Nuclear Energy yes or no.

I believe that, yes, nuclear power will be a big part of the future of energy production. I firmly believe that there isn't one answer - only a combination of technologies will be able to address the looming crisis worldwide in varying environments.

Of all of the non-fossil-fuel energy production methods, nuclear is probably the most established, and the only one that does not depend heavily on local geography for sunlight/wind/water+elevation/geothermal/etc. The problem of what to do with the waste is certainly a big one, but not insurmountable. In fact, there are projects underway to build reactors that re-use the fuel, thereby greatly reducing the amount that needs to be disposed of. I think the largest obstacle to more widespread nuclear production is public opinion.

As for the energy generation gap more generally,

I believe that solar power and bio-fuels will be corner stones of the new energy economy. Wind, and possibly tidal/current power will also have a place, but only in specific locations. Besides, the energy in wind comes from uneven heating caused by the sun - solar is a more direct conversion. Nuclear and trash-based bio-fuels are the only technologies I am aware of that can be used pretty much anywhere. Any others?

Improving the energy efficiency of electronics (particularly lighting and H/VAC) and transportation will be another extremely important issue. That will involve both technological advancement and shifts in the 'one person per SUV' culture.

Minimizing the severity of the 'energy generation gap' could make or break many economies, particularly ones developing on a large scale (eg China) and those using on an extreme scale (eg US). The countries that transition to a post-fossil-fuel economy most smoothly may be the next generation superpowers. The transition has the potential to pull the global community closer together, but there will certainly be rocky patches to overcome.

On a slight side note, Brazil and some others are already moving to a primarily sugar cane based energy economy, and New Zealand is in the process of going carbon-neutral... very cool!

Ultimately, it will be economic pressure that drives the shift in energy production methods more than environmental concerns. It is obviously already starting.

Neatly put.

Nice reply, Butcher. You omitted geothermal power, which is important in many areas of the world. Some time ago, I entered a post re my tour of a huge geothermal power plant in Leyte (Philippines). It was impressive! Perhaps some day, peoples of the world will decide to live in peace, and we'll have thousands of uranium and plutonium warhead cores to turn into usable energy. Think of all the solar energy that we could be using more efficiently to power heat and a/c for homes, office buildings, manufacturing plants, and to charge the batteries for our electric cars (when internal combustion energy is no longer a major factor). The roof of essentially every home and office building, manufacturing plant, could be a massive set of solar cells to collect and store electricity and heat. At the rate efficiency of solar cells is improving and petroleum prices are rising, this may not be too far in the future!

I did mention geothermal in passing, but only to note that it is highly dependent on location, like most alternative energy generation methods. I know that it is very important in some areas, but really don't know enough about it. I'll definitely do some reading.

I was under the impression that nuclear was also reliant on location - near a vast body of water - or have the latest plants got round that problem?

I checked with a knowledgable source and found that a cooling pond can do the trick. Many nuclear plants already use cooling towers.

I suppose that using a cooling pond, where the water was re-used would make sense. The cooling towers I have seen all have steam coming from them - at 60+% of the waste energy from production, I would have thought that an array of Stirling engines to extract more energy from the water constructively could be used, rather than just emitting more heat to the environment.

I too would like to see a symbiotic set up where one form of generation, such as stirling engines could take advantage of the heat from other sources.

When they spray water into the top of a cooling tower some of it evaporates on the way down cooling the remainder of the water.

The apparent steam from cooling towers is water vapour. Depending upon the local conditions it may appear as clouds of steam. When it hits -40C here there is steam coming out of every chiminey and vapour clouds from the Rossdale power plant have been known to shut down the Municpal airport.

Mi opinion es que si , el uso de este proceso nuclear es la forma mas "limpia" para generar electricidad , los combustibles fosiles probablemente lleguen a su fin en el termino de 30 años , aun y cuando pienso que debe de desarrollarse aùn mas la ingenierìa referente a la seguridad.

Salvador Gonzàlez Ramìrez

Monterrey Mexico

Saludos

Salvador,

I think that by convention, if a question is posted in a particular language, it would be appropriate to answer in that language.

Chris

Chris

What part of Alberta are you from?

I live in Red Deer, work in Blackfalds. (10 min N) I am currently performing engineering, quality assurance and manufacturing data management for a oil & gas blowout preventer equipment manufactuing and service company. I lived in Edm when I was a kid. We moved to Ottawa in 1967 and I spent almost 40 years in and near Ottawa. working in a variety of jobs ranging from architectural drafting, Esso On-The-Run construction, HVAC Digital controls design and installation, system graphics, and many others. I am trained in electronics, robotics, computers, Visual Basic, Solar Energy, Creative writing, and love to collect books. (4000 in a shed back in ontario) I moved here in Oct 05.

Thanks for asking.

Chris

PS. When I worked for Johnson Controls in Ottawa, I worked in the MDS Nordion facilities, and had opportunity to see the nuclear handling technologies, pools, labs, and air filtration systems. It is very interesting that the entire facility is puts out less radiation than it takes in from the ambient air, and also the concentric negative pressure zones in the buildings, such that all air is forced through the nuclear exhaust and filtration systems.

Most interesting is seeing the blue Cherenkov radiation in the pools. They look 10 feet deep, but are actually 40. Their buildings are originally AECL in Kanata.

:)

That's an interesting thought, and I agree with you for the most part, but also I understand that: a) A lot of people won't be able to understand the question; and b) even fewer would likely reply to it or benefit from it. That's the major reason that air controllers, as well an international pilots, are supposedly conversant in English. There was a plane crash some years ago in NY, because the pilot did not understand how to tell the air controller that he was running out of fuel and had to declare an emergency for landing.

The reality is that commercial nuclear power would not long remain viable without the combustion of large quantities of cheap coal, oil, and natural gas. Granted that the reactor itself does not emit Carbon Dioxide, but the nuclear fuel cycle as a whole requires such large amounts of fossil fuels at all points in the process, particularly in fuel enrichment, that it is inaccurate bordering on untruthful to present it as a 'non-fossil-fuel energy production method.'

In addition, a little-discussed concern with increased reliance on nuclear power is security of fuel supply. In the United States, at least, we already import roughly the same percentage of our enriched reactor fuel as we do our oil, a little over 60%. Expanding use of nuclear power by the hundreds of new reactors proposed by its advocates will only worsen this imbalance. It is the equivalent of jumping from one disfunctional energy relationship into another; there's no OPEC-like fuel cartel, yet, but we would still be left vulnerable to price and supply manipulation, only by a different group of unstable foreign governments and extremists. And the price of enriched fuel has gone from $5 a pound to over $50 in the last 5 years. Just wait until China and India bring their domestic nuclear programs on, line and begin bidding up the price.

"Too cheap to meter?" Unlikely. It's dirty, expensive, and fragile. Just say no. Loudly.

Guest author of post #71 is an ignorant propagandist and is hiding behind anonymity.

Also, the processing of uranium into fuel makes more DU available for weapons. Instead of creating a need, then filling it, we got the product in need of a use.

Frankly in the UK, nuclear power stations are our only base load option. The UK does not haver any spare generating capacity and we fill the gap by importing nuclear generated electricity from France.

This is obviously something the the green wind and wave lobby have overlooked as when the wind generators stop turning, the gap that they leave in the supply chain will has to be filled by increased nuclear generation.

So those that support wind power are automatically supporting nuclear energy.

To depend upon wind and wave power we need instant start up back plant in order to avoid power cuts, but they will never eliminate the need for base load stations and these will have to be either nuclear or clean coal.

We have no coal mines left in the UK and this would mean importing fuel, and look where that has got us with gas from Russia.

The UK, has a good tidal range whis IS predictable and reliable.

We Do have a few financially viable coal mines still (despite M Thatcher's efforts).

There is probably some geothermal potential here too?

One development that could completely revolutionize the energy industry and reduce waste in HUGE ways would be the addition of capacitance to the grid.

If we had a reliable way to store large amounts of electricity, wind and solar suddenly become better options. Coal and nuclear plant systems don't have to be over-designed to hit peak loads without fault. The amount of energy produced and not used is staggering. Energy storage can help that. That is one of the more immediate promising areas for hydrogen fuel cells. Large installations can use off-peak surplus for hydrolysis and more efficiently take care of peak loads using fuel cells. Fewer coal plants would be needed (or rather, fewer new ones added to account for increased load).

