Energy Crisis Solved by Science

[Kopikatsu]

You
The very highest current theoretical yield of solar cells is about 28-ish% for example, and solar cells are a major source of renewable energy. If only we could get that to 100%. Probably won't happen for another gajillion years, though. SCIENCE IS HARD.

Isn't a 28% yield actually pretty good? But yes, science is hard.

28% is fantastic. For a solar cell. It's still not very much energy though (which is why solar fields are so large (side note: a nuclear reactor the size of your average solar field will produce something like 500% more energy. And, nuclear plants work at night too). And, unfortunately, because of that pesky little thing called the First Law of Thermodynamics, the best we'll ever get out of solar cells is put at about 50%.

Questionable. (Scientific) laws are meant to be broken!

They recently discovered some kind of particle that could theoretically move faster than light for example, and nothing was supposed to exceed that speed. Same with the atom. It was supposed to be the smallest thing in existence, but there are quite a few things smaller than atoms. Laws in science are more...guidelines until we come up with something that fits better.

 

[Kpt._Rob]

Oh, I get how this experiment works. Take uranium and use a name most people don't recognize. Then present your clearly unbiased argument about why we should use it, and see if people will listen just because they didn't bother to look it up?

It's like the opposite of what they do in this video:


But if you're trying to prove some point other than "people don't really think" you can't really make it with an argument like that. You're attempting to present uranium without any negative connotation, but that's different from presenting it in an unbiased connotation. While there certainly is a lot of hysteria surrounding uranium, there also are some things we should be genuinely concerned with. If you're trying to suggest that people would want uranium if it weren't for their biases, this isn't a good way to prove it.

 

[kokoska]

when it comes to a debate over the merits of nuclear power (for the few who still don't get it, that's what this was about), i find little to no redeeming argument against its use.

consider this: name 3 big nuclear power plant disasters. if you named Fukushima, 3 mile islanf and Chernobyl, congratulations, you named them all. now consider how each disaster was caused and later panned out. Fukushima was cause by a magnitude 9 earthquake and consequent tsunami, enough to wreak havoc on any facility. Chernobyl occurred 30 years ago due to inept soviet technicians trying to cut corners on safety protocols, and remains a powerful reminder of what happens when nuclear power goes wrong. 3 mile island on the other hand occurred due to a mechanical failure, and was swiftly repaired. the damages of 3 mile island have been regarded by experts as negligible and people continue live within short distance of the location. the lesson? nuclear power is certainly dangerous. if you don't know what your doing, you are literally playing with explosives, but if you have a level of competency and aren't struck by the vengeful wrath of Zeus, you basically have access to massive quantities of clean energy. and even if Zeus does have it out for us, as Fukushima has shown us, damage can be mitigated through proper procedures.

Most importantly, danger is implicit in all forms of energy production, save perhaps windmills, which people still manage to be eviscerated by somehow. Unlike other practical means on energy production, nuclear power produces no carbon emissions, making it by a wide margin the cleanest form of energy we have available. consider how many people have died because of pollution, be it bad air or water. consider how many coal plants would be required to compensate for one nuke plant and then consider how much actual damage those coal plants would do versus the speculated danger of a nuke.

furthermore, consider the amount of capital saved through nuclear power. we are only barely emerging from an economic recession, and world population shows no signs of waiting for the money to catch up. those people demand energy, and unless you want to pepper the landscape with smog belching coal plants and pay through the ass for electricity, then your going to need some facilities capable of actual energy production, and until we crack fusion, fission (nuclear power) is all we've got.

and because i know one or two of your are thinking about green energy: windmills are largely recognized as impractical for virtually all developed areas, as are small solar farms which tend to cost more energy to produce than they will create in a lifetime (making them expensive batteries).

TL;DR---- nuclear power is less dangerous, cleaner, and cheaper than all other practical forms of energy production. your fear of it is akin to your fear of a plane crashing. deal with it.

 

[Coraxian]

Personally I'll keep my hopes at cold fusion, but seeing as the first production tests are planned for 2035, it might take some time.

One thing people need to understand though, is that whenever you use energy, it has some effect. At small scales it doesn't seem to do much, but with 7 billion people running at small scale, it adds up and it adds up fast. With fossil fuels there is the fact that carbon emissions occur that will disturb the previous temporary balance (probably back to the era before they were trapped underground to begin with), but also the fact that all that solar energy that was trapped underground is being used in a relatively small time frame compared to the period used to create and store it.

