Energy Crisis Solved by Science

[k7avenger]

Actually, the best thing to do with the waste materials is to design your plant to keep the reaction going until they turn into lead, which is not radioactive.

Lead is radioactive. I don't know where you got the notion that it isn't, but it is. That's why lead paint isn't used anymore and why graphite is used instead of lead for pencils. People and animals were getting sick from radiation poisoning eating the paint chips and putting pencils near their mouths.

Wrong. They don't make lead paint because kids like to eat it, as it has a slight sweetness taste to it. And had you been paying attention in class, you'd realize that lead is toxic (poison), not radioactive. It builds up in your body and never leaves. Kind of like mercury, and other heavy metals.

EDIT: Yes, I realize that some isotopes of lead ARE unstable. However, no one, not even the Chinese, are stupid enough to use them in place of non radioactive lead. The radioactive decay of uranium does indeed make non-radiative lead isotopes. Check Wikipedia.

 

[Low Key]

Actually, the best thing to do with the waste materials is to design your plant to keep the reaction going until they turn into lead, which is not radioactive.

Lead is radioactive. I don't know where you got the notion that it isn't, but it is. That's why lead paint isn't used anymore and why graphite is used instead of lead for pencils. People and animals were getting sick from radiation poisoning eating the paint chips and putting pencils near their mouths.

Wrong. They don't make lead paint because kids like to eat it, as it has a slight sweetness taste to it. And had you been paying attention in class, you'd realize that lead is toxic (poison), not radioactive. It builds up in your body and never leaves. Kind of like mercury, and other heavy metals.

I confused radioactivity with toxicity. Oops

Yes, I am wrong.

Spoiler: I did find this however

"For practical purpose, lead can be considered stable. 98.6% of the lead ordinarily found in nature is of stable isotopes. 1.4% of lead is 104Pb, which is radioactive, but the half life is 140,000,000,000,000,000 years. There are traces of 210Pb found in nature, and its half life is 22.3 years, but the quantities are not significant. Like all elements, synthetic radioactive isotopes of lead exist."

Not that it makes a difference.

 

[k7avenger]

All's well and good so long as something was learned today. That might have sounded a wee bit harsh...

 

[Esotera]

Fusion or bust. Unless you find a suitable way of storing the waste materials (which can also be used for great destruction) then fission creates more problems than it solves.

Actually, the best thing to do with the waste materials is to design your plant to keep the reaction going until they turn into lead, which is not radioactive. However, this is a problematic design.

However, radioactive waste from nuclear power plants is not as dangerous as most people believe. Not that it's harmless, either. But burning coal fills the atmosphere with sulfuric acid which isn't safe either.

In the end, it's a tradeoff. Do you want electricity? Or do you want no waste products? Ultimately you can't have both.

Creating carbon dioxide or sulphuric acid is a chemical process; it's very easy to reverse the reaction (now or in the future), or convert them into some useful byproduct. Undoing nuclear reactions is an entirely different ballpark. There are ways to reduce production of radioactive waste, but practically once you've generated a waste product with a long half-life, you're stuck with it.

And I'd definitely agree with radioactivity being poorly understood. My degree requires work with radionuclides, and a significant minority don't understand the basic physics behind it. The general public is even worse.

Come on engineers, get your skates on, I think fusion power's great... ...because no ones ever talked about the problems it may have. Yaay optimisim

The biggest potential problem is if a fusion reactor goes out of control. Effectively you could get a sun on the Earth's surface, which would be interesting, to say the least...

 

[Booze Zombie]

It's getting late, so I'll sum up. More efficient, cleaner, cheaper, renewable energy that could sustain the human race for many thousands of years, till we come up with an even more effective way of power production.

Spoiler

-For the intelligent ones, I've steered away from words that have a negative stigma attached to them, call it an experiment- Read more http://russp.org/nucfacts.html

Aside from the fact that you've just renamed a radiactive substance, there is also the fact that all this would do is give a hungry society more energy to spend inefficently, where as we could instead master the art of efficent energy use and save everyone a lot of bother.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

And then what do we do with the waste product, eh? Bury it deep underground and pretend it doesn't exist. Sure.