It's all about options and flexibility, and any way we can increase either is a step in the right direction!

Fossil fueled power plants are relatively cheap to build but they have ongoing fuel costs that in the end constitute the major portion of the cost of the electricity produced, the depreciation of physical plant constitutes a relatively small portion.

The situation is reversed with a nuclear power plant, the physical plant costs are high while the fuel costs are relatively low. In this case the depreciation of the physical plant constitutes the major cost of the electricity produced while the fuel costs contribute a relatively small amount.

If you are a power company with a nuclear and a fossil fuel plant sitting next to each other it makes sense to run the Nuclear plant at its maximum capacity and throttle the fossil fuel plant as load changes. Rather than throttle back the nuclear plant during periods of very low demand the excess capacity from the nuclear plant could be used to hydrolyze water and produce hydrogen and oxygen, both products with commercial value.

The hydrogen could be used to fuel fuel cells or even gas turbines if the fuel cell technology is not ready yet.

Sorry but the energy to separate the Hydrogen and store it will be more than is recoverable from using the hydrogen ,even in a fuel cell. It would take 24 "hydrogen trucks" to give us the same equivalent energy as is in one truckload of gasoline.

Hydrogen and fuel cells are a neat technology, but nowhere near as efficient as just pushing electrons down a wire. They do come in handy when there is no wire, or flow down the wire.

THats why we will have plug in electrics widely in use and not fuel cars. Its a lose lose lose energy proposition.

milo

Milo,

You are absolutely correct that there are very large losses associated with hydrolysis and subsequent use of hydrogen in fuel cells.

My point was that using that type of process, or something else, to add capacitance to the grid has the potential to cut inefficiency. Currently, power plants generate huge amounts of excess power so that they can handle peak loads. Using that excess as an input to storage can cut down on waste, even if the storage technology is far from efficient. Large scale storage of hydrogen is currently cheaper, safer, and longer lasting than large scale battery storage. It's also much easier to make fuel cells efficient and safe on a large scale permanent basis than in cars.

On hydrogen powered vehicles, it is true that we are a long way from storage technology that will make fuel cell cars as efficient or 'easy' as gasoline. As I said in the thread on electric vehicles, I think the most important aspect of electric cars is the disconnect from original energy source. Battery storage electric vehicles open flexibility - the power can originate from coal, nuclear, solar, anything. Decreasing the reliance on oil as a singular transportation energy source should broaden the economic viability of alternative resources.

Also please see my post #24 that talks about broad dismissal of technologies.

No problem.

As you point out the economics will determine. On ALL issues.

Adding 'capacitance to grid' can also involve photovoltaic (during daylight hours of course) and other non combustion technologies

I believe that you and I differ only in our aversion, not to risk, but to Potential Consequences of that risk.

And that is as you pointed out, an emotional/ phlosophical issue, not necessarily a rational one.

Thanks for the reply.

milo

Great stuff, so let me add! Did you see the conversion of solar energy via reflection using of course many mirrors coordinated thus focsing beams of light to a single point in a high tower capturing and converting this focal energy into steam to drive turbines and thus produce x-amount of electricity. Energy is stored for further conversion at night. This process I believe is occuring as we speak in Spain.

I believe this focused solar energy for electrical generation has been used for some years out in the western areas of the U.S. I know I've seen a number of articles about it, and photos of the physical plants.

Yes, it has been used for some time, fairly successfully. The economics haven't worked out all that great because of the large material investment, mediocre output and scalability, and cheap electric prices.

Using solar power to heat water for homes is currently (by FAR) more efficient than converting to electricity directly with photoelectric panels. Rooftop solar water heaters are quickly growing in popularity, dropping in price, and can save enormous amounts of electricity by offsetting what we put into water heaters. Heating water is the primary energy use in any hotel, and many other large buildings.

"It is sobering to think that the time in the history of the Universe when life exists has dictated some interesting nuclear consequences for human life. We have seen how the different decay rates of the two uranium isotopes make uranium-235 relatively more abundant in the past. By the same token it will be relatively less abundant on planets like the Earth in the far future. During the last century we discovered that our planet's crust contains radioactive elements that enable nuclear bombs to be created with some technical skill if we refine the active uranium-235 isotope from the more abundant uranium-238. If humans appeared far earlier or far later on our planet than they did then their prospects for harnessing nuclear weapons would have been very different.

We are the beneficiaries of many aspects of the Earth's interesting geology. The presence of heavy elements with interesting magnetic and radioactive properties has led to our understanding of these fundamental forces of Nature. Life on a pleasant, irrigated planet, bathed in the light of a well-behaved star, would be possible with nothing of nuclear or radioactive interest anywhere near its surface. But its inhabitants would be severely handicapped in their quest to understand the scope and richness of the forces and constants of Nature."

excerpt from The Constants of Nature, by John D. Barrow

I vote NO to nuclear. The risk of a rupture of just one container of waste will be devastating. With a half life of ten thousand years there is nothing that will containe the nuke waste that long. Even burying it deep underground is no good.With earth quakes and other plate shifts the poison that nuke waste represents to the whole world is totally unacceptable. With our government putting a lid on everything else to do with the world (environmentally), What makes anyone think for one second that they would tell us the truth if or when something did go wrong. Our best bet is to shoot for any and every kind of power generation except fossil fuel (coal,oil,natural gas) and nuclear. There is plenty of documentation as proof, Tessla ran a Pierce Arrow on electricity. That was nearly 100 years ago. Now you guys are supposed to be so darned smart, get off your dead centers and figure out what he did and Improve on it. The big oil intrests are only going to last for a few more years,so it is time to get to work and come up with a replacement energy source that will not be harmfull to humans that can replace fossil fuels. There is enough electricity in our atmosphere to power every machine man could ever think of for ever, NOW GET OUT THERE AND FIGURE OUT HOW TO HARNESS IT.

The worst nuclear disaster imaginable has already happened (remember Chernobyl).

It killed some workers and an estimated few thousand due to the increased radiation, it was certainly a tragedy, but keep it in perspective, think how many have been killed in "small" wars or invasions, from smoking, from TB, car crashes and (in the US) accidents involving firearms.

The reality is that risk is part of our lives, we need to manage it and get the greatest benefit. Nuclear remains a viable option in many situations.

The conspiracy stuff is getting a bit tiring, Tesla did some neat things with high frequency transformers and extra high voltages, but it's all well understood (by elec engineers at least) and just not practical.

What separates engineering from wishful thinking is that eng. involves making hard choices about allocation of resources, capital costs, lifecycle costs, safety, efficiency etc.Any fool can make an electric car, but what is the real cost, how reliable is it, will consumers be a bit wary if it only works when near a 5MV, 50MHz transformer, will they be unhappy with the smell of ozone etc.

The Truth is out there, unfortunately it requires hard work and study to get it. Jeff

Well said Jeff.

New Zealand is nuclear-free. When a recent(ish) study was conducted into building a nuclear plant in New Zealand, one of our politicians asked the consultant where the safest place to put the plant would be, the consultant replied "Australia".

We are still nuclear free, but we have plenty of hydro and geothermal power here so it doesn't really effect us that much.

I strongly support the concept of utilizing geothermal and hydropower in preference to nuclear power. But lets face it, no matter what form of energy one wishes to harness, there will always be someone that comes up with a reason that it COULD be environmentally a nightmare, or cost too much. They call these people by differnt names. (eg: lobbyists, political actists, etc.). Personally, I have other names for them.

Ha, you don't know the half of it! One power company here just recently got nailed by green protesters for polluting the waters off the shore with their byproduct that the say was contributing to kill a specific type of fish. What was this pollutant, any guesses........ Well your all wrong! The byproduct was pure H20 (water). Apparently pouring H20 into the sea kills fish. I mean, really, we engineers could come up with the perfect energy source and some people would complain that it looks ugly. DO YOU ALL WANT POWER OR NOT!

I wonder how they got down to the site. Probably all drove their SUV's down.

