Your views about Nuclear Power?

[Wilian]

It's the safest and cleanest energy we have currently and in absence of advancments in other technologies, most sustainable for the energy needs.

We should however take far more bold steps towards Thorium based reactors than we currently have been.

[Deleted]

Once the payload is in orbit you can move it into the sun with very little energy expenditure.

Absent gravity or other forces acting upon it, the tiniest bit of thrust is sufficient, and you would only need attitude adjustment to ensure you hit the target.

Also, the target is the freaking sun. It shouldn't be terribly hard to hit. Aim, in the general direction of the sun, don't hit Venus or Mercury, and you are pretty much good.

You would need it to achieve escape velocity.

Saturn v needed about 6000000 pounds of fuel to get 90000 pounds to escape velocity.

That's a very very expensive way to distribute highly radioactive waste around the atmosphere when something goes wrong.

[Antiganon]

You would need it to achieve escape velocity.

Saturn v needed about 6000000 pounds of fuel to get 90000 pounds to escape velocity.

That's a very very expensive way to distribute highly radioactive waste around the atmosphere when something goes wrong.

Which is why I said in an earlier post that it isn't practical until we have a cheap and effective means of transporting giant payloads into orbit, like an orbital lift.

[Deleted]

Fuck nuclear power, read up Fussion power, has way more benefits with less danger and nuclear waste, if i remember right awhile back the just finally output more energy then they put into it.

You know that fusion power is nuclear power, right?

There are two different nuclear reactions: fission and fusion. Fission is where you split atoms, fusion is where you smash them together. The latter yields more energy and is what occurs naturally in the cores of stars. But creating fusion artifically is extremely difficult, as it requires either extreme pressure or extreme temperatures - neither of which occur anywhere on Earth.

Nuclear weapons have used fusion for decades though. They use a fission bomb to create the necessary temperature for a fusion reaction. Of course, with energy production that isn't really a viable method. Most experimental fusion reactors use lasers to heat up the nuclear fuel material, which is then contained in a magnetic field.

[matt4pack]

So what you re saying is that there are no engineers around in a nation of 323 million? Or maybe they dont want to pay enough? I kind of dont believe that usa lacks competent engineers nor can import any from japan or europe for example

Oh yeah they just need to pay more when the builders are already going bankrupt. It's not about just getting competent engineers but also the people who do the actual hands on work like laying the concrete and doing the actual building.

No one wants that kind of job when they could be building aircraft in a climate controlled factory. That's the type of people you would need doing the actual building. Not Pablo standing out in front of Home Depot.

[Deleted]

It's the safest and cleanest energy we have currently and in absence of advancments in other technologies, most sustainable for the energy needs.

We should however take far more bold steps towards Thorium based reactors than we currently have been.

Solar is cleaner even taking into account dodgy Chinese environmental practices and how hideously non eco batteries are.

There was a recent report which showed 40% of the Usa's total electricity needs could be handled by solar if all available roof space was used for solar installs.

[Ryme]

Pretty in favour, it's extremely safe, high output with minimal waste.

[Elegiac]

I'm in favor of it, but I understand its expense does not make it universally suitable when there are options like solar, wind, and hydroelectric that are equally as productive for a fraction of the cost.

[Serenais]

In general, in favour. In my opinion, we should do more research on reactor efficiency and fuel reprocessing, so that we do not basically bury unprocessed future fuel in form of nuclear waste. However, the new (or newish) nuclear reactors, I generally consider a good thing. Especially now, when we need to cut hard down on carbon emissions (and nuclear energy being the only "large scale" energy production technology that we can use pretty much anywhere, with exception of geologically and otherwise unstable areas).
Of course, I would mostly preffer fusion, but, well, still a few years/decades away from that.

We need to invent ZPM's already.

Be careful with that. You don't want to cause quantum deca-

[cubby]

Until dealing with the waste is accounted for, risk and cost included, nuclear power isn't really viable, and people are just kind of putting off the cost until later.

I've found that most people don't realize how EASY dealing with the waste actually is - there are three towns in Europe right now competing for a waste disposal facility.

Nuclear power is entirely viable - most people just know the actual details and are typically stuck on either rumor or just plain bad info. I'm not saying you are, just that I've found that typically to be the case.

It was with me.

[ghotihook]

All the high-level nuclear waste from every single plant for the last 40 years would just cover a football field to 8 meters depth. Even if we're talking about "build a deep bunker and bury it", that's totally achievable and functional, at the amounts we're talking about. The waste is far easier to deal with than emissions from fossil fuels, and very much in the "we can store it for 300 years until we figure out what to do with it" level of thinking.

I actually agree with this, I remember there was a post here a couple months ago about all the waste that's created from nuclear. When I heard that stat I was like "That's it?, that's amazing!"

[Dezerte]

Once the payload is in orbit you can move it into the sun with very little energy expenditure.

Absent gravity or other forces acting upon it, the tiniest bit of thrust is sufficient, and you would only need attitude adjustment to ensure you hit the target.

Also, the target is the freaking sun. It shouldn't be terribly hard to hit. Aim, in the general direction of the sun, don't hit Venus or Mercury, and you are pretty much good.