 

[DracoSuave]

Snip

Point being is that nuclear material is recyclable, the same as any other material. Nothing is 100% recyclable and nothing in reality is 100% renewable. After all the sun expends fuel to produce sunlight meaning that both microwave and solar power are non-renewable in the sense that people generally use them.

As for nuclear proliferation that is a whole other topic to discuss and really doesn't play a role in the energy debate.

Except that you're not recycling nuclear fuel. You're converting non-fuel into plutoneum. That's not recycling, that's just more efficient use of matter.

And yes, Nuclear proliferation DOES play a role in the nuclear reactor debate, because nuclear proliferation was caused by... get this... the availability of breeder reactors such as the CANDU in countries that would not otherwise have access to weapons grade plutonium.

See, the thing is... there is only ONE source for plutonium in the world. Breeder reactors. And there is only one way to convert u238 into nuclear fuel. Breeder reactors.

To suggest that breeder reactors can't be used like that is to cover one's ears and go HURPDURPHURPLALALALALALLALALA while people mention every single country in the world with nuclear weapons programs that aren't the big five (US, UK, France, Russia, China.) Every single other country in the world with the bomb got it from breeder reactors. Every. Single. One.

Fissile material can only be used to make bombs or as nuclear fuel. It has no other purpose.

 

[xXAsherahXx]

Damn guys, don't everybody attack the guy at once like a pack of rabid animals.

I didn't realize that nuclear power was a sore spot for Escapists.

Nuclear energy is just as feasible as any other source of energy. It would be great to have more plants around reducing greenhouse emissions, we just need to figure out a way to make them safer.

So far we've had only once major accident with a nuclear power plant, but we've had many more accidents with oil and coal mining.

Personally I prefer solar power, but we really need a combination of all clean energy sources to keep the Earth tidy.

 

[Harbinger_]

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.

Nuclear energy is a bit different than chlorine there buddy.

 

[Elementlmage]

Come on engineers, get your skates on, I think fusion power's great... ...because no ones ever talked about the problems it may have. Yaay optimisim

The biggest potential problem is if a fusion reactor goes out of control. Effectively you could get a sun on the Earth's surface, which would be interesting, to say the least...

Ugh.... *facepalm*

ALL man-made nuclear fusion reactions are not self-sustaining; period, end of story! They cannot maintain themselves if the critical systems that maintain the reaction breaks down. Should the magnetic field or containment vessel break down, the reaction will simply stop.

 

[EV777]

We DO NOT NEED nuclear energy. We already have plenty of clean renewable sources of energy which are Solar, Wind, Tidal and Geothermal to name a few. Those 4 could power our whole civilization easily. We don't need nuclear energy of any of this shit.

The thing that pisses me off is that we could have the whole world running on clean renewable energy 20 years ago if it weren't for the monetary system. The only reason we don't have more renewable energy is because in this socio-economic system everything is driven by the profit-mechanism, and if somebody can't profit off of something then it won't be done. We have solar panels that are 70% efficient, but they're only being used by the military because they're so damn expensive and restricted. Solar panels aren't expensive because of the cost of production though. They're expensive because of assholes who patent the technology because they want to profit from it.

More solar energy hits the earth every day than it would take to power our entire planet, and the amount of potential energy we could get from geothermal could power out planet for 40,000 years. The problem of our energy crisis in not just a technical one. We have the technology, the resources and the capabilities to solve all the technical problems of our planet. We could feed, house, and provide clean water and energy to everybody on the planet but we won't.

The problem is not with technology, it is with society. None of our problems can be solved as long as we are in this monetary system. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PN6puH9DYnQ That is an interview with Jacque Fresco, one of the smartest humans to ever live. If you watch that video and listen to what he has to say, keep in mind that everything he's talking about was possible in 1974, nineteen seventy fucking four.

 

[Spoonius]

We DO NOT NEED nuclear energy. We already have plenty of clean renewable sources of energy which are Solar, Wind, Tidal and Geothermal to name a few. Those 4 could power our whole civilization easily. We don't need nuclear energy of any of this shit.

The thing that pisses me off is that we could have the whole world running on clean renewable energy 20 years ago if it weren't for the monetary system. The only reason we don't have more renewable energy is because in this socio-economic system everything is driven by the profit-mechanism, and if somebody can't profit off of something then it won't be done. We have solar panels that are 70% efficient, but they're only being used by the military because they're so damn expensive and restricted. Solar panels aren't expensive because of the cost of production though. They're expensive because of assholes who patent the technology because they want to profit from it.