Remember, pollution can include thermal pollution! If one raises the average temperature of the water immediately surrounding the discharge from the cooling towers or heat exchanger, this is serious pollution to the aquatic life. Check how the Seabrook (NH) nuclear plant got around this pollution via dispersed discharge areas.

Nuclear-free? Does that include emissions from ionising smoke detectors, luminous watches, coal stockpiles and medical facilities?

This saying has moved from its origins (between the wars!)!

It used to be "Dover for the Continent, Folkstone for the incontinent..."

The subject of nuclear energy generation must be approached from a standpoint of scientific and engineering fact, not from emotion. Emotionally based presentations can be tailored to generate almost any public response desired. We have witnessed that time and time again since the story of Adam and Eve, well before the formation of the Roman Empire and onward to the present day.

The facts are these:

1. We import oil from nations that are taught en masse to hate us, our lifestyle, our ways, and our very existence.

2. Pricing of oil and gas is out of our hands. It is basically up to those who which to destroy us. Venezuela was once friendly to the west. I spent considerable time in Caracas some years ago and an instrumentation and controls engineer working for consortium of an American contractor and Maraven, and found the atmosphere very cordial. That is no longer the case today with Chavez in power (Major our sources in Venezuela have been nationalized). Moverover, the stateside corporate entities are more interested in profits than in bringing down refining cost. That was no more evident than in a headline article in current issue of Business Week concerning Exxon. The editor of the article stated in closing (a paraphrase): Exxon is transferring monies from those who pay at the pump to the stockholders. While I'm no fan of government regulation in a free society, a point is reached upon occasion when gpvernment intervention is necessary. During my former 20 year period in petrochemical enineering and construction, the remnants of Rockefeller's Standard Oil anti-trust breakup were referred to as the "seven sisters", who were always close to each other in sharing of technology through cross-licensing, and product pricing. The only possible exception was Hess, who was a stahlwart seperatist. Today, mergers have reduced the real number of oil companies to considerably less than was the case 30 years ago.

3. We have more energy in coal than Saudi Arabia has in oil. The problem is that per BTU of heating value, coal produces more CO2 than does oil. While it is true that stack gas can be compressed and stored (or diffused) undergroung, it is expensive to do from an initial cost and operating cost standpoint. That does not mean the alternative should not be explored with an objective of development, however.

4. France and Japan have successfully committed to large scale nuclear power development. With the advent of pebble bed reactors, "runaway" conditions due to loss of coolant accidents (LOCAs) are essentially self-regulating. Meanwhile we in the supposedly great USA suffer from ghosts of the guitar-strumming hippies of the '60's who picked upon fission power generation as a rallying focus. We still have those who point to Chernobyl as indicative of accident possiblities with no recognition of the safety and containment absence in that installation.

5. There is no question that nuclear waste can be a problem. However, we ought to take a lesson from the French, who have reduced volume of waste by about a factor of 50 by allowing Plutoniuim to be bred. A secondary consideration is that of providing fuel for the future in the form of Plutonium. If we can guard Fort Knox, we can guard a store of Plutonium, despite terrorism. Handling Anthrax with gloves and a mask is innocuous when compared to a relative neophyte handling Plutonium.

6. No question exists that more dilegence must be exercized in plant design. Pebble bed reactors constitute one avenue. However, I am befudulled by the fact that the first stage Crosby Pressurizer valve at Three Mile Island was equipped with a limit switch to read PILOT position, not MAIN VALVE position. Laxity of that nature must not be a part of nuclear power components. No wonder the poor operators had control panel indication that the pressurizer valve was closed, when in fact it was not.

6. Wind and solar power have a definite place in our energy future, but primarily for small scale applications (particularly solar, in remote areas off the grid). However, economy of scale is not present in those technologies as it is in fossil fuel or fission power plants.

7. Ultimately, fuel cells for cars will be developed, which can be fueled by hydrogen from electrolysis of water. Nuclear power for that purpose is ideal. Abundant evidence exists that the infrastructure must change relatively quickly to avoid atmospheric CO2 concentrations above 350 PPM concentration maximum. While methane is much more of a greenhouse gas than is CO2, much less of it is produced from flatulent cows. rotting vegitation, etc, than is the case with CO2.

There exist many reasons for further dependence upon nuclear power, not viewed as was the case in the 60's but rather viewed from today's vantage point, with diosturbing geopolitics of oil, China's thirst for oil, and whatever thin margin we still retain in the technology (not to mention control of atmospheric CO2).

Just IMHO

BernieK

I think a lot of people forget to look at the energy balance of "Alternative" energy sources such as solar, wind, etc. Can you imagine how much resources in terms of steel, copper, cobalt, titanium, gold, moly and many, many other resources INCLUDING ENERGY would e needed for the world to produce just 50% of its' power by non hydrocarbon sources? Kind of like ethanol. Best I can understand at BEST ethanol is energy neutral, meaning the net output of ethanol equals all of the energy put into it.. Thus a waste of time and money .. for no real benefit.

All in all nuclear power will be a part of our future, just as conservation, wind, solar, tidal, coal, gas and hydro will be. Quite frankly hydro is still very UNDER-utilized. Think about the resources that go INTO a hydro plant and how much energy comes out of t and for how long. Really quite incredible. At some point we need to get over the "politically correct" approach and be wise about the use of our limited resources. The idea of blowing up dams when we need the power is ridiculous, but it is happening. And the same environmentalists that want to oppose everything except conservation and solar want to tear them down. Now environmentalists are opposing wind power.

"However, I am befudulled by the fact that the first stage Crosby Pressurizer valve at Three Mile Island was equipped... "

The valve that failed at TMI was in fact a Dresser valve, not a Crosby. Otherwise, good points.

I sincerely believe that anyone who votes against nuclear energy at this time ( and probably for the next 100 years!) is basically voting them (and the rest of us) back into the dark ages.

So unless we suddenly get rid of probably 80 % of the worlds population (and severely control population sizes for evermore), this planet cannot support the present number of people without further cheap energy - e.g. nuclear.

I completely agree with several members that sun, wind & tidal sources should all be used to their maximum, but at the end of the day, continuing to burn fossil fuel is going to eventually boil large areas of this planet and make them completely untenable. We can see the start of these effects already.

We must go CO2 neutral and hope that nature will take care of the extra CO2 and bring this planet back into a relatively stable situation.

Reality is tough to face and although the people living today may not see in their lifetimes the full effects of burning fossil fuels, it is up to us to make a start now and leave a good legacy for our children to carry on with.

I vote for nuclear energy (hopefully fusion will be available within the next 50 years,) careful storage of the waste products (which could become fuel again if fusion arrives) and the stopping of the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible.

As an aside, plastic bags in supermarkets should be completely banned as well as a lot of other waste plastic packaging materials. It uses mostly oil for production and can easily be replaced with paper or proper carriers that are re-usable for many years to come....even using the plastic in re-usable containers would be a much better use of our oil resources. Come back Tupperware!!! All is forgiven!!

The Global Warming hoax was started by the Thatcher Nuclear industry to stop the coal miner's union and their political power in England. It seems that each just tells lies about the other to get a foot hold. Anything for a cash flow and political power, or the ability to take money from you and I and give it to the Pols friends. As John Oliver D-MA rep once said to me: "you have to be our friend before we will get you your $1.2 million R&D money (referring to Scuderigroups con game engine). " Bull, Bull, and more Methane producting Bull. I say such pols need to do time in the jail box, maybe in Cuba say...

Co2 is NOT a pollutant, unless it comes from a "Polotician's" mouth, of course. I say we carbon tax all co2 from a pol and any jet they fly, and let them put their money where there polluting mouth is.

We don't need nuke. Every fourth house can generate enough energy, heat/cooling, and electricity with enough capacitance and non-solar day power generation to completely get rid off a coal, nuke, wind and oil. Every house can be a power plant and do it at the same or less cost of typical stick built houses. Serious.

I say nuke the nuke power.

dear Sea Plane Your paroichal citation "The Global Warming hoax was started by the Thatcher Nuclear industry to stop the coal miner's union and their political power in England." Is a HOAX. Only aged English people know who is Mme Thatcher. Global warming is there whether the minor's union and all the unions of the world want it or not. I dont want to be rude otherwise I would have used other terms wit a man like You. The socialist government of the late president Francois MITTERAND stoped the Nuclear Cloud of TCHERNOBYL at the French boarder. The french government did not grant the clowd an ENTRY VISA. best regards and good trips with your hydroplane Socrate Hatoum Paris

I do not believe a single word of what you say, sorry.

