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.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,271 posts, read 53,999,856 times
Reputation: 40556
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustinFromBoise
That's fine to learn how to use it more efficiently, but for the here and now we need to take a serious look at nuke energy, even if it is just for the next 50 years or so while we further study how to make solar more efficient.
And over those 50 years we produce how much waste that's hot for how many thousands of years? With US coal reserves we may well be better off finding cleaner ways to burn coal while simultaneously seeking other solutions.
And over those 50 years we produce how much waste that's hot for how many thousands of years? With US coal reserves we may well be better off finding cleaner ways to burn coal while simultaneously seeking other solutions.
Read the first post about the waste produced by France. It is science fiction believing that there are barrels full of nuclear goo just waiting to be spilled.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,271 posts, read 53,999,856 times
Reputation: 40556
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustinFromBoise
Like I said, it is fine to further research them, and hopefully in 66 years we can fully utilize them. But for now, nuclear is the way to go.
I'm unconvinced if for no other reason than the fact that in theory, theory and practice are the same but in practice, they're not.
Engineering's not always as precise as we'd hope, witness the recent grounding of the F-15 fleet. Nuclear power is so relatively young and untested that I'm not convinced it's the basket we should be throwing all our eggs into.
Kitty Hawk to the moon in 66 years was starting from ground zero, alternative energy research starts from a more advanced position with much more capable tools, I think we can make huge progress in 20-25 years given the $$$$$$$$ and the research facilities.
And if worst comes to worst with our waste, we're only one shuttle launch away from sending decades of waste into oblivion. I'm not saying put it in orbit, but like the unmanned space crafts viking, send them out so they never stop traveling.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,271 posts, read 53,999,856 times
Reputation: 40556
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustinFromBoise
Read the first post about the waste produced by France. It is science fiction believing that there are barrels full of nuclear goo just waiting to be spilled.
As it's also fiction to take as gospel that current techniques will last the thousands of years necessary. Plants have a finite life as the constant irradiation embrittles materials, what reason is there to believe this doesn't happen to storage facilities?
I do agree that nuclear has to be a bigger part of our energy portfolio going forward. The industry has made a lot of strides in reducing the cost of the energy it produces (most of which comes from regulation and rightly needed). Solar will probably be the only renewable that ever really become a major part of the mix but only if we can break through some of the current efficiency barriers. But what we really need to be spending some research dollars on is fusion power.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,271 posts, read 53,999,856 times
Reputation: 40556
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustinFromBoise
And if worst comes to worst with our waste, we're only one shuttle launch away from sending decades of waste into oblivion. I'm not saying put it in orbit, but like the unmanned space crafts viking, send them out so they never stop traveling.
We haven't produced a launch vehicle yet reliable enough to entrust with that mission, and the cost per ton is huge and the waste is extremely dense, up goes the cost again.
We haven't produced a launch vehicle yet reliable enough to entrust with that mission, and the cost per ton is huge and the waste is extremely dense, up goes the cost again.
I think the metric used is typically $1000/pound on a conventional rocket and about 5-10 times that on the shuttle.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,271 posts, read 53,999,856 times
Reputation: 40556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormcrow73
I think the metric used is typically $1000/pound on a conventional rocket and about 5-10 times that on the shuttle.
Times how many pounds of waste produced per KwHr? It all has to be factored in, including the transportation cost to the launch facility.
I should add I've just been reading the last book written by Jacques Cousteau, a man I have great respect and admiration for and don't believe to be some tree hugging alarmist. In it he makes some very convincing arguments that all things considered nuclear power is not the great bargain it may appear at first glance.
Times how many pounds of waste produced per KwHr? It all has to be factored in, including the transportation cost to the launch facility.
I should add I've just been reading the last book written by Jacques Cousteau, a man I have great respect and admiration for and don't believe to be some tree hugging alarmist. In it he makes some very convincing arguments that all things considered nuclear power is not the great bargain it may appear at first glance.
Yep, my unspoken point being that with current technologies that method of disposal is a pipe dream.
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.