With nuclear power you have the waste you need to store, but again you're bringing energy into a closed system. Cold fusion will be no different, since we'll effectively be making minature suns and will, if the need for energy keeps rising as it does, release an ever growing amount of energy in the system. This will have effects.

Of course, being alive means you affect the world around you and I don't want to go too extreme in this, but we should be working on both ends of the balance. And preferably try to reduce the use of energy as much as possible before producing more.

And green energy, following the same philosophy, will have an influence on the world as well. The more you use, the bigger that influence will be. Whether that influence will be bigger per kWh or smaller compared to the one's mentioned above is, as far as I know, a matter of judgement and research.

You might say the amount of energy we produce is small compared to that delivered by the sun, but every Joule adds up.

 

[TheWonko]

snip

Questionable. (Scientific) laws are meant to be broken!

They recently discovered some kind of particle that could theoretically move faster than light for example, and nothing was supposed to exceed that speed. Same with the atom. It was supposed to be the smallest thing in existence, but there are quite a few things smaller than atoms. Laws in science are more...guidelines until we come up with something that fits better.

Yeah, Tachyons (faster than light particles) are thought to have negative mass. Which means that they can't go slower than light. Meanwhile, what Einstein said was that something couldn't reach the speed of light without gaining infinite mass, and therefore using infinite energy. What a tachyon would do as it slows down would be lose negative mass, shedding energy until it reaches zero mass an ceases to exist.

As for the Laws of Thermodynamics, people have been trying to prove those wrong since they were conceived. No luck so far.

 

[Warforger]

Kernel power eh? Sounds pretty corny to me. You do realize that Actinouranium is Uranium 235?

That's bad how? There's chlorine in salt after all and you don't see anyone dying from it.

 

[Kryzantine]

Yeah, this definitely won't solve the energy crisis. Don't get me wrong, science WILL solve the energy problem, but give it several decades.

I'll give you a better example to prove me point. Algae farming, an alternative oil producer. Unlike the OP's suggestion, it doesn't involve nuclear materials. It's relatively harmless if it spills. It doesn't produce as much carbon dioxide, because the process requires that CO2 is taken in. It takes up less space than ethanol farms take up. Actually, the only reason you've never heard of it is because of fairly simple economics, in that it costs more to produce than oil right now. But once oil costs more to produce, which is the whole point of the energy crisis, then you start seeing commercial investment in this. At first, it will be the oil companies investing in this to compliment their conventional process - a few of them already have labs on the side. Then this process slowly evolves to overtake conventional oil drilling.

So what is it? It's biology. All you're doing is creating and feeding a genetically-modified form of algae that rapidly lives its life, reproduces and dies. In 3 days, you can bypass 3 million years of history and just create your own small oil supply in a lab. The reason the oil companies love it is because it's a brilliant compliment to what they already have - the farming process requires a LOT of concentrated carbon dioxide going into it. So the oil companies attach these labs onto the side, pump a good portion of their CO2 into the lab instead of out into the atmosphere, and create more oil off of the byproduct of their conventional process. Once conventional oil starts declining, you see more sections of refineries turning into algae labs.

THIS is the future of oil companies. The same people can be in business, working with a solution that will by then be more cost-effective (because mining oil becomes less cost-effective). So they won't mind, because this isn't them going out of business, this is merely them evolving. Gone will be the days of oil platforms, arriving will be the days of farming labs. Same people, different method.

So yeah, science. That's just one example too. Don't get me talking about structures such as the Bahrain World Trade Center, which is designed to have wind turbines supplying 20% of its own power, or of vertical farming, which is exactly what you think it is.

 

[SFR]

This is cold fusion all over again...

What the hell are you talking about? Cold fusion is purely hypothetical. How could something like it happen "all over again" if never did in the first place. Plus, if cold fusion did work, it would be virtually the best form of energy possible. Nuclear power plants work on fission while cold fusion is essentially the idea of nuclear fusion occurring at not mind numbing temperatures. If we could get fusion to work at reasonable temperatures, it results in no Co2 emissions, waste material that naturally decays completely overtime (and doesn't take that long), and produces more energy by far than anything we do right now.

People really don't know much about nuclear power plants. They hear "nuclear" and think "OH MY GOD WE GONNA DIE!" Nuclear power plants CAN'T explode. They can however, release clouds of radiation, which happens very rarely. The only times it's happened is from very stupid decisions (like having the core placed in a shed...) They do produce radioactive waste material that decays quite slowly. Currently we don't have good methods of storing or eliminating such material, but that's partly because at least here in America, we don't focus on ways to improve the energy source. Everyone's so God damn scared that it's pretty much shunned here. The fact of the matter is when used properly, it's more efficient and considerably safer than coal mining/fossil fuel energy productions.