Andy von Deutschland,

Not a single work? Wow, you must really know a lot. Run the numbers yourself. 3500 billion kw-hrs can be generated by every 4th house in the USA with PV at 10% efficiency. Yes, PV is way to expensive, yes, but I am not talking PV.

If the true fully loaded economics of nuke power warrants nuke power, great, go for it. Don't make me pay for it as a taxpayer. If you invest YOUR OWN MONEY and a technology comes along that "nukes" your investment, then you, the investor should loooooose his life savings. But you are not talking about free enterprise with nuke power. You want everbody to pay your R&D and clean up you mess after my tech makes your tech yesterday's idea. Sign the contract, put your family fortune on the line and go for it. Please. It is a dead end. Spend you money on a dead end. Great.

I don't see it as an eviro issue, just a cost and freedom issue. The entire cycle needs to be considered, and when you take all the costs into account, yes, it is better than oil or coal. I agree!

Co2 is not a problem and temperatures do NOT track co2 concentration at the saturation levels we are at now. 1875 was the coldest in 8000 years, and 1875 was 2.5 degrees lower than a 4000 year period and 1.5 lower than it was in 1000 ad. The planet will warm and cool. Co2 is not the cause.

The second main problem I have with nuke is it is a centralized power system. Freedom requires a "balance of power." Power drives our freedom. I don't want centralized power generation any more than I want centralize and unaccountable government that dictates to me how much power I can use. My standard of living is directly related to the power I can use. Nuke is a total dead ender, not from an engineering point of view, but from a freedom point of view. Why trade an oil master for a nuke master? Makes zero "cents."

Last but not least, terrorists love Nuke power because it puts a (false) fear in people. Centralized systems are a target. The twin towers were a target. Every nuke plant is a target. When you build a nuke plant, they blank out airspace for guys like me to fly. Why? Terrorism. Why is the USA having a problem in Afghanistan? (First hand knowledge here, guy) They cannot keep the lights on! Central grid power systems are a target. Nuke power in Apghanistan would never work, and soon it won't work in the USA when the war comes here. Coal plants are also a target. Survival requires individual power sources and distributed networks that can quickly bypass a loss, eliminating power generation as a target. You might as well paint a target on all mass transit, and mass anything (read government).

I say, nuke the nuke idea. Put another way, nuke would be ok, but you will need to remove the 10-50% of the moslem world who want to kill westerners. It ain't going to happen. Until then, you don't have a viable system because it is centralized. This is the world we live in today. Get used to it.

Dear Brain Power NO , NO & No to nucllear Power Yes to the power of sh... and trash. The Anaerobic digestion of human or animal excrecats mixed with organic trash generated by modern human society can solve the energy crisis when Petroleum will have been stupidly consumed. 1000 kg of dung yield an average of 40 m3 of Bio gas equivalent to 160 liter of Diesel oil or eqivalent to 280 000 kilo-calories enough to hihgher the temperature of 4000 liter of water from 25 to 95°C. Regards Socrate Hatoum

Hi Guest. It's people like you who are ruining the world with your undemocratic aproach. NO, NO & NO to nuclear power is a shortsighted view. I suspect that you do not realise the full scale of the problem facing mankind in the near future. If you have any solution, could you please outline you plans clearly on this site? Spencer.

Regarding the politicos, consider Alistair Darling, of the scotch cabal ruling our sceptered isle. He confesses to having been agin nuclear a year ago. Now, hey presto, a conversion on the road to Downing Street. What happened ? British Nuclear Fuels, state owned has sold its power station construction arm, Westinghouse, to Toshiba. In July, Ali's government stated that it was going to sell part of its stake in British Energy, and also the country is selling British Nuclear Group (decommissioning).

Watch what directorships Ali takes up when he takes his Westminster pension, then tell me what all the above rationality has to do with government decisions.

Just for the sake of perspective: Written history is about 7,000 years old. The half life of the waste is 10,000. Given that the bulk of the energy we need is for convenience rather than survival, the burden on future generations cannot be justified.

The situation (to me) is similiar to emptying aquifers for watering lawn grass in the desert (hello, Phoenix and Los Vegas).

I certainly can't disagree with watering desert lawns being wasteful :)

I do think everyone here should read some more about nuclear energy, and all the other things that have come up. I don't know much about it and found the wikipedia entries on the subject very informative and not emotional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_waste

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel_cycle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_nuclear_fuel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain

One general thing I have found disconcerting/annoying/entertaining in energy/environment discussions like this is the mix of uninformed, emotional arguments.

Emotional responses cause people to either only point out what promising research is being done and ignore current reality, or completely ignore recent advancements and base arguments on past technology (Chernobyl - tragedies should be discussed and learned from, but not to dismiss current state of the art - no one argues that the model T was unsafe to point out flaws in a 2007 Ford). Everyone is guilty of this at some point or another, myself included.

To find solutions to the environmental and energy crisis, we need to stop dismissing things out of hand and stop touting new advancements as the sole saviors of mankind. It is human nature to do these things, but they are counterproductive.

Luckily, economics has a way of leveling the playing field, increasing logic, and lowering emotional responses. Like I said in another post, economics will probably shape the new energy economy more than pure environmental concerns or national security. These days, those things just happen to be starting to line up.

Hi Butcher. I totally agree with you, here is another thought on this matter. At the begining of the industial revolution everybody said that the boilers would burst at pressures above 4psi, killing anyone who was near them. Then later, boiler technology in the 1800s were so advanced that steam loco's and stationary engine boilers were operated at 60 to 120psi, killing no-one. The boilers that did explode were caused by firemen who had tied the safety valve down to get greater pressures. It has been the same for many of our technologies since the industrial revolution, safety mesures have to be introduced to stop idiots or mistakes to ensure that everything is safe to use. It is the same for nuclear power, before the first nuclear explosion, some of the scientists working on the project thought that it might set off a huge global nuclear reaction and thus destroy the whole planet. I am for nuclear power stations, but I think that what we need is a mix of all technologies to overcome our forthcoming energy needs. Spencer.

There was a news item about 2, possibly 3 years ago, that there were something like 8 or 10 new golf courses built in Orlando County, FL, and each course used 1,000,000 gallons of water a day. I have heard weather professionals say that the humidity in areas such as Arizona has increased dramatically due to extensive lawn and golf course watering. People used to go there for the dry conditions.

Hi BrainWave. I am left wondering just how we in the UK are going to get enough energy to satisfy future needs. I read an artical recently that we are going to get huge windfarms and possibly a Severn river barrage, but the local greens have protested about this! When I went to give a talk locally and suggested that the answer might be to have newer and more nuclear power stations, the green element hit the roof. I understand their feelings about this, but I found it impossible to tell them that to have energy free of charge to the invironment was impossible they said it was. I then asked them to tell me how we should do this, no answer was forthcomming. We are damned if we don't, and we are damned if we do! Spencer.

Spencer you have put it in a nutshell, the greens just want to protest, they do not have a clue about how to offer constructive advice....

In Germany, they just want to become a politician once, as after that, they get a pension forever !! I am in the wrong business!!

Hi Andy. Thank you. It seems that in Germany it is the same as in the UK. Spencer.

As someone who has worked in both Coal and Nuclear plants, I am neutral to nuclear power. The problems of waste disposal are not insurmountable. To the green folks I will say this. If you are worried about burying nuclear waste for 10,000 years, then why isn't there any protest to burying CO2. CO2 does not decay and we will need to keep it buried forever. CO2 coming to the surface has already killed on one occasion that I'm aware of in africa at lake Neos (sp?).

Efficiency is going to be a bigger player to our energy woes that nuclear or any green fuel. Most people don't have any sort of feel for how much power they are using or wasting at any given time.

Solar for every house along with batteries and power inverters, i think is the necessary mindset we need. With climate change, areas that were cloudier should be sunnier. Even if a location gets only half the annual sunlight of a desert area, it still is a lot of energy available. I recall an interesting idea about electric car power being able to return back to the grid in a crunch.

