Energy Crisis Solved by Science

[Grospoliner]

Please, contain yourselves gentlemen. The fact is that nuclear energy is hands down, far and away, THE safest form of energy production.

The gist:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

The source:
http://manhaz.cyf.gov.pl/manhaz/strona_konferencja_EAE-2001/15%20-%20Polenp~1.pdf

Please, educate yourself before you speak on a topic. Not because ignorance makes someone look foolish, but because spreading misinformation drags down other persons uneducated in the details of a subject.

 

[Mr Jack]

That does make me wonder, though... Why don't we just sent our waste to the sun yet? Load up a rocket with spent fuel, launch and let inertia coast it to the big ball o' fire..

It is incredibly expensive to launch things into space. The recently retired shuttles cost roughly $450,000,000 to launch, and carry a payload of 26,786 kg. There is around 2,721,000kg of high level nuclear waste generated per year in the US. To launch this to orbit, let alone to The Sun, with current technology would cost around $47,000,000,000 per year. This is of course a very rough estimate, with possiby unreliable data, but illustrates the difficulty of doing so.

In the long term, this cost could be reduced by developing better ways to deliver the payload, but that in itself will be incredibly expensive. The money could be better spent researching new fuel sources such Fusion.

Sources:
Figures for nuclear waste: http://library.thinkquest.org/3471/nuclear_waste_body.html
Shuttle details: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html#10
http://www.frontiernet.net/~docbob/shuttle.htm

Edit: The post below mine also make a good point about the safety concerns.

 

[Raesvelg]

That does make me wonder, though... Why don't we just sent our waste to the sun yet? Load up a rocket with spent fuel, launch and let inertia coast it to the big ball o' fire..

Because a statistically significant fraction of rockets suffer catastrophic failure before they exit the atmosphere.

We typically get 4-5 such events every year, and nobody wants to run the risk that the rocket carrying nuclear waste is going to be the one that explodes at 20,000 feet.

As for the rest of this: Yes, nuclear power is, all things considered, relatively safe, clean, and easily managed. But people are irrationally terrified of it, due largely to incompetent engineers in the Soviet Union screwing up just about every facet of design and operation on the Chernobyl plant.

 

[Raesvelg]

Uranium isn't renewable.....

Breeder reactors technically produce more fissile material than they consume. The process of reprocessing fuel for continued use gets complicated, really, but ultimately we could stretch the existing supply of fissile material almost indefinitely. Certainly until we've found something better.

 

[SckizoBoy]

Ok, this is good, but it's nuclear power, and frankly, after chernobyl, people are a bit cautious of using such materials.

No disrespect, but that is taking it a bit simply. More people have died mining for coal than in the nuclear industry. True, when a nuke reactor fucks up, it fucks up real bad, but coal mines fuck up way way way more often. To quote Jeremy Hardy: 'do you want your environmental disaster to be fizzy or flat?!' Because you're going to get one regardless while we still have a hankering towards cheap and easy energy.

Hell, when coal mines started popping up, a lot of them kept blowing up in certain seams. Then some guy came up with the safety-lamp, along with other safety features. The nuclear industry has bent backwards to reduce the risk of a meltdown. Fukushima is probably the worst example to use in how it has messed up because little (if anything) will survive a 9.0 earthquake. People aren't cautious about using it, they're reluctant.

OT: Despite being pro-nuclear (or perhaps because of it):

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.

Bingo...

However, wind farms, hydroelectric plants and the like get nowhere near enough backing (but one should be aware of the Chinese disaster from the 70's, can't remember what it was called). And wind farms are unsightly? Yes, 'think locally, act mentally'...

 

[superstringz]

Also, U-235 (actinouranium) is the same stuff can be used in nuclear weapons. While it is very energy dense, its a political minefield and unlikely to gain much support. That being said, I think it would be a safe and reliable power source to transition us to fusion.

In case my stance isn't clear, I Love Nuclear Power: its what I'm paid to do.

