Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
The Nuclear Option
zidangus
Veteran
Well following the developments in Japan at the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power plant, I was just wondering what peoples views are on nuclear power. I am a high-energy experimental nuclear physicist so it is kind of in my area, although I am not really an expert on nuclear power as I am involved in probing nuclear structure at the extremes (proton drip line in my case). Of course I understand the physics behind nuclear fission, and the pro's and con's of it.
In my opinion the new third generation of nuclear reactors are a lot better option than conventional fossil fuels, and the fourth generation nuclear reactors that could be built in the future have some advanced design concepts which include high temperature reactors that are 2-3 times more efficient than contemporary reactors, mechanically simpler machines with fewer moving parts for improved reliability, and can have nuclear plants that would process their own waste ( a big problem for current nuclear plants).
So for me it would be a shame if Governments decided to go cold on the idea of investing in nuclear energy, because of the events which are unfolding in Japan, I should add that the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power plant where the problems are occurring is an old plant (1970's) first generation plant, which was due to be shut down this year.
Metta to all sentient beings
In my opinion the new third generation of nuclear reactors are a lot better option than conventional fossil fuels, and the fourth generation nuclear reactors that could be built in the future have some advanced design concepts which include high temperature reactors that are 2-3 times more efficient than contemporary reactors, mechanically simpler machines with fewer moving parts for improved reliability, and can have nuclear plants that would process their own waste ( a big problem for current nuclear plants).
So for me it would be a shame if Governments decided to go cold on the idea of investing in nuclear energy, because of the events which are unfolding in Japan, I should add that the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power plant where the problems are occurring is an old plant (1970's) first generation plant, which was due to be shut down this year.
Metta to all sentient beings
0
Comments
So the price we pay for such an insatiable appetite for power is the cost of nuclear power stations.
How is it then that we act so surprised when things go wrong?
Sure we need to dump a lot into development for efficient Geothermal powerplants. But I think it is worth harnessing this energy, after all it is 100% natural and has practically no negative side effects (again; that I am aware of). What do you think about it?
Maybe they are trying to avoid panic around the nuclear reactor, because there probably is no way to evacuate that many people that fast.
But it's just hard to believe that so few people have been killed or endangered by all this.
IMHO.
I am sure the death toll will rise , perhaps in to the tens of thousands. I am so sorry for their suffering.
The island has suffered this type of event , statistically speaking, every five hundred years. Unlike other areas where recent tsunamis have combined with ignorance to allow massive destruction ,this island was aware and prepared. Tsunami is a Japanese word. This knowledge will mitigate loss of life I am hoping.
Meanwhile, when I was watching the coverage I feared everybody including my friend and her family had been killed because the entire city had been destroyed!
My Point: I learned in that instance NEVER to believe those news stories, not even the "responsible journalists," they are ALWAYS exaggerated.
Would be fine if they donated a portion of their windfall cashing-in-on advertising profits resulting from extreme intentional HYPE-IFICATION to the people who actually experienced the tragedy.
Oops! Sorry for getting a bit negative and frustrated here. :banghead:
Here is the post I wanted to add here:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Nuclear? No choice. Yet another "deal with the devil."
Problem is millions and millions of years of solar energy is slowly accumulated and stored in our fossil fuels.
We don't have millions and millions of years to collect lots of solar energy or wind power.
At the rate we can currently collect energy from alternative sources we might be able to power a golf cart for every third person.
We probably use a thousand (?) years worth of stored fossil fuel energy every day. No way alternative sources can compete: they are too SLOW!
Nukes, with their deadly by-products from fission, are the only option. For instance I learned recently that a golf ball sized chunk of uranium can power an aircraft carrier for something like 30 years!!!
The only drawback from nuclear is heat pollution and of course deadly waste. Maybe clean fusion power will come along just in time!? When? Maybe 50 years from now?
For example the energy content of 1 gram of Uranium is equivalent to approximately 3 tonnes of coal.
AS a mentioned earlier the commissioning of third and hopefully fourth generation nuclear power plants, will significantly reduce the cons of nuclear energy. Furthermore, maybe in the far future with projects such as ITER leading the way, we will be able to use nuclear fusion like that used in the core of the sun, instead of fission.
Metta to all sentient beings
Renewables can make a big difference, look at what Germany's doing. And if people would just be more mindful of how they use energy, that would help a lot. People are too used to flipping a switch, and having everything taken care of. If just 20-10% of households would hang their clothes to dry, rather than use clothes dryers, and use energy-efficient light bulbs, that would cut back on demand significantly. But...we've already had an energy efficiency thread, so I'll quit.