Nuclear energy can be cleaned up, and made safe, so yes.

That being said, I agree that we shouldn't just choose one solution. we need many, or all.

The sun puts enough energy onto the earth to satisfy all our needs. We need to learn to capture it and store it. All the wind, wave, light and heat energy can be used.

Currently the energy storage technology industry is dominated and controlled by energy and battery companies. If energy storage is perfected, there is less demand for 'on-demand' energy, so a simple matter of economics. There are other ways, and the shackles need to be thrown off, and the technologies explored. Don't forget that matter itself is a form of energy storage.. stored in a harmonically locked rotary form. Energy is continuous motion, and harmonic flywheel research, at large scale or atomic scale will yield the knowledge necessary to unlock the atom and harness, I believe. (not just fission or fusion, but complete energy release)

my opinion for what its worth.

Chris

ChrissG288, my fellow Albertan. Here we live in Saudi Arabia North and they are talking about using nuclear power to extract oil from the tar sands.

Nuclear plants retain all of their waste unlike fossil fueled plants and that waste will eventually get buried. The people who want to sequester CO₂ will also be sequestering Oxygen, something that many of us find to be very useful.

Those who recognize my nom de plume know that I am an avid fan of the CANDU nuclear reactor system and the many fail safe characteristics that are built into it. I would love to see Alberta replace its coal fired plants with CANDU systems.

Nuclear plants have a place in our energy future and for some us who live in the northern parts of the province, our winter days that have less than 8 hours per day of sunlight are not viable candidates for solar energy. For those who live in the southern parts of the province where the wind never seems to stop may be candidates for wind power but is there enough real estate for all of the required wind turbines?

For a given geographic area, with its specific meteorology, there may be multiple solutions, but for consistent, reliable, and economical base load generation, nuclear is hard to beat.

Is nuclear energy the only long term way out of the energy generation gap about to open up?

If the assumption is While maintaining current western quality and standard of life, the answer is yes.

Even the French have figured this out.

If you'd like your kids and grandkids to live in a much poorer standard, then, no, buy some acreage and some draft horses and live like the amish.

but even the amish buy nikes...

nuclear isn't the only answer, but given our addictionfor and nascent needs for bolus loads of energy, its the only one that can deliver the terawattage required. (the us used 98 quads in 2002, (Thats a million billion joules))

fact: A 1000 megawatt nuclear power plant (the standard size in the United States) occupies 213 acres, or about one-third of a square mile, using windmils it would take 7,500 windmills on 300 square miles,to create the same amount of power.The problem is people do a lousy job understanding risk, especially low probability high impact risk.

Don't believe me, watch them sell lotto tickets on the day the government checks get mailed out.

milo

Yes. lets just look at a couple of facts.

the waste from a Nuclear Power plant resulting from providing all the power you need for your life time fits in a small shoe box. The waste from a coal fired power plants fits in a box cars of a train about .5 miles long. The waste products from crude oil fits in tanker cars on a train almost as long. why don't those who chant NO, NO, NO Nuclear power talk about these inconveniences.

Oh by the way the amount of Uranium sent in to the air at a coal power plant is 100 time that of the waste which is solid and goes back into the ground it came from.

yes to solar and wind, as well

Absolutely Brilliant ! Many thanks for your time and trouble.

Mech eng.

Excellent observations, I couldn't have said it better,

The MOST important by-product of finding the right alternative energy sources be it nuclear, wind, tidal, Hydrogen or what have you, would probably be the reduction of the importance of oil. Global warming, CO2 and other contaminants of oil burning power generators, and that includes the biggest pollution producer of them all, the automotive engine (69% of all gas emissions, that has no immediate nuclear solution.) ALL are far less important than the real threat on the world's future. 100% of global terrorism is being financed by oil revenues. El Quaida, Hammas, Islamic Jihad, social Chavez-ism and many other terrorists groups, are being propelled by the dollar you and I are paying at our local gas pump. Absurd but true, but all of us have financed the world trade center disaster. By keep on paying for gas we keep on stirring world's unrest and supporting fundamentalism. By eliminating the need to buy oil from these angels of hatred we will automatically eliminate the huge global influence that these religious radical regimes have, and may reduce the chance we, the "infidels" have to die from a strike of Mohamed's sward of justice. NO more money, no more air conditioned desert cities, and starving Darfur kids. Back to their traditional desert tents and back to oblivion. The only important contribution that the Radical Islam have made to humanity's life quality are today's wars. If we consider the Irish war as over, 96% of today's conflicts are Islam related... and are 100% oil financed. We HAVE to look for alternative energy. The money spent over the last 15 years in Iraq, Kuwait Afghanistan, Pakistan, and these that are going to be spent in Iran, Syria Lebanon and so on, should be spent on R&D.

Just think about it.

Wangito.

Its really nice to have a CR4 Blog with so few missinformed people on it!!

A great discussion, many thanks to you all...

let's not for get the "inconvenient truth" Mr. Gore spends $3000/month, yes each month, for his home energy bill. Mr green gore is not very green is he!!

while i'm bring up a couple of facts has anybody looked up the percent to CO2 in the air that the cause of all this global warming. it's about .03% or 3 parts in 10,000 compared to N2 which is 78% and O2 about 21%.

no one is taking about the resent news that the average temperature of Mars has been steadily rising.

no one talks about the fact if you increase the CO2 content of the atmosphere by 15% then plant growth rates nearly double.

does anyone remember 15 years ago the same people who are now preaching global warming were crying "Ice Age"

go to Salem Ma they have a 3D map of the harbor showing the harbor size over the last 300+/- years showing the ocean levels mostly falling. So if the water levels rise again aren't they just going back to the way it was? Which is what all the tree huggers want anyway?

does anyone have data on the energy output of the sun on an annual basis for the last say 100 or 1000 years?

So, is CO2 level increase causing or the result of a warming planet?

CO₂ is a symptom, rather than a cause, but is not to be discounted as the health effects of continued exposure, even to 0.1% for humans can be severe.

Even if the whole universe is increasing temperature, we still have to keep within our "comfort zone" - and the plants/animals on which we rely for food. (see also the thread on honey bees)

It then makes even more sense to utilise as much solar power as practical, rather than produce heat by any other method - nuclear included.

Gm1964,

Did you even read the severe link? To get to even 1200 ppm we would have to burn ALL coal and oil known to man in a very short period. Co2 is NOT toxic according you the link. It just lowers the O2 concentration (partial pressure issue) and it is like going to high altitude. Do you realize that plants seem to like co2 at 1200 ppm and may have "evolved" to those levels??? If everybody in the world had a house as big as Al the Gore, we would not begin to reach 1200 ppm in centuries. Stop the fear. Co2 is a good thing, and plants love it. You cannot be "green" and not LOVE co2, the food of plants. In fact, if co2 concentrations were to double we might even make biofuels viable. All coal plants (with proper emissions controls of mercury and such) should be next to farms to artificially increase co2 concentrations to the plants. It could even double crop production. See www.co2science.com

Yes, of course I read the link - Did you realise that it is not just humans that produce CO₂?

There is a far greater production from all the other causes - and a vast reduction in the vegetation coverage since biblical times (the area around the Dead Sea was forest then, as was the South Sahara). It is my belief that the burning of the rain forests are contributing more to the rate of climate change than the burning of fossil fuels, but that does not mean that we should continue.

There is also evidence that one of the largest CO₂ sinks - the Southern Ocean - has reached capacity, and could start emitting the gas as temperatures rise: the best solution I can see is to find a way of growing plants - whether for food or fuel - in the deserts, and the only way to do that is to reduce the amount of solar energy reaching the ground.....

I wonder how well we would perform in our jobs with constant altitude sickness?

Gm,

I am not suggesting we should burn all carbon fuel up all at once. It would take a 1000 years or more. Maybe the Dead Sea was a forest because it had higher concentrations of co2. In Isreal it is well documented (www.co2science.com) that trees are now growing where they could not before. The more co2 we have the more drought resistant plants are and hence forrest where deserts are now.

