Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-21-2008, 02:03 PM
 
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 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-21-2008, 02:04 PM
 
Location: Boise
2,684 posts, read 6,861,660 times
Reputation: 1017
Quote:
Originally Posted by burdell View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2008, 02:08 PM
 
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 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2008, 02:08 PM
 
Location: Boise
2,684 posts, read 6,861,660 times
Reputation: 1017
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2008, 02:10 PM
 
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 View Post
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?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2008, 02:11 PM
 
Location: The Rock!
2,370 posts, read 7,731,988 times
Reputation: 848
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2008, 02:12 PM
 
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 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2008, 02:15 PM
 
Location: The Rock!
2,370 posts, read 7,731,988 times
Reputation: 848
Quote:
Originally Posted by burdell View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2008, 02:19 PM
 
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 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2008, 02:24 PM
 
Location: The Rock!
2,370 posts, read 7,731,988 times
Reputation: 848
Quote:
Originally Posted by burdell View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top