Oh yeah. You know those stacks? Those are filled with water. Not glowing radioactive material. You can think cartoons for that one.

 

[Quijiboh]

Nuclear power of any kind, although playing a big role, can't solve the energy crisis on its own because you can't power vehicles (except boats) with it. Without most modes of transport, there will be no global food and goods network, and no country is anywhere near being self sufficient at this point.

 

[EHKOS]

Eh, so wait a minute. This would lead to nuclear-driven cars? Haven't you guys played Fallout 3?
Me no gusta.

Just think how awesome destruction derbies would be!

OT:Yeaaaaaaaah No. I don't think storing nuclear waste underground would not hurt the environment.

 

[ajemas]

when it comes to a debate over the merits of nuclear power (for the few who still don't get it, that's what this was about), i find little to no redeeming argument against its use.

consider this: name 3 big nuclear power plant disasters. if you named Fukushima, 3 mile islanf and Chernobyl, congratulations, you named them all. now consider how each disaster was caused and later panned out. Fukushima was cause by a magnitude 9 earthquake and consequent tsunami, enough to wreak havoc on any facility. Chernobyl occurred 30 years ago due to inept soviet technicians trying to cut corners on safety protocols, and remains a powerful reminder of what happens when nuclear power goes wrong. 3 mile island on the other hand occurred due to a mechanical failure, and was swiftly repaired. the damages of 3 mile island have been regarded by experts as negligible and people continue live within short distance of the location.

Sure it's safe as long as there isn't a disaster, but there will inevitably be some kind of accident around a nuclear facility. If you have an earthquake near a coal plant it isn't going to irradiate the surrounding area for generations. It's hydrogen powered cars, right? It's very environmentally friendly and efficient, but the problem is that if you get into an accident it will probably explode. It works well by itself, but it's like playing with a loaded gun.
Again, I am still pro-nuclear power, but it does carry far greater risks than other forms of energy when accidents or acts of nature happen.

 

[RadiusXd]

Nuclear power of any kind, although playing a big role, can't solve the energy crisis on its own because you can't power vehicles (except boats) with it. Without most modes of transport, there will be no global food and goods network, and no country is anywhere near being self sufficient at this point.

just hook nuclear plant up to electric water-splitter. BAM, mobile hydrogen fuel.

 

[Dan Steele]

I vote for this all the way! Its sounds very convienient

 

[RadiusXd]

when it comes to a debate over the merits of nuclear power (for the few who still don't get it, that's what this was about), i find little to no redeeming argument against its use.

consider this: name 3 big nuclear power plant disasters. if you named Fukushima, 3 mile islanf and Chernobyl, congratulations, you named them all. now consider how each disaster was caused and later panned out. Fukushima was cause by a magnitude 9 earthquake and consequent tsunami, enough to wreak havoc on any facility. Chernobyl occurred 30 years ago due to inept soviet technicians trying to cut corners on safety protocols, and remains a powerful reminder of what happens when nuclear power goes wrong. 3 mile island on the other hand occurred due to a mechanical failure, and was swiftly repaired. the damages of 3 mile island have been regarded by experts as negligible and people continue live within short distance of the location.

Sure it's safe as long as there isn't a disaster, but there will inevitably be some kind of accident around a nuclear facility. If you have an earthquake near a coal plant it isn't going to irradiate the surrounding area for generations. It's hydrogen powered cars, right? It's very environmentally friendly and efficient, but the problem is that if you get into an accident it will probably explode. It works well by itself, but it's like playing with a loaded gun.
Again, I am still pro-nuclear power, but it does carry far greater risks than other forms of energy when accidents or acts of nature happen.

petrol explodes too, thats how it powers cars as a matter of fact. they both still need to mix with oxygen to blow.

 

[Whateveralot]

The funny thing is that this is not about what I expected this to be about.

I don't remember exactly, but what I thought this was about was that a company discovered how to create fuel out of genetically engineered bacteria. Not sure how "green" it is, but it was also claimed to solve all the fuel problems for good.

 

[SFR]

Eh, so wait a minute. This would lead to nuclear-driven cars? Haven't you guys played Fallout 3?
Me no gusta.

Just think how awesome destruction derbies would be!