 

[Scrubiii]

Nuclear power stations fueled with U-235 have been in use for years, this isn't a new development, it just isn't widely used because it produces a large amount of radioactive waste with an extremely long half life. Refining Uranium isn't exactly cheap or danger free either.

 

[Raesvelg]

So given that one of your assertions is categorically incorrect, it makes me question the validity of every thing else youve said positively about Uranium based power.

The statistics he's referencing aren't direct coal-mining/plant accident related deaths; he's referring to the fuzzier area of environmental effects. The WHO generally attributes about a million deaths per year to coal power plants, through mechanisms such as lung disease and so on.

Living downwind from a coal power plant has traditionally been rather unpleasant; you're exposed to high levels of particulates in the air, high levels of radiation, and it generally shaves some years off your life.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

If you start looking at associated deaths, most sources of power come up short compared to nuclear. Each has their own set of risks (fire for fossil-fueled plants, flood for hydro plants, catastrophic mechanical failure for wind, etc), but nuclear plants get more publicity than any of them.

Probably because people are more afraid of something they can't see.

 

[orangeban]

Huh, this just seems to be fancy words for nuclear power to me, and I don't like nuclear power. I say stick with fossil fuels as we prepare renewables to take over from them. That's just in Scotland though, can't give comment on the USA

 

[topwomble]

This is cold fusion all over again...

 

[DracoSuave]

Please, contain yourselves gentlemen. The fact is that nuclear energy is hands down, far and away, THE safest form of energy production.

Windmills and solar panels don't blow up chum.

The gist:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

The source:
http://manhaz.cyf.gov.pl/manhaz/strona_konferencja_EAE-2001/15%20-%20Polenp~1.pdf

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

Please, educate yourself before you speak on a topic. Not because ignorance makes someone look foolish, but because spreading misinformation drags down other persons uneducated in the details of a subject.

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

 

[Singularly Datarific]

Say what you will about Nuclear Power, it's still killed less people (directly, or indirectly) than what we're currently using.

 

[RamirezDoEverything]

GREAT IDEA!

When do the oil companies get a chance to buy them out?

 

[Blaster395]

The death toll for nuclear power per Terrwatt hour generated is 10 times lower than wind power.

I am not making this up, wind power is 10 times more deadly than nuclear power.

 

[Blue_vision]

I feel like OP's going for a joke a-la Dihydrogen Monoxide... am I close to the mark? If that's the case, it could be a little more fluid in the description, a more careful working around the disposal (pretty it up to the point that you're not even hearing "bury it underground") and information on more pros.

In terms of actual ideas on nuclear power, it should be seen as a way to temporarily boost carbon free power, but 100% renewable energy should be the very top priority, along with consumption reduction.

 

[linwolf]

The death toll for nuclear power per Terrwatt hour generated is 10 times lower than wind power.

I am not making this up, wind power is 10 times more deadly than nuclear power.

Deer are 300 times more deadly than sharks. But I am still gone be more careful around sharks.

 

[Versuvius]

Well. Heres the thing. Fossil fuels are running out and renewable CANT physically fuel all of the worlds needs, it can in certain areas like iceland and their fantastic geothermal shtick, but others cannot. Nuclear fuel is the only way to go, whether people like it or not. They can object to nuclear fuel out of fear mongering bullshit (Meltdowns cannot occur without the powerplant being particularly shoddy or it being done on purpose, chernobyl was a dump of a place and that wasnt even a meltdown, it was a steam explosion that catapulted the fuel over the country side). So the point is, object and go hook a horse up to a treadmill or shut the fuck up and accept it.

Edit: not to mention the waste of often recycled a few times to reclaim the useful fuel out of it.

 

[GraveeKing]

I do believe we invented nuclear power back quite a while ago. So unless this is fusion - which it really doesn't sound like. Nothing new. It's just a new fuel source for an already existing concept. And really the stats probably are so low because it's mined so little I do expect.