More solar energy hits the earth every day than it would take to power our entire planet, and the amount of potential energy we could get from geothermal could power out planet for 40,000 years. The problem of our energy crisis in not just a technical one. We have the technology, the resources and the capabilities to solve all the technical problems of our planet. We could feed, house, and provide clean water and energy to everybody on the planet but we won't.

The problem is not with technology, it is with society. None of our problems can be solved as long as we are in this monetary system. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PN6puH9DYnQ That is an interview with Jacque Fresco, one of the smartest humans to ever live. If you watch that video and listen to what he has to say, keep in mind that everything he's talking about was possible in 1974, nineteen seventy fucking four.

Oh lordy here we go with this "waiting for superman" mentality.

NEWS FLASH: There is no perfect energy source.

Problems need to be solved today, not when we magically get a new free energy source. Solar? Wind? Geothermal? Tidal? You have ONE workhorse there (geothermal), and that's not going to be enough. What you seem to forget is that our energy needs now are higher than 1974 and will continue to rise. If these renewable energies can't keep up, they are not solutions. period.

Solar? For you to solar power everything, there needs to be a solar panel everywhere. In case you haven't noticed, location counts. Not every climate is like the American West. Geothermal also depends on location, as well as wind.

Waiting for a "perfect" energy grid is like waiting for Batman to come when you're being mugged. He ain't coming. The only thing that will save us is a nuclear energy path. For now its fission, tomorrow its Helium 3, then the day after that its other gases (which names I forgot). Its a path that needs to be developed, trying a quick fix is what got us in this oil trap in the first place.

I'm not the smartest when it comes to discussions like these, but having looked at the Wikipedia article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power], won't fusion power be ideal enough to solve most of the problems typically associated with energy sources?

I mean, other than the annihilation of antimatter, is there actually a 100% efficient source of power? Not counting logistics and stuff.

 

[Grospoliner]

Snip

Point being is that nuclear material is recyclable, the same as any other material. Nothing is 100% recyclable and nothing in reality is 100% renewable. After all the sun expends fuel to produce sunlight meaning that both microwave and solar power are non-renewable in the sense that people generally use them.

As for nuclear proliferation that is a whole other topic to discuss and really doesn't play a role in the energy debate.

Except that you're not recycling nuclear fuel. You're converting non-fuel into plutoneum. That's not recycling, that's just more efficient use of matter.

And yes, Nuclear proliferation DOES play a role in the nuclear reactor debate, because nuclear proliferation was caused by... get this... the availability of breeder reactors such as the CANDU in countries that would not otherwise have access to weapons grade plutonium.

See, the thing is... there is only ONE source for plutonium in the world. Breeder reactors. And there is only one way to convert u238 into nuclear fuel. Breeder reactors.

To suggest that breeder reactors can't be used like that is to cover one's ears and go HURPDURPHURPLALALALALALLALALA while people mention every single country in the world with nuclear weapons programs that aren't the big five (US, UK, France, Russia, China.) Every single other country in the world with the bomb got it from breeder reactors. Every. Single. One.

Fissile material can only be used to make bombs or as nuclear fuel. It has no other purpose.

Reusing nuclear waste products to make new nuclear fuel is recycling. Output to reprocessing to input. I will not sit here and argue semantics.

The threat of war is an entirely separate issue to that of nuclear power generation. If you can't separate the two of them, then I can not help but consider you to be hopelessly biased and not worth me wasting anymore time. I do not care that breeder reactors can be used to produce fissile material that can be used in bombs.

Additionally, at no point did I make the statement that breeder reactors are not used to produce weapon grade fissile material. You may not agree with my opinions, you may refute evidence, but you will not put words in my mouth.

This was about energy production. This was only about energy production and nothing else. So unless you have some devastating evidence to the contrary that nuclear power is not only better than the majority of the world's current power generation methods and it is somehow less safe than ALL of the other methods of power production then we have nothing else to say.

 

[Buizel91]

I say we go Transformers style and create Energon...>.>

On a serious note, Nuclear Power has always sounded iffy to me. Probably because i enjoy life xD Plus i don't want to see killer Tomato's roaming about xD

Ok, maybe it wasn't serious...