The payload might break and leak, is one concern with this method. And sending things into the sun is a lot lot harder than you think, I suggest this video for the answer to that:

[Serenais]

I'm in favor of it, but I understand its expense does not make it universally suitable when there are options like solar, wind, and hydroelectric that are equally as productive for a fraction of the cost.

They do, however, come with problems with location, meaning, there tends to be rather large losses in long distance power transfer. For example, countries in northern Europe can't really use solar plants, due to low light power density (I don't remember the actual term, my apologies) per square meter even in summer and low light hours in winter. Similarly, not all countries can use hydroelectric power, which also tends to flood large areas to give sufficient power (Three Gorges dam being quite a scary example of that).
That being said, where approprite, all thumbs up. There is very little reason why, say, countries near the Persian Gulf should use anything but solar (and large battery systems for power used during the night).
If it were possible to create large orbital solar stations (with our current technology), now that would be great. x)

[Orby]

I saw this thread and instantly thought of this :P

[Deleted]

It's also a very different process. So different, that we are always 20 years away from functioning fusion power generators.

You might as well pin your hopes on vacuum energy.

See, again someone who has no clue. There was something wrong with the math(or rather theory)~30y ago. They had zu Extra polare from 1-5mil degrees up to 150 mil. Now they are at 75-100 mil degrees of the plasma, while keeping it stable way longer. And btw Fusion Generators are functioning, they are just requiring more energy than they produce.

[Elegiac]

They do, however, come with problems with location, meaning, there tends to be rather large losses in long distance power transfer. For example, countries in northern Europe can't really use solar plants, due to low light power density (I don't remember the actual term, my apologies) per square meter even in summer and low light hours in winter. Similarly, not all countries can use hydroelectric power, which also tends to flood large areas to give sufficient power (Three Gorges dam being quite a scary example of that).
That being said, where approprite, all thumbs up. There is very little reason why, say, countries near the Persian Gulf should use anything but solar (and large battery systems for power used during the night).
If it were possible to create large orbital solar stations (with our current technology), now that would be great. x)

Agreed. Part of the problem, at least to my mind, is that the preponderance of fossil fuels has encouraged this 'singular power source' mindset when in reality we should be looking to optimize sources of energy based on cost effectiveness in a given location; diversification of energy sources also makes the market for energy significantly more resilient against supply shocks.

[cubby]

Your views about Nuclear Power?

So recently watching a documentary about the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident it got me thinking about the benefits and the dangers of nuclear power.

The accident happened in April 1986 the same time my mom was carrying my sister who when she was born in September had major heart problems which thanks to the doctors saved her life and she still ended up with major health problems like a deformed spine but she grew up to be a mother with a wonderful family.

I lived in England at the time of that accident and i still remember the reports on the TV and i know my sisters health could just be a massive coincidence which it most prolly was.

Ive learnt alot more about nuclear power and radiation since and even after Fukushima and what i just posted i still believe Nuclear power is the way of the future because there is nothing better unless wind and solar becomes much more efficient in areas where you dont get alot of wind or sun light. Plus i would love to see the end of Oil so we can tell the Middle East we no longer care about there petty religious/tribal problems anymore and we can no longer make things worse when we intervene!

So Nuclear power your thoughts?

Nuclear power - modern nuclear power - is a fantastic solution to power issues for a number of situations.

-The energy is very easily regulated - one of the biggest headaches for any power generation.
-Nuclear waste is easily disposed of and not at all a large amount (total amount of nuclear waste created in the history of humanity can fit inside a football stadium, with in the playing field, to be precise).
-It can bridge various clean energy sources, helping with production gaps.

I think the problem is that most people feel nuclear power is dangerous - both in operation and waste. Combine that with fast moving green energy sources (wind, solar, tidal, etc) and nuclear might never come back.

Fusion however . . . .

[h4rr0d]

As long as it isn't anywhere close to where I live, sure. I'd rather have water/solar/wind power.

Until we have a reasonable way to store electricity, water/solar/wind power plants are going to be freaks that are artificially increasing prices of electricity in the form of "green" electricity subsidies. Truth is, that central europe is facing potential blackouts pretty much every day, because germany is abusing their grid to transport electricity from north where their wind farms are producing it not when it's needed, but when the wind blows and they need to somehow transport it down to south where most of germany's industry is. And they don't have the infrastructure for that. Right now, they are actually trying to basically take the control of czech power grid from czech hands. Oh, and when the wind doesn't blow, they sure do loooove their nuclear power (and are also building coal power plants themselves...)

Honestly, if half the money being given as subsidies to companies producing green power was spent on nuclear research, we'd probably have a reasonable way of dealing with the waste already. But it's much more profitable and easier for politicians to score points by siphoning public money to a friend lobbying for green electricity than it is by sending it to research group of nuclear physicists.

[roxfm]

All for reactors that use Thorium over uranium

Has anyone successfully done that at a commercial scale? I know it would solve the world's electricity needs many times over, but not sure if anyone has been able to build a successful thorium reactor yet.

[Deleted]

See, again someone who has no clue. There was something wrong with the math(or rather theory)~30y ago. They had zu Extra polare from 1-5mil degrees up to 150 mil. Now they are at 75-100 mil degrees of the plasma, while keeping it stable way longer. And btw Fusion Generators are functioning, they are just requiring more energy than they produce.

Experimental reactors do exist. Some have sustained fusion for almost 6 seconds.

Like I said. Always 20 years away.