As for altitude sickness, it is not possible for man to get it to those levels let along even change the levels. You should realize that co2 was HIGHER than today many times in the last 180 years since man has measured concentrations. There were no SUV's back then. Co2 concentration FOLLOW temperature, and they do NOT lead.

Co2 levels go up and down by the season, sometimes over 100 ppm in 3 months! This notion of a 280 to a rising doom of 350 ppm is just not historical. Man has an unmeasurable (read zero) to do with it and is a fly on the back of earth.

The USA forrests are at least twice as thick and dense as they were in the 1800s. Co2 is the cause. Do you realize that there is a negative feedback due to plants relative to co2? We are nowhere near any level of co2 that is of concern. We should PAY people to cleanly convert fuel to co2.

Ask whether you would recommend the clean burning of "fossil" fuel (h2o and co2) if there were global cooling. If not, then you are not consistant. Bottom line is the theory of co2 induced global warming is false.

The dead sea is dead because the ancient gods nuked the spaceport in northern sinai, and contaminated the entire area. The area of the dead sea still has a higher than background radiation, and the event was ax 5000 years ago. This is also the basis of the biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Lot's wife was not turned to a pillar of salt, but a pillar of vapour. (similar words in ancient source language) This was also the source of the 'evil wind' which ended the sumerian civilization, and caused the great diaspora, which founded all the traditional eastern 'ancient' civilizations, all the way to china... (source: Zecharia Sitchin - The Earth Chronicles series)

Welll....The absorption and heat trapping properites of CO2 are higher than N2 and O on a molecule basis, your point I presume is based on thermal pick up by "mass" of co2 concentration compared to other gases? but that misses the point as well.

If we are going to act as true engineers, then why the he!! hasn't any one mentioned water, water vapor, and compared its specific heat properties to all these bousshwah greenhouse gasses by molecule and by weight? Every thing else is just noise.

Answer: because it dwarfs all other factors by a many many many orders of magnitude. But then that would take away this false issue for greater government control and tyranny by the Gaia worshippers, who have essentially turned the Euroean Union in to a Theocracy where the religion is "Green Planet service" and the precautionary Principle is it's catechism.

Earth first.

We'll subjugate the other planets after we've out grown this one.

milo

This was a great thread! I don't normally get involved with the potentially hotbed political threads, but there wasn't much of that this time.

I think we will need nuclear power for some time to come. Can we do it safer - you bet! I believe that BWR's and PWR's were a decision of convenience at the time, but I firmly believe there are better, safer technologies around now. How about the new reactor that uses the fuel pellets in glass(?) balls - even if you drain all of the coolant, the fuel will never go critical. I can't remember the name of the reactor, but I hear the Chinese are looking to buy a whole bunch of them - I think Westinghouse is going to make them (don't quote me, it was a year or two ago when I read about it). I don't even think they use control rods - if you want the steam to stop, you just turn off the coolant flow - the fuel gets hot but not hot enough to melt the glass it is encased in or do any other damage. There is also a system to circulate the balls out of the core for inspection purposes, and the bad ones can be removed and replaced.

Is nuclear the only way? I think not. I still believe that various implementations of solar, wind, hydro, and thermal, among others, will have their place for many years to come. Even biofuels, if we can get away from food crops to make them, have their place. But for the shear volume of power, I don't think those solar reflector fields that heat the sodium to make steam are ever going to compete with the amount of electricity that a reactor can produce, nor a good-sized dam for that matter.

There are a lot of wishful thinking projects out there, and that's great, but at the end of the day we still consume exhorbatant amounts of electricity and until that changes, the big money power industry is here to stay.

As for carbon sequestering, I am not sure that is the way to go. I think the debate is still open about the causes of global warming and whether increased CO2 in the atmosphere leads to warming - I think that those who believe that increased CO2 lags global warming instead of leading global warming are onto something.

The fossil-fuel system is great while it lasts, but I fear that gravy train is about to quit. We need to start on other programs now. I think a lot more work needs to be done, but I say YES to (cleaner, safer) nuclear energy - it is but another option on the road ahead.

Yes, quite a good thread. One of the major issues that I believe is not getting the attention needed is the idea of true energy conservation. There is so much waste that occurs today that did not years ago. If we as a planet could stem this waste then we be in a much better environment. Unfortunately, conservation is only becoming an issue because it is getting expensive to power all of the little "necessities" we have been accustom to.

As for Nukes or no Nukes I have always thought of them to be an asset. The amount of harm they have done to our environment when compared to other means is minimal. Just look at all of the mountains that have been reduced or the craters created to mine coal. Look at all of the oil spills all over the world. Look at the combustion byproduct visible in any city in any country. Even Hydro has cost. The land covered by man made dams is vast. Just look at the Colorado River, the Nile Rive or the Yellow River for examples. I guess what I am saying is that what ever method is used to create energy damage to the environment is likely to occur. What needs to be addressed is how much can be tolerated.

I come from a family that has worked in the scientific labs as nuclear physcists, as well as being in the fields doing tests. Some of these tests were done after W.W.II. Remember Bikini Island? And then, there was the Nevada test sites. I had lost one relative who worked at the Nevada testing grounds. This was 20 years later after the fact, he died from cancer. And, according to the other relative my uncle, who is currently in a hospices. He says that most of the people do not understand microwaves, nuclear and radiation. Therefore, there is that attitude of chicken little syndrome. Granted, what we know now in comparision to what we knew 40 or 50 years ago is a lot different today. And with that knowledge, I would have to say that nuclear power is probably a lot safer. However, I believe that looking back to our ancient ancestors. Consider reading the epic about Lot and what happened to his wife. When the Angels told her not to look back, and she turned into a pilar of salt! According to some researchers, the time frame for this event happened nearly 4,000 years ago... and those places you can see from the space shuttle, where Sodom and Gomorra once existed. Both of those places still have radioactivity on location. And, for those who don't know where both of those cities were located. Try, near the Dead Sea. And, to this very day the Dead Sea is radioactive. Even Bikini Island still has radioactivity from the several A-bombs that were dropped on location. And, I'm sure if you were to start walking out in the Nevada desert to where the testing was done. I'm sure you'll find that the test site is still radioactive. I believe that this form of energy and its use is very essential, and that nuclear power is what the human race will be using along with other various forms of energy. However, the people on this planet need to treat this source of energy with kid gloves. And, quite possibly, one day we'll find another source of energy that'll put nuclear energy to rest.

As for the waste that's being emitted by humans in comparison to the planet emissions is completely absured. Do I believe that the planet is being polluted? I think yes. However, when it comes to emissions, we have very little to do with that. All those pathetic polioticians with the little chicken syndrome. Have already fouled up this planet enough for the last 50 years with the turmoil that's been going on in the world. And, we're worried about CO2. I'm sorry this is a load of B.S. And, this is why. As all you engineering geniuses know that the Sun which controls temperatures on earth with its solar emissions. Correct me if I'm wrong. However, not CO2 emissions. CO2 is what this planet produces. CO2 is what planets need for nutrition to help keep them green. Not only that, as being a producer of some pretty fine bier. We need CO2 to preserve and give added flavor to the bier. End of story. Now, if were so concerned about CO2 emissions. And, we're looking for an alternative use of energy? Why not consider on using those polioticians for fuel. We'll start with Ted Kennedy! He looks pretty ripe, and part of the fosil fuel chain, and with all the CO2 he's emitted for the last 40 years, I'm sure we'll fuel the planet for the next 1,000 years with him alone. And, we'll save on CO2 emissions. Then there's Al Gore, he looks pretty plump as well. Let's use them all, and all the one's that have retired, or have left office. We wouldn't have to use nuclear fuel, or oil again!

Geebers,

First part of your entry is quite interesting However the second part puts it in "Chavez level". Including your "scientific" conclusions. Moreover, personal attacks of that kind Gore, Kennedy et-al (forgot Green-Peace?) makes your personal quality questionable.and destroys what you have put so nicely before.

I don't know about Bikini, But Nagasaki and Hiroshima are long declared safe. After the six days war in 1967, Prof. Yigael Yadin, (Massada archaeological excavations, and the Qumran caves,) together with a team from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, (chemical faculty,) made intensive and sophisticated measurements of radiation levels all along the new border from Jeriko down to the Aqaba bay in order to investigate the possibility of a nuclear activity in the region within the last 5000 years. Radiation levels measured - normal. Was there an atomic event? I don't know. But the information you present as a fact is false. How do I know? I was there with them.

