And a modern nuclear power plant is the safest and environmentally cleanest way of producing the extra demand for electrical power.

Ummm no, that would be reusable energies like solarpower, windpower, geothermalpower or waterpower. Anything that produces radioactive waste that we can't handle can hardly be called environmentally clean ;) That aside, the nuclear facilities of today are ofcourse way cleaner and safer than they used to be. And the reusable energies are still not capable of supplying the extra demand - mainlly because they haven't been developed enough. Shame, really.

Fake
Posted on 2005-09-04 03:08:42 by Fake51


And a modern nuclear power plant is the safest and environmentally cleanest way of producing the extra demand for electrical power.

Ummm no, that would be reusable energies like solarpower, windpower, geothermalpower or waterpower. Anything that produces radioactive waste that we can't handle can hardly be called environmentally clean ;) That aside, the nuclear facilities of today are ofcourse way cleaner and safer than they used to be. And the reusable energies are still not capable of supplying the extra demand - mainlly because they haven't been developed enough. Shame, really.

Fake


Actually, we have the capabilities to recycle plutonium back into uranium, I think it is done in other countries as well. Unfortunately, archaic nuclear treaties and big oil keep us from doing so.
Posted on 2005-09-04 09:45:20 by SpooK


Actually, we have the capabilities to recycle plutonium back into uranium, I think it is done in other countries as well. Unfortunately, archaic nuclear treaties and big oil keep us from doing so.

You still have other waste products from the process, so even if it could be done even more efficient and cleaner, it will never be as environmentally safe as using the reusable energies :)

Fake
Posted on 2005-09-04 10:25:15 by Fake51



Actually, we have the capabilities to recycle plutonium back into uranium, I think it is done in other countries as well. Unfortunately, archaic nuclear treaties and big oil keep us from doing so.

You still have other waste products from the process, so even if it could be done even more efficient and cleaner, it will never be as environmentally safe as using the reusable energies :)

Fake


I agree with you. I think nuclear energy is much cleaner than oil/gas, and "X-powered" technologies are of course cleaner than nuclear. The problem is, can we top fission reactors in power output with anything less than fusion?
Posted on 2005-09-04 11:25:02 by SpooK

The problem is, can we top fission reactors in power output with anything less than fusion?

I'm not sure we need to. If the research was focused on 1) better use of renewable energies and 2) building machines that use less power, I don't think we'd need a whole lot more power. There's a lot of road to travel to get there, but in theory nothing to stop us.

Fake
Posted on 2005-09-04 13:28:24 by Fake51
they are currently working on lazer induced fusion. there was this big article on it in the journal for my city. they take thousands of low power lazer beams, amyplyfy them into high powered lazer beams and direct them all to one point where a deturium core lies.
Posted on 2005-09-04 18:32:35 by Qages
I doubt that a single source of energy is the answer. We should be looking at several different combinations of both renewable and non-renewable resources with the main focus on the renewable ones for the long term. That said it is a long road to travel as any source of energy must allow for at least retrofitting existing machinery and vehicles as the investment in them is far too high for a simple replacement. For example it is not currently practical to just stop the use of oil and tell everyone they must use fuel cells from now on, it wouldn't work and would not be accepted. We have about 20 or so years before we will be forced to change from an oil driven economy to an alternate fuel source, hardly enough time to execute such a fundamental change. But we knew about the problem 30 years ago and have blissfully ignored it, unfortunately that still seems to be the case.

I truly hope that gas prices continue to rise to the point where it becomes an economic necessity to find a viable alternative and practical to make the change over. It is the only way it will ever happen in time to avert the inevitable economic collapse that will follow the last drop of oil.

    [*]Fusion is still a pipe dream and though a good long term project, will not be realized in time.
    [*]Solar power is good for select locales but not practical globally
    [*]Wind has the same problems as solar
    [*]Geothermal and tidal  are even more limited than wind and solar
    [*]Fission is safe if done right (ie Canadian heavy water reactors) but dangerous in some of the other incarnations
    [*]Crop based alternatives would simply accelerate the rape of the land
    [*]Fuel cell technology has promise and may be a short/long term solution, it is possible in the next 20 years
    [*]Alternate resources such as natural gas present the same problems as oil
    [*]Space based solutions are absurd and will never materialize, a waste of resources to contemplate for now
    [*]Combinations of some of the more mature methods above would fill the interim gap

Posted on 2005-09-04 23:15:45 by donkey
sim city 2000: microwave plants. Really fun when the microwave went out of target... ;)
Posted on 2005-09-04 23:19:45 by f0dder
There is another option for hydrocarbon fuel that is perfectly renewable that has been used in both Brasil and OZ and that is from sugar cane production. Alcohol is far cleaner than oil based hydrocarbons, burns at a lower temperature, produces far less pollutants and you can make as much of it as you like if you put enough sugar cane into production.

The scrap from the sugar cane produces enough energy to process it and the entire process is fully independent of oil production. Oil is useful in other areas like lubrication but you can relace it there as well and the only reason why the world is forced to be oil dependent is the massive economic clout of the collective oil companies have with Governments around the world.
Posted on 2005-09-05 02:20:59 by hutch--


And a modern nuclear power plant is the safest and environmentally cleanest way of producing the extra demand for electrical power.

