Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Would we be safer if we shifted all of our energy production from fossil fuels to nuclear fission? Or would we be less safe because of the risk of meltdowns, nuclear waste, and weapons proliferation?
Everyone talks about global warming, but nobody does anything about it. I’m tired of the hot air from politicians, journalists, and academic blowhards who are only trying to advance their own careers. To solve global warming, we need to *actually do something* like using nuclear fission instead of fossil fuels. But would it be safe to do so?
OK - you've hit the jackpot.....
I've been in the Energy Biz, including both fossil and renewable fuels, since 1978. I have experience using renewables since 1972.
Some basics......it may be that NOW...a safe nuclear fuel cycle can be obtained. But notice two parts of that - "fuel cycle" and "now". When it comes to large energy sources the entire cost - from soup to nuts - must be figured in. With nuclear that is a LOT...
1. Mining of the initial materials - then processing.
2. Construction of the plants
3. Transportation and storage of the fuels and wastes
4. Maintaining and then eventually shutting down the plants....
Long story...a little shorter. Up until now the Federal Government has given the nuke industry amazing benefits...including lack of responsibility (a BIG one!)....there is actually a law that exempts nuclear plants from having to pay if they have accidents. Imagine that??
Many of the costs...such as radiation from the waste, fuel storage, mining, etc - cannot be accurately calculated. I mean....what is the "value" of the DNA of a number of people being affected for generations? Or other wildlife and plant life, the same? This is what radiation does and even the smallest amount gives you a larger chance of such things (and cancers) than the lack of it does.
Bottom line - even tho you can read about advancements, in the end the actual cost of nuclear energy is quite high - and in some cases can't be calculated (priceless....like life and slowing nuclear proliferation).
You know...we used to say in the biomass (wood, etc.) business....no need to split atoms to do the simple job of warming my room.
Again, I'll be short and sweet in regards to the fossil fuels. We are doing it wrong. As usual. Fossil fuels should be regulated as to price and that way we wouldn't destroy as much land, air and water as quickly. Instead we are wasting it, exporting it and having price swings...whereas a consistent market and price would make it easier to take decisions about everything (from auto types to alternative fuels)...
While we have been making all these mistakes with nukes and fossil fuels, Solar PV and Wind and other tech has been getting better and less expensive.
IMHO - as a Summary - we should (USA and, to an extent, world) embark on a "war" to install renewables and also to increase efficiencies. Policies like Trump just did...with the cars and keeping them less efficient - are pure ignorance. Why build some nuclear power and irradiate future generations JUST so you can have a Hummer and drive it 2 hours each way to and from work? That's bad policy. The future belongs to the efficient.
c
At this point the USA has plenty of capacity and many GWs of new renewables are being installed each year. Storage problems can be solved (mostly) by pumped storage and batteries. Fill-in power can be generated in various ways, but it's really not a problem in the big picture.
One has to start with the idea that energy is unlimited. It's not a finite resource. However, cheapo oil and gas....they are not only limited, but could mess about a lot with where you live (groundwater, air, etc.).....so we need to stop chitting where we eat ASAP.
I've been in the Energy Biz, including both fossil and renewable fuels, since 1978. I have experience using renewables since 1972.
Some basics......it may be that NOW...a safe nuclear fuel cycle can be obtained. But notice two parts of that - "fuel cycle" and "now". When it comes to large energy sources the entire cost - from soup to nuts - must be figured in. With nuclear that is a LOT...
1. Mining of the initial materials - then processing.
2. Construction of the plants
3. Transportation and storage of the fuels and wastes
4. Maintaining and then eventually shutting down the plants....
Long story...a little shorter. Up until now the Federal Government has given the nuke industry amazing benefits...including lack of responsibility (a BIG one!)....there is actually a law that exempts nuclear plants from having to pay if they have accidents. Imagine that??
Many of the costs...such as radiation from the waste, fuel storage, mining, etc - cannot be accurately calculated. I mean....what is the "value" of the DNA of a number of people being affected for generations? Or other wildlife and plant life, the same? This is what radiation does and even the smallest amount gives you a larger chance of such things (and cancers) than the lack of it does.
Bottom line - even tho you can read about advancements, in the end the actual cost of nuclear energy is quite high - and in some cases can't be calculated (priceless....like life and slowing nuclear proliferation).
You know...we used to say in the biomass (wood, etc.) business....no need to split atoms to do the simple job of warming my room.
Again, I'll be short and sweet in regards to the fossil fuels. We are doing it wrong. As usual. Fossil fuels should be regulated as to price and that way we wouldn't destroy as much land, air and water as quickly. Instead we are wasting it, exporting it and having price swings...whereas a consistent market and price would make it easier to take decisions about everything (from auto types to alternative fuels)...
While we have been making all these mistakes with nukes and fossil fuels, Solar PV and Wind and other tech has been getting better and less expensive.
IMHO - as a Summary - we should (USA and, to an extent, world) embark on a "war" to install renewables and also to increase efficiencies. Policies like Trump just did...with the cars and keeping them less efficient - are pure ignorance. Why build some nuclear power and irradiate future generations JUST so you can have a Hummer and drive it 2 hours each way to and from work? That's bad policy. The future belongs to the efficient.
c
At this point the USA has plenty of capacity and many GWs of new renewables are being installed each year. Storage problems can be solved (mostly) by pumped storage and batteries. Fill-in power can be generated in various ways, but it's really not a problem in the big picture.
One has to start with the idea that energy is unlimited. It's not a finite resource. However, cheapo oil and gas....they are not only limited, but could mess about a lot with where you live (groundwater, air, etc.).....so we need to stop chitting where we eat ASAP.
And once again we ignore the fundamental problem with solar and wind. People want to turn lights on when it's dark out and when the wind isn't blowing. And again there is currently no large-scale means of storing electrical power.
Bottom line - even tho you can read about advancements, in the end the actual cost of nuclear energy is quite high - and in some cases can't be calculated (priceless....like life and slowing nuclear proliferation).
To elaborate one of the values that is incalculable is there is no insurance company that could cover them. They have limited liability and expense insuring those plants against catastrophic events.
You know...we used to say in the biomass (wood, etc.) business....no need to split atoms to do the simple job of warming my room.
I did some quick calculations once on using wood to meet the demands of electric using some figures from the forestry industry and other sources that would make it sustainable. I came up with an area roughly the size of Alaska, California and Texas.
Quote:
Fossil fuels should be regulated as to price and that way we wouldn't destroy as much land, air and water as quickly. Instead we are wasting it, exporting it and having price swings...whereas a consistent market and price would make it easier to take decisions about everything (from auto types to alternative fuels)...
The price of coal has been roack stable going back many decades becsue of a secure and plentiful domestic supply. Whether the natural gas and oil markets will follow suit with these new supplies remains to be seen. There is other issues with this as well, infrastructure for natural gas is a huge problem. You can have all the supply in the world but it doesn't matter if you can;t deliver it to market during peak demand times.
Quote:
At this point the USA has plenty of capacity and many GWs of new renewables are being installed each year. Storage problems can be solved (mostly) by pumped storage and batteries.
You capacity and storage requirements balloon out of control. As far as pumped storage goes that adds it's own inefficiencies...
Last edited by blktoptrvl; 08-30-2018 at 09:33 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