OT:Yeaaaaaaaah No. I don't think storing nuclear waste underground would not hurt the environment.

Technically we do that with every other kind of waste already. People don't seem to be too concerned about that . You're though. We need to focus on other methods of nuclear waste storage.

 

[Theron Julius]

Personally I see this as the future of energy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_Moderated_Self-regulating_Nuclear_Power_Module

It is "capable of supplying 25 megawatts of electric power, weigh 18-20 tons, measure approximately 1.5 meters in diameter, be mass-produced on an assembly line, and be capable of unattended, unrefueled operation for up to seven to ten years at a time". The design is also inherently safe and can power about 20,000 typical U.S. households. Overall a much more preferable alternative to fossil fuels and standard nuclear power.

 

[k7avenger]

when it comes to a debate over the merits of nuclear power (for the few who still don't get it, that's what this was about), i find little to no redeeming argument against its use.

consider this: name 3 big nuclear power plant disasters. if you named Fukushima, 3 mile islanf and Chernobyl, congratulations, you named them all. now consider how each disaster was caused and later panned out. Fukushima was cause by a magnitude 9 earthquake and consequent tsunami, enough to wreak havoc on any facility. Chernobyl occurred 30 years ago due to inept soviet technicians trying to cut corners on safety protocols, and remains a powerful reminder of what happens when nuclear power goes wrong. 3 mile island on the other hand occurred due to a mechanical failure, and was swiftly repaired. the damages of 3 mile island have been regarded by experts as negligible and people continue live within short distance of the location.

Sure it's safe as long as there isn't a disaster, but there will inevitably be some kind of accident around a nuclear facility. If you have an earthquake near a coal plant it isn't going to irradiate the surrounding area for generations. It's hydrogen powered cars, right? It's very environmentally friendly and efficient, but the problem is that if you get into an accident it will probably explode. It works well by itself, but it's like playing with a loaded gun.
Again, I am still pro-nuclear power, but it does carry far greater risks than other forms of energy when accidents or acts of nature happen.

So let me understand this. A nuclear power plant is like a lightning rod, but for disasters? Really? REALLY?! And btw, there is inherent danger in ANY form of generating electricity, ANY. Nuclear disasters are bad, but have you ever seen a coal fire? Thought not. Go check out Centralia, Pennsylvania sometime. I hear its lovely this time of year. Yea, the place isn't irradiated, yay! Good luck breathing copious amounts of carbon monoxide.

 

[Grospoliner]

Windmills and solar panels don't blow up chum.

Would you care to retract that statement?

Solar:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_lfibbBnlKt8/S_OSUTHGpcI/AAAAAAAAAzQ/AWMQ3e6zZ2k/s320/SEGS-I-fire_caption.png
http://www.basinandrangewatch.org/AV-explosion.html

Wind
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOfHxINzGeo
http://whenwindturbinesgobad.blogspot.com/

The dangers of nuclear power is not simply measured in deaths.

You want to argue about land contamination? Okay, let's. The fossil fuel industry results in 1/3 of all CO2 emissions. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/images/ES7-7.gif

Burning coal emits 100 times the radiation of a similarly sized nuclear fission plant. http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

A typical 500kw Coal plant generates approx 26.5 tons of waste every month. Not counting waste water discharge. http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02d.html

The environmental impact of coal production is well documented. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_coal_mining_and_burning

List of coal mine related accidents, coal plant accidents not included. http://www.usmra.com/saxsewell/historical.htm

Nuclear waste production roughly 20-30 tons/month per reactor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_nuclear_power#Radioactive_waste

Approximately 488 sqkm of radioactively contaminated land has been reclaimed from the Exclusion Zone around Chernobyl by wildlife. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_after_the_disaster

Fukashima exposure levels comparison to other sources. http://xkcd.com/radiation/

Total list of all civilian nuclear accidents. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents

And finally a cost comparison. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_cost_of_electricity_generated_by_different_sources

That's right. Nuclear plants cost as much as coal, produce roughly the same amount of hard waste, are virtually twice as safe, and are in fact LESS RADIOACTIVE THAN COAL PLANTS.

You mean absolutely false statements like "U-235 is a renewable energy resource?

Absolutely false? Are you that poorly informed? Yes, you are evidently.

http://www.whatisnuclear.com/articles/recycling.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

Consider yourself schooled.

 

[Loop Stricken]

I was refering to weapons of mass destruction... you know... the OTHER thing nuclear reactors make.

This is incorrect on so many levels it's not even funny.