Sorry to disappoint you.

BTW: Madam Curie and later her husband Pierre also died from cancer related to their work. It does not reduce the importance of their work, and nobody dies today from controlled X-rays radiation. your family contribution to a better world is much greater than mine. and I thank them for what they did.

Wangito.

Hi wangito, and everybody else on this site. I have a proposal to make! Instead of just discussing and talking about the energy problems that are lying ahead of us, lets all start working on a solution. Answers anyone? Spencer.

I drive no SUV for my 40 mile daily commute- 34+ mpg ford focus;

My work is as a techniical director for a trade association where I help manufacturers adopt new technologies,improve quality, and gain efficiencies. No one has ever lost their job as a result of my advice.

I heat my swimming pool with solar.

My next improvement may just be operating the pump by photovoltaic as a demonstration project.

I installed most efficient boiler and water heater available.

House is properly insulated and energy efficiency has been driver for all improvements, including new french doors to pool- hi E argon filled, best Anderson makes.

I have back up generation for temporary outages, now that US power grid has demonstrated the performance level of most third world countries.

I have, but choose not to use at this time wood heat from my acre+ of hardwoods.We do burn blowdowns rather than take to curb for landfill. Nothing like a romantic fire in the evening...

I have calculated load and expense to install photovoltaic and run my meter backward; numbers are not compelling for battery storage nor until 1) tax credits for the installation are assured; or B) I get / build a plug in electric car to handle my commute.

I have sent my daughter to one of our country's top military acdaemies so that we can continue to maintain our country's quality of life through the projection of power where it is needed.

Oh, we also compost our kitchen scraps and grow a modest portion of our vegetables. Heven't hunted for a while, but we still have the technology.

My first published article was how to build / how I built a flat plate solar collector. 1975.

I expect to work on this field after i retire, but right now my highest and best use would seem to be halping keep north american manufacturers globally competitive- at least thats what the economics seem to indicate.

I am certain that this is not remarkable, and that many others on this forum have done even more to minimize their impact- not just reduce their 'carbon footprint."

I think that given this modest level of work "by my own bootstraps," I have earned some small right to discuss this topic and have and share my opinion.

Walking gently, but reserving the right to maintain my quality of life.

milo

Sorry, if I don't live up to your expectations in regards to the polioticians and alternative fuel. However, I've seen to much in the last 40 years that wouldn't change my mind with the feelings I have towards these S.O.B's and that goes for Sen. John McCain as well...

As for your equipment that you used, must've been turned off during your testing. Or, the batteries were dead. And/or, you were testing in all the wrong places. Because, the satellite images I have seen tell a different story, therefore, I would have to go with what the researchers are saying and their findings.

HMMM

Well, Could you please direct me to where I can look at these test results? There must a website or ?

As to politicians, I didn't agree or disagree with what you have said, I fully disagree with the way you said it. The language you use brings you and what you have to say to what I refer to as "Chavez level". And whether you are correct or not it is difficult to take you seriously.

And... rest assure,the batteries weren't dead.

Pierre Curie predeceased his wife Marie by several years. The Grim Reaper did not strike him down with cancer but with a horse driven conveyance of some sort. His widow Marie continued to work in the area of nuclear physics and I believe that she succumbed eventually to leukemia. I could be wrong on the exact type of cancer that eventually got her.

Before the effects of radiation were fully understood many people became its victims. I read a book on the Manhattan Project and kept saying to myself, "The occupation health and safety people would never allow that today!"

Two issues about Chernobyl

One - there was no nuclear explosion involved so we still do not know what the worst nuclear incident in a power station would have been.

Chernobyl involved a conventional pressurised stem explosion in a nuclear reactor which scattered radioactive debris into the atmosphere - there was no nuclear explosion.

Two - What the Russians were doing at Chernobyl is the equivalent of banging a bullet held in vice with hammer. It was a non-operational test which went wrong due to incompetence, faulty and substandard equipment, and sheer stupidity which prevailed in Russia at the time because the workforce is expendable.

The West is no better, our equipment and safety standards to prevent a nuclear explosion are a million times more advanced and I am convinced there is little chance of a serous incident. But having worked in nuclear power station in the UK I can tell you that the workforce is still expendable and exposed to the dangers of radiation at at the expense of generation.

And we still pump "low level" nuclear waste into the sea at night!

Say what? They dump it into the ocean?????? Amazing how greed will twist a person's mind... Are you sure of that? Have you reported it? Lawsuits up the ying yang???

Hi seaplaneguy. In the mid to late 1960s while I was in the merchant navy we once took onboard about 35 oil drums, when we reached the edge of the underwater continental shelf we dropped these drums overboard into a depth of 3000+ft. These drums weighed about 350kg and had the radioactive sign on them. Aparently they contained a small amount of nuclear waste which had been cemented into the drums, we were told that it would last down there forever and not to talk about it. Years later I read in the New Scientist that the UK was not the only country to do this, and that it posed a major hazzard caused by corrosion. Then in 1992 it was discovered that after WWII, that nearly all of the planes that had been built for the war had been stripped of their control panels containing lumious dials. This radioactive equipment had been buried in the sand on a beach in Scotland, now today it is banned for anyone to go near this beach. This beach is close by the Scottish capitol Edinburgh. Spencer.

Any specifics on this beach? I don't know of any which are closed/restricted around here. Obviously doesn't mean that there has not been such an event, just that they "forgot" to tell the locals.

Hi GM1964. I believe it is somewhere between Cockenzie&Port Seaton and Gulane Bay. There was a TV program about 7or8 years ago and what they were doing to clear it up. They dug up the whole beach and dumped it somewhere else, they showed the amount of radiation was quite high in places. Reaserchers had discovered a high proprtion of people in the area had cancers, so they set about finding out why. If you talk to the local older people they will tell you about. It appears that the contamination was coming from the radium salts used in the luminous paint. Spencer.

Thanks, Spencer - I'd known of the submarine wrecks in Aberlady Bay (now marked on Google Earth), but hadn't heard of the dumping. I've walked that stretch quite often. I wonder whether the new location is any safer..

I believe that a lot (most ?) of the damage at Chernobyl was done by firefighters pouring water onto very hot carbon blocks and pieces, which generated a very explosive gas mixture. When the hydrogen, plus probably oxides of carbon, ignited, the resulting explosions blew apart the reactor and spread radioactive fuel etc into the area, plus released gaseous radioactive elements and particles which were carried away by the wind. I recall seeing pictures of firefighters on top of the containment building, kicking chucks and pieces of radioactive "fuel" off the roof. The chemical explosion was almost certainly responsible for scattering the radioactive materials.

Sorry that should read pressurised steam explosion - dammed spell check again!!

Brit guest:

Your comments are deserving of attribution.

I would look forward to your posts in the future, but without a name or handle, they will be lost in the sea of annonymity.

Right along with that nocturnal emmission of low level waste, I guess.

milo

In an earlier post concern expressed that the west might be held hostage to uranium supplies from countries that had unstable or hostile governments. The big suppliers of Uranium are Canada and Australia. The Canadian province of Saskatchewan has deposits of uranium that are so rich that they have to be mined robotically. I don't think that you could describe either of these countries as unstable.

India is exploring a thorium fuel cycle using the CANDU derived reactors they reverse engineered from the Canadian supplied CANDU's. Canada cut India off from nuclear technology exports when they developed the Bomb. India has very large supplies of thorium

The current CANDU reactors can burn un-enriched uranium as well as plutonium and thorium.

For a most informative site on the CANDU (CANalso Deuterium Uranium) reactors visit the site www.nuclearfaq.ca I would also recommend that you visit the Atomic Energy of Canada site www.aecl.ca and request the booklet on the ACR-1000 next generation of the CANDU. The 40 page booklet not only describes the next generation but it compares it to the current generation.

It is interesting to note that some of the most ardent environmentalists including one of the co-founders of Green Peace have come over to the nuclear side. Just because I am pro-nuclear does not mean that I am against conservation or renewable resources. I just want to see the right technologies put in place to provide an economical, environmentally friendly solution to our energy needs and patterns.

