›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Nuclear Power

tuttle88tuttle88
edited October 2006 in Everything Else
I know Rym and Scott have um...views on people who oppose nuclear power. I know very little about it except that I don't like Australia selling uranium to China or India because I don't trust them not to use it for the blowing up of things.

The point is I have to write 300 words on a presentation this guy (Mark Parnell) gave in my class about nuclear power and other environmental issues. So, what is wrong or right with nuclear power?

Comments

  • CremlianCremlian
    Nuclear Power is a tool, it is never right or wrong. It is the person who uses it for the wrong or right reasons that gives it a moral standing.
  • tuttle88tuttle88
    Nuclear Power is a tool, it is never right or wrong. It is the person who uses it for the wrong or right reasons that gives it a moral standing.
    Thats not 300 words Cremlian, I'm trying to be slack here!
  • La Petit MortLa Petit Mort
    Well build up from that.
  • tuttle88tuttle88
    Well build up from that.
    Are you suggesting I actually do my own work! If I'd done that I would have done the readings and wouldn't have to ask you people!
  • KatsuKatsu
    edited October 2006
    Quite simply, no renewable energy source (not including fusion) has the energy density of nuclear power. Modern core designs, specifically the pebble-bed design, make meltdowns impossible. Nuclear waste from uranium can be processed into more nuclear fuel that can be further used. Remaining amounts of waste can be stored in block of rock and glass, sealed in such a way that the waste cannot leak.

    Since we're talking about Australia, solar power is a viable alternative. The nation has the necessary space and desert areas with large amounts of sunlight that would be needed to power the nation. I haven't done any research into the costs, but I would imagine that constructing nuclear power facilities and solar farms would be somewhat equal; the costs of a reactor are more concentrated in one place, while many solar farms would have to be constructed and spread out over a large area.

    I would be interested to know Mr. Parnell's thoughts on the environmental impact of building these solar farms over massive tracts of land, as he seems to be opposed to the prospect of building nuclear power plants.
    Post edited by Katsu on
  • Flamminggeek 2.0Flamminggeek 2.0
    nuclear power is the cleanest source of energy, and if your whining about where to put the uranium rods here's my answer: launch them into space
  • EsonLinjiEsonLinji
    I also think that nuclear power plants are significantly better than fossil fuel burning power plants, and would be good for Australia, I don't like the Howard government's stance of this is the only way to greenhouse emissions.
  • AndrewAndrew
    Hey Katsu, are you psychic? Solar Power FTW!!
  • tuttle88tuttle88
    I don't know why we can't just shove a bunch of solar panels out in the middle of the outback, there's nothing there but sun.
  • MarcusNobleMarcusNoble
    The only problem I have with nuclear power is what to do with all the waste. Honestly I've never seen an effective and/or safe way to dispose of it.
  • KilarneyKilarney
    The only problem I have with nuclear power is what to do with all the waste. Honestly I've never seen an effective and/or safe way to dispose of it.
    We have acceptable ways of disposing of it now. Unfortunately, politics gets in the way. Also, never forget that our technology will improve. I have no doubt that we will develop even safer ways of disposing it in the future.
  • KatsuKatsu
    I don't know why we can't just shove a bunch of solar panels out in the middle of the outback, there's nothing there but sun.
    That's exactly the problem, there's nothing there; no roads to transport the building materials, no power lines to transmit the generated power to the grid, and no skilled technicians to maintain the power generation facility.

    That being said, the same can be said of nuclear power, so it is a problem for both.
  • EsonLinjiEsonLinji
    On the subject of nuclear waste, as Katsu pointed out, the radioactive waste can be reprocessed to act as fuel again (so long as radiation is coming out, you can heat stuff up and thus generate power). Once it's at the point we can't use it as fuel, it's not so horrendously radioactive, and while care still needs to be taken with storage, it is no longer such a huge problem.
  • HeavyCruiserLostHeavyCruiserLost
    Since you guys are on the subject of Australia and its sun scorched wastelandness I thought I'd bring this up. It isn't the solution to power problems but it sure is bad-ass.
  • KatsuKatsu
    edited October 2006
    Since you guys are on the subject of Australia and its sun scorched wastelandness I thought I'd bringthisup. It isn't the solution to power problems but it sure is bad-ass.
    It needs to have a large mirror at the top, with which it can incinerate incoming enemy forces, and then be placed along the coastline. It looks a lot like a Nod Obelisk, the EXCALIBUR Belkan superweapon, or a Hazayan Tower of Light.

    edit: Also similar to an Archimedean Burning Mirror
    Post edited by Katsu on
  • MamathMamath
    I don't know why we can't just shove a bunch of solar panels out in the middle of the outback, there's nothing there but sun.
    There are consequences to that. The desert environment may seem barren and useless but there's still a lot of animals that live there so putting a bunch of panels in the desert would probably harm them. Whether we care is another matter. Also, you'd have to pay a lot of engineers a lot of money to live in the middle of the god damn desert looking after the bloody things.