Ummm no, that would be reusable energies like solarpower, windpower, geothermalpower or waterpower. Anything that produces radioactive waste that we can't handle can hardly be called environmentally clean ;) That aside, the nuclear facilities of today are ofcourse way cleaner and safer than they used to be. And the reusable energies are still not capable of supplying the extra demand - mainlly because they haven't been developed enough. Shame, really.

'Reusable energy' is very inefficient. Solar panels cost a lot to produce and the process isn't clean. For windmills you need fairly constant winds and a lot of space. For geothermal power you need the right thin rock soil. And for waterpower you need big valleys and move all the people that live there.

Modern nuclear power plants are much cleaner than you might think. Sure there is waste, but you can perfecly store that under a montain and it will have zero influence on the environment. Oil refineries just dump their waste in the ocean or burn it!

Before we have fusion to replace it, nuclear fission is the best option for our energy demands in the next few decades.
Posted on 2005-09-05 12:09:58 by C0D1F1ED

Modern nuclear power plants are much cleaner than you might think. Sure there is waste, but you can perfecly store that under a montain and it will have zero influence on the environment.


But instead, it's usually stored unsafely in some third world country because it's much cheaper.


Before we have fusion to replace it, nuclear fission is the best option for our energy demands in the next few decades.


Probably so, because the alternative methods are not efficient enough. But I think the world's economy should try to slowly shift towards such methods, to avoid nuclear power whenever possible.

The real problem is a matter of costs - polluting the environment is much cheaper than using clean methods. :(
Posted on 2005-09-05 18:35:57 by QvasiModo


Modern nuclear power plants are much cleaner than you might think. Sure there is waste, but you can perfecly store that under a montain and it will have zero influence on the environment.


But instead, it's usually stored unsafely in some third world country because it's much cheaper.


That is because we have too many tree-huggers, the same kind that think toxic waste is still "green ooze we put in barrels" instead of the truth, little uranium pellets.
Posted on 2005-09-05 20:47:52 by SpooK
Spook, though some of the uranium or plutonium is reclaimable, there are still products of nuclear fission such as radioactive barium and so on. Of course, even the sending of radioactive waste to France for reprocessing of fuel by the Japanese created a big wooha. All thanks to the lovely "tree-huggers". Personally, I believe that nuclear fission is a good way to go around instead of burning fuels (Btw 90% of the crude end up being burnt, while the other 10% are used for industrial "purposes").

Let's build a nuclear reactor in our shed like this guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn  ;)
Posted on 2005-09-05 21:17:35 by roticv

That is because we have too many tree-huggers, the same kind that think toxic waste is still "green ooze we put in barrels" instead of the truth, little uranium pellets.

...and these are pretty nice when you need to rip through tanks with gattling guns :)
Posted on 2005-09-06 01:00:22 by f0dder

i still don't know why the hell ppl don't stop using gasolin and start using electricity cars,
i mean can't the human race see the world climent goes worse every decay??
*********! :mad:


With the replacement batteries for those vehicles costing $5000 - $8000, it'll be awhile before more folkswill buy them.

Posted on 2005-09-06 05:47:43 by skywalker
A few notes:
The reusable energies might be a lot less efficient that fission powerplants. However, how much money has been pumped into research of those energies compared to the amount spent on, for instance, fusion energy? I'll bet you'll find the same situation as with the development of cars - that much more money is spent developing gasoline driven cars than what is spent on developing new types of cars. The point is, even if we don't have the most efficient technology now for reusable energies, we might acquire something better if we researched it thoroughly.

And what does the thing about tree-huggers have to do with sending away nuclear waste? Aren't the tree-huggers exactly responsible for pointing out the problems of shipping the nuclear waste away, rather than making certain that that's what happens? But hey, sure, blame the tree-huggers. Afrer all, nuclear waste is not toxic, it's just little uranium pellets. Nevermind that it's radioactive and we have to store it deep in the ground and wait a long time before it stops being radioactive - who cares, since out of sight is out of mind.

Fake
Posted on 2005-09-06 09:29:10 by Fake51

That is because we have too many tree-huggers, the same kind that think toxic waste is still "green ooze we put in barrels" instead of the truth, little uranium pellets.


Of course, it's not green ooze we put in barrels. It's grey dust we put in barrels dumped in the open, or little pellets we bury unprotected near to underground water, or metalic rods we throw in the jungle. :P

I don't know how the situation is in other countries but here in Argentina we don't have a lot of tree-huggers exactly. And we do have a lot of waste. So I don't think they're related. :roll:

Now seriously, the problem are not the uranium pellets nor the tree-huggers, it's the way some corporations handle this kind of waste in an unresponsible manner.
Posted on 2005-09-06 10:07:16 by QvasiModo
MAn the prices here in Toronto are absolutely horrendous. $1.32/Litre, its usually $0.80 or $0.90/Litre. Its insane my parents wont lemme drive anymore :(
Posted on 2005-09-08 08:47:37 by x86asm
In the Netherlands today 1 litre super gasoline is 159.9 euro is US $1.98

If it's going on this way I have to sell my Pontiac firebird trans-am  :sad:
Posted on 2005-09-08 10:23:15 by Siekmanski
159.9 euro is US $1.98

Is that right?

I'm reading a book called "The End of Oil".  Great stuff.  I'm only half way through but so far it looks like wind, solar and hydrogen are our future but he hasn't talked about nuclear yet.  Very interesting stuff about when the world runs out of oil, how all the oil politics works, pollution and how all this works together. 
Posted on 2005-09-08 18:37:11 by drhowarddrfine