Canada was part of the Manhattan project but we elected not to pursue a nuclear weapons policy. We have sold CANDU systems around the world.

Canada may even use their CANDU reactors to burn plutonium from Russian and American nuclear weapons.

Chernobyl was a disaster because there were no administrative or technical mechanisms in place to prevent the construction and operation of potentialllt dangerous systems. Three Mile Island was a success because there was a containment vessel which prevented a Chernobyl type of accident.

This showed as a reply directed to my post#61. Not sure why, as I share your views about positive role for Nuclear power in future 'electron economy" and agree that canada and australia are stable countries, tho i am concerned about canada's anti hate speech laws. Any time the 'authorities' reserve the right to arrest folks for saying 'anything' that the authorities dont like, the ability to think and speak is compromised.

Hate speech isn't defined as Science "today" (read yet) but millions starved in USSR due to lysenkoism, which was enforced systemically by sending dissenters to this official science to siberia...

milo

"Canada cut India off from nuclear technology exports when they developed the Bomb."

I wonder what would happen if they took the same line with their southerly neighbours???

In a previous post I indicated that we were part of the Manhattan project along with England and the US. After the war we decided not to follow a weapons path. Canada or a Canadian owned company are world leaders in the manufacture of industrial and medical isotopes, we were at the forefront of using Cobalt 60 in the treatment of cancer and we developed the CANDU series of reactors which don't require enriched uranium.

Canada is prepared to help Russia and the US destroy weapons grade plutonium that is no longer required but some of the members of the antiproliferation community would have a person believe that this would make us part of the Russian/American nuclear weapons complex. This I don't understand, I see it as one of the most socially responsible things that we could do.

Sometimes my posts appear to be responses to the last post in the thread when they are really responses to earlier posts. I appologize if I have offended anyone.

You certainly have not offended me, o Curious_One.

That part of the Canadian approach is entirely laudable - but are there restrictions on the export of uranium for non-weapons use, and if these were introduced/strictly enforced would Canada find itself next on the "war against terror" agenda, simply to ensure US supplies?

I don't think that the US will need uranium for weapons purposes for some time. They have tons of plutonium left over from dismantled war heads and they are looking for a way to get rid of it. Something that the Canadian CANDU reactors could do very well.

Natural uranium contains about 0.7% U235 and CANDU reactors were designed to live on a diet of this stuff. The American light water reactors require uranium that has been enriched to 3.5-4.5% U235 anything under 20% U235 is called LEU low enriched uranium. Highly enriched uranium has only two uses, bombs and the power reactors in submarines and aircraft carriers, using such highly enriched uranium means that they can go 25 years between refueling so they can combine a major midlife refit with a refueling operation. The new generation of CANDU reactors will require slightly enriched SEU uranium at about 1.3% U235. Between the remaining U235 and and any plutonium bred in the lightwater fuel elements, The used fuel elements from a light water reactor could be used to fuel a CANDU reactor. This is called the DUPIC fuel cycle and I believe that it is being seriously evaluated in Korea where they have a combined fleet of CANDU reactors and conventional light water reactors. It is a nice concept, one mans waste is another man's fuel.

If you take a CANDU reactor, fuel it normally but place a few fuel bundles in that contain Thorium, the fertile thorium will become fissile U233 which can be used as a CANDU fuel, eventually the entire fuel load for the CANDU will be thorium/U233 based which is the approach the Indians are taking. The CANDU reactors can be refueld on the fly and it takes about two years to replace all of the fuel bundles in a reactor. This will allow the conversion from a natural uranium fuel cycle to a thorium based cycle over a relatively short period of time.

In a previous post I suggested that people look at the www.nuclearfaq.ca and that people send an e-mail to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to get a booklet on the next Generation CANDU. You will find both most interesting. The booklet has a lot of pictures and it compares the current generation with the next generation, the ACR-1000

No offense taken. Just attempt at clarification.

Would use of depleted uranium for projectile penetrators constitute"weapons uses?"

milo

Without an enrichment plant you don't have any depleted uranium so you can't get depleted uranium from Canada. Along the same lines as the question

Would use of depleted uranium for projectile penetrators constitute"weapons uses?"

Would the use of depleted uranium in high performance sail boat keels consitute "recreational uses"?

It is also nice to participate in a discussion of nuclear fission where the questons of bomb grade vs reactor grade plutonium don't dominate the discussions and people see that there is or will be a solution to long term waste management.

This actually a very positive group here.

Dear Curious One: Did you mean bomb grade vs. reactor grade plutonium? or uranium? People are more familiar with enrichment for the U-235 isotope, but not for the Pu isotopes. The primary isotopes on Pu are 238 to 242. For example, the constant decay heat of Pu-238 is 0.56 W/gm. Pu has "powered" the energy needs of some 24 U.S. space probes, especially to distant planets. The PuO2 (Pu-oxide) is a stable ceramic, which has extremely low solubility in water.

One example that is quoted is for a 1,000 MWe LWR nuclear reactor, which produces ~ 55,000 # of spent fuel a year, which would contain ~ 630-650 # of Pu. The MOX (mixed oxides) fuel contains ~ 5 % Pu.

Mostpeople are aware of the uranium enrichment plants that produced uranium with greater than the natural concentration of U235 and leave depleted uranium tails as a byproduct.

If Uranium is subject to neutron bombardment in a reactor plutonium is produced. If the irradiation takes place over a short period of time the Plutonium produced is primarily weapons grade PU239. If the irradiation occurs over the long time periods typical of a nuclear power reactor the plutonium starts to consist of an assortment of isotopes many of which are spontaneous neutron emitters. This reactor grade plutonium is very difficult to use in weapons production because the weapon might just go off on its own. It is said that the US detonated a device that consisted of 20% reactor grade plutonium in the 60's.

In any case if it were possible to safely manufacture a bomb from reactor grade plutonium, stealing the required tons of spent fuel and then separating the plutonium would not be a trivial task. It would be a dangerous one however because it would mean working with large volumes of highly radioactive materials.

Are you directly replying to the post inquestion (as I am doing now) or to the whole Blog? There is a major difference.....

If I can help you in any way, just ask!

I vote Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes and Yes to Nuclear Power!

Yes because it can manufacture its own fuel (as in "Fast Neutron" reactors), thus promising an unlimited supply.

Yes because it takes up relatively little space (compared to Wind or Solar and their accompanying "sight pollution").

Yes because modern designs (Pebble-Bed and others) and better sensors and safeguards can make these facilities inherently quite safe (immune to the feared "melt-down").

Yes because specially designed "Fast Neutron" reactors can actually run on the reprocessed "Radioactive Waste" that is currently accumulating outside most currently operating Nuclear Reactors, just waiting for an accident.

Yes because is has the potential to supply more of our energy needs than ALL the other sources combined.

Yes because is produces NO Greenhouse gasses.

Yes because, as noted by "The Curious One" on comment #90, these facilities can also be used to disassociate water into Hydrogen and Oxygen. If there ever is to be a REAL "Hydrogen Economy" it will be dependent of Nuclear Power as its source. (I suspect we will then find it most efficient to process this much of this hydrogen into cleaner burning liquid fuels.)

The fears of "terrorists" somehow stealing the spent ore and reprocessing it into a bomb are just irrational fears. There are a lot more real weapons these rogues can make. It would also make much more sense for them to infiltrate one of the numerous repositories maintained by "Nuclear Nations" and steal a ready-made working bomb (maybe with missile attached). {see also comment #85 by "The Curious One")

The worry about current Non-Nuclear" Nations like Iran, using their Nuclear Power Plants to generate Bomb Grade Plutonium is also out of proportion to the threat. By insisting on global monitoring of the generating and reclamation processes, we can be fairly confident that bombs are not being made. Even if made, they must be tested before becoming viable. Besides, this is more of a diplomatic issue.

Sure it will require a lot of development to fine tune new designs into safe efficient generating facilities, but the technologies are well within our grasp and the payback promises to dwarf any of the other efforts being made. (I am not advocating that we drop other efforts like Wind and Solar, but these should be scaled back to where they will fit best: in rural areas far from any "power grid".