquitous substance water to create too much steam in an enclosed space at a rapid pace, potentially, if STILL left unchecked, could cause an explosion, similar to when you pump your bike tires full. Radioactive material could spread in this worst case scenario, but will most likely not lead to any human issues.

Chernobyl was caused by a massive failure of adherance to code and ignorance. Entirely human. 3 Mile Island has yet to unveil any longterm radioactive effects, and again, was a problem with human error. Both of these are worst case scenarios, and both of them can't happen with modern nuclear facility design. By freezing all capability to renovate old facilities and building new ones, we are actually putting ourselves at greater risk than if we migrated to newer facilities. Its like putting a ban on developing safer cars because someone got drunk and crashed a Honda Civic into a house (I use Civic because they are already safe).

Alright, enough of my ranting. I can't be followed to the T, my industry is water, not power, but engineers learn by osmosis from other industries.

Now with 4th generation power plants being built that can turn spent rods into useable fuel and then only produce 1 tenth the waste and the fact that 99% of nuclear waste (by volume) is contaminated cloting and equipment which is radioactive for a couple of years to a couple of hundred depending on dosage we are tools to not be building more.

Especially when nuclear is only 10 times more than coal to produce power whereas wind and solar are very unreliable, and cost 25 -100 times more than coal, depending on weather conditions.

Are you looking at start up prices? Because I recall nuclear plants as having a lower operating cost than coal.

r3n3g8b0y wrote:... but reality is different mate! We could all be dead tomorrow...

1: Fixed that for you.
2: More exclamation points do not emphasize your point.
3: Citation needed. The CASTOR trains you mention are moving waste between creation and processing sites, not just shuffling waste about the EU for giggles.

Aside from the volume, containment, or type of generators, the possibility of mankind just kipping off by random chance doesn't exclude the applications of nuclear energy for mankind's betterment until then. Atomic power is still more efficient by mass than anything else out there currently.

Wind farms are an interesting possibility in cities simply for the manmade possibilities. Skyscrapers self-generating with vertical axis turbine clusters have promise but negligible application...much like the Green Roof.

Until solar farms become more cost effective these too are a poorer choice than fission plants.

Once magnetic containment is resolved and fusion generators can reach a net energy production I'm all for fusion.

I've always wondered about using the dampeners in skyscrapers to generate power. Granted that it will probably not generate much, but it would be fun to build a several ton electromagnet on the 80th floor

n0t_u wrote:
Let's stay with coal for now. At least until Australia finds another resource to make it's main export. I'm sure we can find some radioactive stuff around here somewhere. It's probably why so many of the animals here are deadly.

You do know that Australia is the 2nd largest producer of Uranium after Canada, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium#Supply

France has been all nuke for years now and has never had a problem. EDF is probably the best electric utility in the world.

G

It saddens me to see the French actually man up and use their best power source while Americans run around crying "oh noes the radiashun!".

America... feth no.

Kilkrazy wrote:Paraguay stopped running on hydro for about 15 minutes yesterday.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8355294.stm

I hate to go all Engineery on you but it wouldn't have mattered what the power source at the end of that double circuit fault was, it would still have tripped the Generator. Ye canny blaw if there's naeb'dy suckin' as one of my old mentors might have put it.

A similar thing happened at Hunterston B (nuclear - West of Scotland) about oh, 15? years ago. A salt storm from the Irish Sea tripped all four outgoing circuits one after the other in the space of about 2 minutes. Quite impressive. The Generators obviously tripped too for the same reason as above but the whole incident was unremarkable from a Nuclear pov as everything after the unusual nature of the trip went as it should have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Green Blow Fly wrote:France has been all nuke for years now and has never had a problem. EDF is probably the best electric utility in the world.

G

That's a matter of opinion

It's not a matter of opinion. Do some research.

I am an advocate of nuclear power. It is by far the cleanest source of energy that can supply vast amounts of energy. Solar energy (photo voltaics and wind farms) rely upon the weather... they only account for a small amount of the total energy supplied to major grids. Geothermal energy has only had commerical success in very localized areas such as Iceland. No one has had any commercial success with tidal power. The world as a whole is experiencing more blackouts on a regular basis over the past 20 years and it has peaked with the big blackout that occurred in the US northeast back in 2003. Basically the total load is growing at a faster rate than we can build new generation and bulk our transmission grids to serve it. I have been working in the electric utility industry for the past 30 years as an electrical engineer. There a lot of big challenges ahead of us.

G