Actually, the percentage is apparently closer to 70% of time, according to a studies.Disako said:
Nuclear Energy!
- Thread starter RooftopAssassin
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Wind turbines will generate some power for 70-85% of the time (depending on the site), but they only produce 30% of their theoretical maximum output, since they aren't always generating at full capacity and will occasionally require maintenance.uro vii said:
It wouldn't have much of a dirty bomb effect because of how spread out it would end up. Especially if it were far enough up. Even then, if it's just the depleted Uranium (238), then the effects would be absolutely minimal.BonsaiK said:
You see, when something has a half-life of several billions of years, that means that, although it is technically emitting ionizing radiation, it is only rarely doing so. The only times when this would be dangerous is in the event of a meltdown, where there are tons of the materials concentrated in one area, and when it's being stored in large amounts. It's usually buried because the remnants were (Until very recently) considered useless, and we need to put it somewhere. (I recommend watching Bill Gates' TED talk. He goes into detail on how with new technology we can use the waste until only a small percentage remains. Someone posted a link earlier.)
Dirty bombs will often not only have the Uranium, but a substance called Iodine-151. This has a half-life of about two weeks, meaning it is constantly emitting ionizing radiation. This is dangerous (Also why most states will always have Iodine pills on hand, if this stuff ends up in your Thyroid, you're fucked. Irrelevant, but a fun fact still.)
As to the "Would I Eat The Fish" bit. I wouldn't, but that's only because I eat fish, if we were talking hypothetical where I did eat fish, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Wouldn't drink the water either, but that's because it's salt water(The place I mentioned use the Atlantic), if it were desalinated, sure why the hell not.
Interestingly enough, I talked to a guy who had been working at that station for about twenty years. They (The scientists at the power plant) have to keep careful tabs on how much radiation people there get. In twenty years, the guy I was talking to had only received about 5 milliRems of radiation, which is less than he would have gotten going on a single plane ride. Just an example of how controlled radiation exposure is in and around the plants.
Interestingly enough, these power plants could also be cheaper than they currently are, but they end up having to fight constant lawsuits during their building from an uneducated public. Thankfully, some are attempting to be preemptive on that account, and are actually trying to educate people instead of using their old method of "We're doing it, deal with it."
its not terribly sustainable, you have to mine uranium ore, for which there are only going to be so many practical mines and so a limited supply. Plus you have to process and dispose of the waste somehow. Sure the potential supply of uranium probably exceeds that of gas or oil but that doesn't mean it will last forever.RooftopAssassin said:
Personally I think we need a combination of natural energy sources such as wind, geothermal, tidal, solar, hydroelectric etc.. some of which is plugged straight into the grid and some used to electrolyse water to create hydrogen fuel, which can be used to run cars, jets, and power the grid when other sources are not producing electricity.
The only problem with that is that it will inevitably make electricity/fuel much more expensive, but in the long run we don't have a choice.
No personally I think that Nuclear energy is a horrible energy source barely better than fossil fuels. It is not safe or renewable and is not that cost effective. I think we should work on actually improving true renewable sources that we do have.
Yup. A la the Costa Del Sol power stations, which are actually very good at what they do, if not very space efficient. But when you've got a whole desert it's really not an issue.BonsaiK said:
Use a giant slingshot launching it at Venus, because nobody gives a shit about Venus.imnotparanoid said:
I know I said sustainable, but what really meant was "Just as good as [insert fossil fuel here]"Continuity said:
I should really make a note on that.
People are afraid that if we go towards nuclear energy that technology will be more widely available and with it a valid threat of nuclear terrorism.
Fixed that one for you. Sorry, it just happens to be one of those things that irks me. Also, a lot of our alternatives aren't really that easy to implement, simply because people are reluctant to spend money, whether it be the public, or the government.squiggothhunter said:
I'm all for Nuclear power, simple because even if it does fuck up, I'll be living close enough to the reactor that I won't even know it exploded.
Uhhh... Neither of those incident occured because they were trying to make weapons grade plutonium. Chernobyl was the result of a reactor test gone awry when engineers decided it was a good idea to disable the safety mechanisms in place to prevent such an explosion. In fact, the Chernobyl incident was the result of a design flaw.similar.squirrel said:
Who (or what) indicated that they were making weapons grade plutonium? That is not the case.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.html
As for Three Mile Island, I'm not quite as familiar with that incident, but I will look into it further. I suspect it was also an accident resulting from an engineering flaw.
It's not exactly like that. The Earth catches enough of sunlight that we could replace, based on pure wattage, all our current oil, coal and nuclear plants with current-gen solar plants.SpecklePattern said:
It would cost a frakton more than the entire combined budget of the western world (or something on those orders of magnitude), but by wattage it could be done.
