Nuclear Energy

[Dan3345]

skevitj can you back up these claims of the UN being biased in favor of nuclear energy plants?

 

People need to realize that in all worthy ventures there is risk. In nuclear energy there is the risk of catastrophic failure, or core meltdown, or radiation seeping out undetected. In oil there is the risk (a quite high one) of spillage, and there also the risk of a vein bursting and igniting. There are risks in everything, does it mean we do nothing and waste away? To some it seems yes. Not to me.

 

We are 8 years away from the first long term fusion reactor being fired up, it will run if successful for 480 seconds of continuous output. After that its just a matter of time before fusion is on our doorstep.

Fukoshyima was not human controlled. Sure they could have done more to prevent it. but We are Human, we will make mistakes. Its how anything ever gets forward, by learning from mistakes. I have great fear for the world if people won't get over it and embrace nuclear energy. Wait until oil is too difficult to get too, and all of your electrical appliances don't work because the (filthy, they really are) coal generators are shut off, because no one has the money to pay for gas, or oil. I think the last time I checked oil was at $98 a barrel, and its come down, from $104. I don't know what its at now.

[Skevitj]

@HeyYou: Considering the differing complexities between nuclear and diesel (not saying they are using diesel, just using your example.) I'd trust a diesel to still be working well after a Nuclear plant has been rendered inoperable. Remember, the earthquake and tsunami by themselves weren't enough to bring the plant to the edge. You're only giving it a passing glance, it's not a matter of throwing a small portable generator on site and saying "job done".

 

You want a better alternative: Decommission existing coal and gas power plants and replace with closed cycle gas. There have been a number of studies (for application to Australia, there is no perfect solution applicable to every country) which have demonstrated that this would produce a more significant a reduction in GHG emmisions over the life time of the plants than implementing nuclear plants. This would also come at a lower net cost over the plant's lifetime, by which time the energy situation relative to available technologies would have changed drastically. You needs to factor in two huge costs when considering new nuclear plants: Construction and Decommissioning, older economic theories tended to ignore the cost of decommissioning, nowadays it's only ignored for the sake of making a convenient argument.

 

Another: Implementation of a global carbon market has been shown to provide significantly increased investment into greener technologies, not just power generation, but things like newer filter systems for coal plants. These newer technologies now have a competitive boost and can compete for funding with the BAU scenarios, there have already been a number of countries implementing localized carbon markets, but as more countries join, especially the big manufactures and consumers, the effect of the concept will increase exponentially.

 

Another: (Still an idea, but much closer than the G5 reactor concepts) Large scale roll-out of electric cars would provide then energy buffer needed for very high penetration from variable sources. There you go, one fell swoop and one of the few remaining major concerns with variable sources is as close to being solved as you can get. How many countries have massive geothermal reserves? Add that on top and your supply security is looking pretty solid.

 

 

@Dan3345: Please actually read what I said instead of just reading a few words and assuming you understand what I'm saying. I never said the UN was pro nuclear biased, I said that a report commissioned by the UN was accused of having a pro bias in it's findings. They're two completely different things. (WHO report I was talking about, for those interested)

 

There may be risk in everything, but it's always a trade off against consequence. Which is better: low risk, extreme consequence (nuclear) or medium risk medium consequence (oil/coal). The general public seem to tend towards the lower consequence scenarios, that's gonna take nuclear out of the picture any day of the week. "we will make mistakes" is probably the biggest no-no when it comes to anything, you admit it's dangerous and your public support just took a flying leap off the top of the nearest high-rise. If there are going to be faults, why wouldn't you tend towards the areas with reduced consequences for a fault situation? Again though, you're acting like coal/oil or nuclear are our only two options.

[greywaste]

Fusions the way forward. Not sure but I'd heard it's actually been proven to work since the 90's or so, problem being the scale and money needed to build a viable reactor. As for green energy, meaning solar and wind here, it's great as supplemental energy and that's about it, the 3 wind turbines about 2 clicks away from where I live are taking a nap right now.

[HeyYou]

@HeyYou: Considering the differing complexities between nuclear and diesel (not saying they are using diesel, just using your example.) I'd trust a diesel to still be working well after a Nuclear plant has been rendered inoperable. Remember, the earthquake and tsunami by themselves weren't enough to bring the plant to the edge. You're only giving it a passing glance, it's not a matter of throwing a small portable generator on site and saying "job done".

 

You want a better alternative: Decommission existing coal and gas power plants and replace with closed cycle gas. There have been a number of studies (for application to Australia, there is no perfect solution applicable to every country) which have demonstrated that this would produce a more significant a reduction in GHG emmisions over the life time of the plants than implementing nuclear plants. This would also come at a lower net cost over the plant's lifetime, by which time the energy situation relative to available technologies would have changed drastically. You needs to factor in two huge costs when considering new nuclear plants: Construction and Decommissioning, older economic theories tended to ignore the cost of decommissioning, nowadays it's only ignored for the sake of making a convenient argument.