 

[DracoSuave]

Snip

Point being is that nuclear material is recyclable, the same as any other material. Nothing is 100% recyclable and nothing in reality is 100% renewable. After all the sun expends fuel to produce sunlight meaning that both microwave and solar power are non-renewable in the sense that people generally use them.

As for nuclear proliferation that is a whole other topic to discuss and really doesn't play a role in the energy debate.

Except that you're not recycling nuclear fuel. You're converting non-fuel into plutoneum. That's not recycling, that's just more efficient use of matter.

And yes, Nuclear proliferation DOES play a role in the nuclear reactor debate, because nuclear proliferation was caused by... get this... the availability of breeder reactors such as the CANDU in countries that would not otherwise have access to weapons grade plutonium.

See, the thing is... there is only ONE source for plutonium in the world. Breeder reactors. And there is only one way to convert u238 into nuclear fuel. Breeder reactors.

To suggest that breeder reactors can't be used like that is to cover one's ears and go HURPDURPHURPLALALALALALLALALA while people mention every single country in the world with nuclear weapons programs that aren't the big five (US, UK, France, Russia, China.) Every single other country in the world with the bomb got it from breeder reactors. Every. Single. One.

Fissile material can only be used to make bombs or as nuclear fuel. It has no other purpose.

Reusing nuclear waste products to make new nuclear fuel is recycling. Output to reprocessing to input. I will not sit here and argue semantics.

The threat of war is an entirely separate issue to that of nuclear power generation. If you can't separate the two of them, then I can not help but consider you to be hopelessly biased and not worth me wasting anymore time. I do not care that breeder reactors can be used to produce fissile material that can be used in bombs.

Unfortunately, India, Isreal, and Pakistan have all made absolutely damn sure that nuclear power generation, and the threat of nuclear proliferation are not separate issues.

You might be able to ignore historical fact, but most of the world can't.

Additionally, at no point did I make the statement that breeder reactors are not used to produce weapon grade fissile material. You may not agree with my opinions, you may refute evidence, but you will not put words in my mouth.

This was about energy production. This was only about energy production and nothing else. So unless you have some devastating evidence to the contrary that nuclear power is not only better than the majority of the world's current power generation methods and it is somehow less safe than ALL of the other methods of power production then we have nothing else to say.

You simply cannot divorce the nuclear power question from the nuclear weapons question. You can't go 'nuclear power' and have people who understand the issue go 'Oh, hey, that'll NEVER result in more WMDs' Breeder reactors are the safest way to deal with the nuclear power issue from a waste point of view...

...because that waste becomes the fuel for the most destructive weapon on the planet, and also the most toxic substance known to exist. And countries have USED it in that manner.

As for the safety issue, with the growing privatization of the major organizations that monitor the most common breeder reactor, the CANDU, it's no longer under the purview of a government program with the interests of the world at heart.

Of course, you could choose to believe that reactors are at or exceeding safety specifications. You would be wrong. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/a-quarter-of-us-nuclear-plants-not-reporting-equipment-defects-report-finds/2011/03/24/ABHYa2RB_story.html]

You could believe that reactors are not used to make weapons. You would be wrong. [http://www.neis.org/literature/Brochures/weapcon.htm]

You could believe that countries can be trusted not to use nuclear power plants as weapons development... and that even if they can't they'd be effectively monitored. You would be wrong. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction]

Sorry these facts don't correspond with your shiny no-risk scenario.

 

[TheFloBros]

My whole family (as well as myself) have worked in the nuclear business for 30+ years. It's very safe, renewable energy. Don't listen to all the bad stuff you heard about it for the last 40 years. It's MUCH safer. And the reason Chernobyl happened is because they didn't have any containment, and had no clue what they were doing with nuclear power.

 

[thiosk]

In other news, MAGICAL BLACK BURNING WATER discovered underground in vast deposits. Even under the ocean! This substance could meet our energy needs for decades and its byproducts incorporated into countless consumer goods!

Call your congressman and tell him or her to VOTE IN FAVOR OF MAGICAL BLACK BURNING WATER DRILLING right away!

 

[Iron Lightning]

Well, I support nuclear fission reactors as a short-term solution until nuclear fusion reactors or other safer energy sources become viable.