The problem with 'green' sources of energy is that they are not stable and predictable sources of energy: we can't control the winds or clouds.
You see, at any given moment, the total output of power plants in an electrical grid must be equal to the use of power (+ loss due to inefficiency in transfer). Too much production and the grid voltage rises, producing a power-spike. Too little production and grid voltage drops. And we all know what happens to electrical equipment if it receives too little or too much power beyond the normal variance it allows for. So when it gets windy in places filled with wind farms, voltage in grid increases. This means that power plants that can be controlled (nuclear, coal, water dams etc) must be run at lower output, or the surplus power sold or stored somewhere (usually into water by lowering the production of water dams and thus saving the potential energy of stored water). And vice versa: too little production and use must be lowered or power brought in from elsewhere (like purchased from the neighbouring country) or amount of production within plants where it can be controlled must be increased to match the demand.
It is a continuous balancing act to keep the power production within accepted variance of the power used at that moment.
The result is that if we replaced all our current power production with wind and solar plants, the electric grid would catastrophically collapse before the day was over.
'Green' energy like that can always produce only a certain portion of the total energy use, the rest must come from more traditional plants that can be controlled precisely, or otherwise an unacceptable risk of energy grid collapse would continuously exist.
Also, electricity msut be provided even when it isn't windy or sunny - in those cases nuclear and coal etc plants must be able to temporarily supply the portion of the power normally supplied by the 'green' energy plants. Otherwise the result is a total power grid collapse, or at the very least a localized one (until new use and production match eachother).
Well as far as I know space shuttles don't polute, because what you see coming out of the rockets is steam not co2.imnotparanoid said:
Ot: I'm for it, see what deadman said.
I'm not keen on the idea of having more nuclear power stations. Some people may call them safe, but the problem is the human beings who are running the thing in the first place 
The possible effects of a disaster happening outweigh the potential benefits of having one. The cost of dealing with the wastage and decomissioning is also a negative point.
Unfortunately it's probably the hope for the UK's power needs.
The possible effects of a disaster happening outweigh the potential benefits of having one. The cost of dealing with the wastage and decomissioning is also a negative point.
Unfortunately it's probably the hope for the UK's power needs.
There is variability in renewable output, but the system is already set up with plenty of margin for variability. Conventional power is variable as well (not as much as renewables, but still significant). Until we meet saturation point (which no major nation is even close to) there is no need to resort to nuclear energy. Don't forget that although an individual wind farm is variable, if it's calm in Scotland it could still be windy down in Cornwall (for instance), and of course if you mix in other renewables such as Solar the overall variability is reduced even further. The further you spread your power grid (such as, say, switching to a European grid instead of just a national grid) the less variable the renewables are.SakSak said:
I find it hard to believe that. Most of the reports I read claimed that nuclear power could only continue to provide power for 50-100 years. Granted these reports, and all others, are vague at best since we can't accurately predict how much energy consumption could increase, what technological advancements there could be in terms of saving power, and if more raw materials can be found. Either way though, nuclear power is finite resource. Investing in it heavily, fort his reason, is pointless to me. We need to focus on renewable energy sources instead.Oldmanwillow said:
I'm not talking about fusion power. I'm talking about things like wind and solar power. And while these power sources are not yet capable of meeting the worlds energy demands, they have advanced a lot and are becoming a lot more viable than people realize. These clean, renewable energy sources should be what we aim towards utilizing rather than nuclear power. That's not to say these energy sources don't have there own problem. There not even completley environmentally friendly. But at least they are sustainable on a long term.
Breeder reactors aren't perfect. They could cause increased nuclear proliferation. It has its downsides just like any other power source.
You are correct in saying that not all forms of renewable energy can be utilized across the globe. However, that doesn't mean we should instead rely upon a finite source of energy. Wind power already provides a large amount of power to communities in certain areas of the USA. The same goes for solar power. Both technologies have the potential to have a much higher output of power. You are wrong in saying that solar energy is not a reliable source of power. It has become much cheaper and more efficient over the years. Many buildings are now incorporating solar panels into their design simply to save a small amount of energy. The technology has improved a lot, and it continues to improve. If more investment was put into developing it, it could become a a much more reliable energy source.
Again, I'm not trying to say wind power and solar power are perfect. Like you pointed, some areas of the globe can't use these power sources period. However improving these technologies has the potential to allow them to generate enough power to supply these distant locations anyways. Either way, it seems better to invest in it rather than a another energy source that is guaranteed to be finite, in the hopes that fusion becomes a reality.