 

Another: Implementation of a global carbon market has been shown to provide significantly increased investment into greener technologies, not just power generation, but things like newer filter systems for coal plants. These newer technologies now have a competitive boost and can compete for funding with the BAU scenarios, there have already been a number of countries implementing localized carbon markets, but as more countries join, especially the big manufactures and consumers, the effect of the concept will increase exponentially.

 

Another: (Still an idea, but much closer than the G5 reactor concepts) Large scale roll-out of electric cars would provide then energy buffer needed for very high penetration from variable sources. There you go, one fell swoop and one of the few remaining major concerns with variable sources is as close to being solved as you can get. How many countries have massive geothermal reserves? Add that on top and your supply security is looking pretty solid.

 

 

@Dan3345: Please actually read what I said instead of just reading a few words and assuming you understand what I'm saying. I never said the UN was pro nuclear biased, I said that a report commissioned by the UN was accused of having a pro bias in it's findings. They're two completely different things. (WHO report I was talking about, for those interested)

 

There may be risk in everything, but it's always a trade off against consequence. Which is better: low risk, extreme consequence (nuclear) or medium risk medium consequence (oil/coal). The general public seem to tend towards the lower consequence scenarios, that's gonna take nuclear out of the picture any day of the week. "we will make mistakes" is probably the biggest no-no when it comes to anything, you admit it's dangerous and your public support just took a flying leap off the top of the nearest high-rise. If there are going to be faults, why wouldn't you tend towards the areas with reduced consequences for a fault situation? Again though, you're acting like coal/oil or nuclear are our only two options.

 

If your backup power source can't survive the events that caused the plant to become unstable in the first place, what good is it? To actually be a viable power source, it needs to be able to withstand events that would prompt the plant to shut down. Also, if the major cause of the issue was power failure, due to infrastructure damage..... siting your backup elsewhere isn't going to help either. Quite frankly, the location they selected for the plant was not the brightest in the first place.

[Skevitj]

What are you talking about? The Fukushima plant had two ways of providing continuous power to the reactor's cooling system: 1# Energy from the reactors was the main way of powering the cooling. #2 Power could be drawn from the grid to power the cooling system during shutdown/startup of the plant. The plant survived the earthquake with negligble damage, as would've been expected. They then began shutdown of a number of the reactors (as per safety protocols), using grid power. When the tsunami hit the plant lost it's grid connection, meaning that the cooling had to be switched back to the reactors, but there wasn't enough residual power left to complete the shutdown, and even then the plants still require power to keep the inactive reactors cool. It wasn't the earthquake or tsunami's direct impact on the plant which caused the problems seen, but a small but critical design oversight which has been addressed in more modern designs.

 

The earthquake and tsunami did almost nothing to the actual nuclear plant, so to say that any backup source located on the site would survive in operable condition is a pretty safe bet... It's just a pity there was no backup to test that theory. The backup system on newer plant designs would be over-designed relative to the reactors, such that if the backup system was to fail due to external events, loss of power is going to be a relatively minor concern in the scheme of things.

 

Where would you site a nuclear plant in Japan? What makes that location a bad one? No-one can't comment on the location without knowing anything about the selection process or potential sites.The fact that the plant survived one of the biggest earthquakes on record in an operable state seems to be a pretty good indication that the reactors themselves were adequately designed for the location.

[HeyYou]

What are you talking about? The Fukushima plant had two ways of providing continuous power to the reactor's cooling system: 1# Energy from the reactors was the main way of powering the cooling. #2 Power could be drawn from the grid to power the cooling system during shutdown/startup of the plant. The plant survived the earthquake with negligble damage, as would've been expected. They then began shutdown of a number of the reactors (as per safety protocols), using grid power. When the tsunami hit the plant lost it's grid connection, meaning that the cooling had to be switched back to the reactors, but there wasn't enough residual power left to complete the shutdown, and even then the plants still require power to keep the inactive reactors cool. It wasn't the earthquake or tsunami's direct impact on the plant which caused the problems seen, but a small but critical design oversight which has been addressed in more modern designs.

 

The earthquake and tsunami did almost nothing to the actual nuclear plant, so to say that any backup source located on the site would survive in operable condition is a pretty safe bet... It's just a pity there was no backup to test that theory. The backup system on newer plant designs would be over-designed relative to the reactors, such that if the backup system was to fail due to external events, loss of power is going to be a relatively minor concern in the scheme of things.

 

Where would you site a nuclear plant in Japan? What makes that location a bad one? No-one can't comment on the location without knowing anything about the selection process or potential sites.The fact that the plant survived one of the biggest earthquakes on record in an operable state seems to be a pretty good indication that the reactors themselves were adequately designed for the location.

 

Ah, so, there wasn't an accident? The plant survived the initial events yes, but, collateral damage is what did it in. Had they had onsite backup power, that actually survived the initial events, you are correct, there is a real possibility there would have bee no accident. One could also argue that if they had NOT shut it down, there may have been no accident either...