    Anyone else heard of a sort of...tower that produces energy by creating really hot air and using the rapidly rising air to move a turbine? It'd work in Australia possibly. Then at night it cools down and the turbine runs the other way, I think. Also you can put a greenhouse at the bottom. I forget what it's called but I remember learning about it and it sounded awesome.
  • PilitusPilitus
    I don't know the exact name of the technology, but there's an article about a moving exhibit in England that uses this kind of power.
  • KatsuKatsu

    Anyone else heard of a sort of...tower that produces energy by creating really hot air and using the rapidly rising air to move a turbine? It'd work in Australia possibly. Then at night it cools down and the turbine runs the other way, I think. Also you can put a greenhouse at the bottom. I forget what it's called but I remember learning about it and it sounded awesome.
    That technology would be this: Solar Tower
  • my quaymy quay
    I still find it pretty amusing that despite being advanced all nuclear power does is create steam to turn turbines. I can't believe we're still so reliant on steam power, where's the high-tech post-modernity?
  • MamathMamath
    That technology would be this: Solar Tower
    That's it! I don't know why I don't hear more about it. It's practically free energy (after, you know, initial set up costs and paying for maintenance...but still!).
  • KatsuKatsu
    The problem with power generation is to turn that pure power into a form that our technology can use. Nuclear power can generate massive amounts of energy, but much of that is in the form of light, heat, and other forms of radiation such as alpha and gamma. While it is possible to turn heat directly into electricity, as far as I know we haven't been able to build a thermocouple that can withstand the thermal output of a high output reactor. There is an experimental core design by a Japanese firm that uses a core of fissioning fuel with a very low chain reaction rate that uses a thermocouple, but I haven't heard much from them beyond that they were trying to convince some Alaskan towns to test one of their prototypes out in the field.

    It looks like the Solar Tower project is in its final feasibility phase. There probably won't be much mention of it until it completes this test.
  • tuttle88tuttle88
    Thereareconsequences to that. The desert environment may seem barren and useless but there's still a lot of animals that live there so putting a bunch of panels in the desert would probably harm them.
    If the animals are so smart why are they living in the middle of nowhere? Stupid animals.
  • SailSail
    edited October 2006
    Thereareconsequences to that. The desert environment may seem barren and useless but there's still a lot of animals that live there so putting a bunch of panels in the desert would probably harm them.
    If the animals are so smart why are they living in the middle of nowhere? Stupid animals.
    Because they wanna get away from the humans who are destroying them. PWNED!
    Post edited by Sail on
  • tuttle88tuttle88
    If they were so great they'd be able to kick our asses.
  • AprecheApreche
    If they were so great they'd be able to kick our asses.
    Most of them can kick your ass. Ever try to fight a bear? How about a Moose?
  • RymRym
    image
  • KatsuKatsu
    The problem with any major undertaking of an experimental or new technology is that someone has to beat people into submission to accept it. I would love to see a major industrial nation undergo a complete switch to nuclear and/or renewable energy sources. Australia seems like a good place to try, as it is a relatively well developed industrial nation that has the technological infrastructure and expertise to make a complete switch (in terms of electrical output) a reality. It has vast open areas for solar plants and nuclear facilities, and the coastal areas could harvest tidal energy. If the Australian people would be willing to get behind this movement, then it could work, much as the civil project agencies of America did during the early 20th century.

    There's also the small matter of my enjoyment in watching the march of progress, the treading of metal-shod boots over the bodies of those Luddites that would stand in the way of our human destiny, the rising sun of an ever-dawning tomorrow. I don't like seeing all of that energy, all of that power, wasted when it could harnessed for human purposes, to fuel the engines of the human societal machine as we expand the boundaries of our dominion.

    But that's beside the point; which is that Australia could become nearly independent of fossil fuels for energy production purposes, if the government and the people would work towards it as a vital goal for the nation's prosperity. There would most certainly be environmental consequences of encroaching upon natural ecosystems to construct the power production facilities, but the facilities could be designed to minimize their impact, and the citizenry must be willing to accept that there will be some ecological damage.
  • ThaedThaed
    Well put Katsu. I could not agree more. Perhaps we could set up something like this on Antarctica where there's no one around. Of course, people would still complain if they found out about it. This is why Mars is going to be an industrial park wonderland. Industry will be able to say that greenhouse gasses are good for Mars and will help with terraforming.

    Nowadays, I am heartened by windmill farms and solar panel farms. As these methods become more economical, we will see more of them, environmentalists be damned.
  • KatsuKatsu
    Actually, Antarctica is not a very good place for setting up power production facilities. It's distant from major populated areas that would use the electricity and the logistics of getting all of the necessary building materials and personnel there are also extremely difficult. Then the extreme cold has to be taken into consideration, as it will play havoc with equipment.

    Even if this Antarctic facility was for the sole purpose of generating hydrogen, which would be used at destination points to be converted into electricity, it would perhaps be easier to construct a floating platform in the ocean in more temperate areas.
Sign In or Register to comment.