 

The plant is located near several major faults. Not a good plan. (kinda like building a city in a known earthquake zone, where the structure map of the area looks suspiciously like a friggin spider web.....) It's a gamble. Granted, Japan doesn't have a great selection of sites that DON'T have that as a concern...... perhaps they would be better off NOT siting nuke plants there at all? Just a thought.

[HeyYou]

Sorry for the double post. But......

 

Source.

 

Fukushima DID have backup generators. Diesels, as a matter of fact. The tsunami took 'em out.

 

For the first hour, the first set of multiple emergency diesel power generators started and provided the electricity that was needed. However, when the tsunami arrived (a very rare and larger than anticipated tsunami) it flooded the diesel generators, causing them to fail.

 

Also of note, the earthquake that precipitated all of these events, was stronger than what the reactor was originally designed to withstand, the tsunami was also larger than what had been planned for.

[Lisnpuppy]

Like any large chemical or nuclear plant you can not plan for every contingency though I believe every step should be taken to do so. I believe nuclear power is a good way to go...along with a myriad of other alternative fuels. I don't like sticking all my eggs into one basket and we shouldn't. I also think its an absolute imperative that America become non-reliant on oil from outside its own borders WITHOUT more drilling than has to be done.

 

The oil is going to run dry. People, especially those in power don't like to think long term and Oil is Big Money and lobbies hard. Many of our politicians have come from Oil (and I use the Big O there for a reason.)

 

I would love to find a way to run American cars on alternative fuels. The technology is there and the cars can be made to run just as powerfully as the ones now. But to do that you have to build in infrastructure. That's the painful part...its a lot of money and effort. Personally I think that would be a humdinger of a way to get jobs starting. It would have to be similar to when the United States built its interstate system in the 50s under Eisenhower. He made the argument it was for National Security as much as anything and the American people were finally convinced. It was difficult but well worth it in the end. Just getting away from foreign oil and having an alternate fuel infrastructure for vehicles would be a massive benefit to this Nation (and any other) In fact many vehicles can drive on a semi-self renewing hydrogen system.

 

I won't say it won't be hard and costly...but I would rather money be spent on that than the billions of dollars we spend to watch, manage and mind those with the oil.

 

Just my opinion.

[HeyYou]

There is plenty of oil right here in the continental us, and off our coasts, to last us quite some time. Trouble is, too many folks up in arms about drilling for it, at all..... I will grant, the oil companies are not the most responsible folks in the world..... but, they really aren't much worse than any other large corporation, their mistakes can just have longer lasting affects.

 

Hydrogen really isn't viable as an energy source, as it consumes more energy cracking it from its source (water...), than you get out of it. That, and to be able to carry a sufficient amount to have a decent range on your vehicle, it has to be compressed to ungodly levels..... If the tank ruptures, for whatever reason.... you get a really nice bang, and scrap metal scattered a fair distance. (and you might find a few bits of the passengers of said vehicle as well.... good luck though....)

[Lisnpuppy]

There is plenty of oil right here in the continental us, and off our coasts, to last us quite some time. Trouble is, too many folks up in arms about drilling for it, at all..... I will grant, the oil companies are not the most responsible folks in the world..... but, they really aren't much worse than any other large corporation, their mistakes can just have longer lasting affects.

 

Hydrogen really isn't viable as an energy source, as it consumes more energy cracking it from its source (water...), than you get out of it. That, and to be able to carry a sufficient amount to have a decent range on your vehicle, it has to be compressed to ungodly levels..... If the tank ruptures, for whatever reason.... you get a really nice bang, and scrap metal scattered a fair distance. (and you might find a few bits of the passengers of said vehicle as well.... good luck though....)

 

I saw a guy on the science channel that ran his house with the hydrogen from water...and don't ask me how but it was a closed system..he changed his vehicle with it and ran his house with it so efficiently he actually got money back from the power company. So it can be done..as for the cost...well I don't know about that.

 

As for the oil we have...yes we have a bit. Not all of it is viably drillable it is..reserved for emergency drilling. I think we need to look to other sources of energy like nuclear...and do it now. Not tomorrow or next week. We drill that oil and we are back to the.'.oh its not our issue there is plenty of oil there'. To say oil companies are "not the most responsible" is the understatement of the year.

 

I also said...that I thought we needed to develop all kinds of energy sources and not just rely on one kind. Even a gas/electric vehicle would be a great start. On the cutting edge I saw a girl that made these kinetic energy pads and her idea was to put them down as sidewalk all over major cities. People walk on them all the time and they can actually create enough energy to run all the city lights, traffic lights, etc. There are so many things we should be doing including the safe development of nuclear energy.

 

Fact is that we can either suck it up now and start developing these sources and getting oil out of the government's ear...or we can be totally screwed when we run out and the Arab nations start running out also.