Nuclear power is safe, but countries forced to shut down nuclear power stations

[micropage7]

i said i dunno since many aspect that need to considered when using nuclear power, if our technology better than now we can manage nuclear power better. one that need to underlined is how about waste material and example when japan hit by earthquake and failing those reactor.
personally i prefer the other source, like wind, sea. sometimes i just think why we move to nuclear is because we cant maximize wind or solar power to give us enough energy.
so we take "the easy way" and using nuclear

 

[Fourstaff]

i said i dunno since many aspect that need to considered when using nuclear power, if our technology better than now we can manage nuclear power better. one that need to underlined is how about waste material and example when japan hit by earthquake and failing those reactor.
personally i prefer the other source, like wind, sea. sometimes i just think why we move to nuclear is because we cant maximize wind or solar power to give us enough energy.
so we take "the easy way" and using nuclear

Solar is very viable especially in the Sahara region. The only problem is that its completely populated by unstable states which makes investment highly unlikely.

 

[Frick]

I wouldn't say THE way, but it's certinaly A way.

 

[W1zzard]

I never hear about hydrogen or geothermal anymore.

Geothermal is too high cost per megawatt to build and run power plants. They make sense in very few places like Iceland, but generally they are a waste of money and resources.

Hydrogen is a form of energy transport, because you can't just dig hydrogen out of the ground. Need to invest energy first to get the Hydrogen (out of water), then burn it and get less energy back. You can get Hydrogen from oil and gas deposits, too, but not nearly enough to burn it in power plants.

 

[RCoon]

I was under the impression that tidal power is the most effective solution besides nuclear(which too many hippie activists will deny in every country).

 

[micropage7]

I was under the impression that tidal power is the most effective solution besides nuclear(which too many hippie activists will deny in every country).

yeah, wave could be one of power source especially for country like indonesia , but so far nuclear power takes more attention than that
for future i believe we switch to green technology like that, but i guess theres long way to go

 

[AsRock]

chemical companies, like bottled water plants, cause water is a chemical and all.


I agree the place for engineered and industrial use chemical plants is not in populated areas, we have these huge wastelands unsuitable for habitat and agriculture, why we are putting petro and other plants in the middle of populated areas still floors me.

High desert plains of Nevada and Utah are worthless. Bury nuclear plants there.

Actually the desert is a very very livable place and if people got their shit together wind and solar power sources would work there the best.

Although the biggest issue with it is cost but dumping all our crap in the desert going solve nothing.

Nothing wrong with nuclear power, it's mismanagement and building in the wrong place without flood protection for backup generators that causes the problem.

Japan did have back up systems in fact 2 and they fail if you cannot sort thee issue out enough. Although there is safer places to have such and Japan i cannot honestly say is safe to have them.

 

[xenocide]

Japan did have back up systems in fact 2 and they fail if you cannot sort thee issue out enough. Although there is safer places to have such and Japan i cannot honestly say is safe to have them.

Fukushima failed for a number of reasons. You have to look at what happened in order. For starters, the Earthquake hit, it knocked out power, and initiated a shutdown on reactors 1-3. At this point diesel generators kicked on to keep the pumps going, but then a ~14m Tsunami hit--which Daiichi was not designed to withstand. The building which housed the diesel generators flooded and the generators turned off. TEPCO informed the government, and then started deploying mobile generators to the site to get everything hooked back up, but all the incoming connections routed through the flooded levels of the site so it took drastically longer than intended (plus they had just experienced the worst recorded Earthquake in Japanese history).

Some fun facts: Before building the Fukushima plants they landscaped the entire site lower it about 10m, according to TEPCO it was so they wouldn't have to pump water uphill, if Dai-ichi had been 10m higher the area which housed the backup generators would not have flooded. There was a study done in 2008 which warned about the Fukushima sites vulnerability to Tsunami's, but also pointed out it was need something like 12m+ waves to be impacted--these were dismissed as unrealistic. The closest Nuclear Power Plant to the epicenter of the 2011 Earthquake was Onagawa Nuclear which shut down as planned after the earthquake and was fully protected from the Tsunami. Why did Onagawa survive unscathed? Because Onagawa had a 14m high seawall, where as Fukushima had a 5.7m seawall. Why was Onagawa's seawall higher? Because the guy that designed the site was pissed off at the beaurocrats in Japan and built it 3 times as high as they requested--no joke.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Solar is very viable especially in the Sahara region. The only problem is that its completely populated by unstable states which makes investment highly unlikely.

Solar is AKA natural gas. What do you think supplies power at night? Hint: it isn't batteries. Pretty sure the Sahara doesn't have access to natural gas in sufficient quantities.

I was under the impression that tidal power is the most effective solution besides nuclear(which too many hippie activists will deny in every country).

The tide only happens twice per day. It's worse than wind in that regard. Interrupting ocean currents is foolish.

yeah, wave could be one of power source especially for country like indonesia , but so far nuclear power takes more attention than that
for future i believe we switch to green technology like that, but i guess theres long way to go

Nuclear is the greenest power source currently available. CO2 emissions are almost zero on day-to-day operations.

Actually the desert is a very very livable place and if people got their shit together wind and solar power sources would work there the best.

Although the biggest issue with it is cost but dumping all our crap in the desert going solve nothing.

Except on cloudy days and in between fronts. In order to live with solar/wind alone, you have to be used to not having power at all. Most people find that unacceptable; hence, why solar/wind alone is not enough.

Japan did have back up systems in fact 2 and they fail if you cannot sort thee issue out enough. Although there is safer places to have such and Japan i cannot honestly say is safe to have them.

As I said previously, research EBR-II and Integral Fast Reactors. They can be made to be completely incapable of melting down even duplicating the situation that happened at Fukashima Diachi.

 

[AsRock]

other country's are already doing it, and lets face it every bit helps if it means less fossel crp burning.
UAE Plans Solar City: Dubai authorities promoting ...
Japan's Solar City of Future - YouTube
Babcock Ranch 100% Solar Powered City - YouTube

 

[FordGT90Concept]

UAE = nothing extraordinary
Japan = draws power from the grid at night (almost entirely fossil fuels because after Fukashima, they stopped nuclear).
Babcock Ranch = will draw from the grid (#1 coal, #2 natural gas, #3 nuclear) at night.


France is 80% nuclear and produces 5 tons of CO2 per capita; Germany is moving to remove nuclear entirely (switching to wind especially) and it produces 10 tons of CO2 per capita. Who's approach is better for the environment?

 

[DayKnight]

The way forward?.

They ARE the way!.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

other country's are already doing it, and lets face it every bit helps if it means less fossel crp burning.
UAE Plans Solar City: Dubai authorities promoting ...
Japan's Solar City of Future - YouTube
Babcock Ranch 100% Solar Powered City - YouTube

In the uk they are throwing up turbines like crazy and throwing grants at anyone interested in redecorating there roof with solar tat.
We're still seeing record energy price hikes , threats of blackouts and were having to pay for the construction of more new nuclear plants by the French gdamit.
I find it amusing that the anti nuke crowd are the same not near my house crowd smothering wind farms with law suits.

I once fitted a solar road safety sign in a small village only to be accosted by some stupid biatch moaning at me for ruining the aspect of her nearby house.
I simply retorted she was on crack and that it was her Village that had ruined this bit of forrest a few hundred years ago , she left tutting and threatening a letter.

For my other vote id point to alternative nuclear like thorium for eg as we don't need any more warheads anyway.

 

[rangerone766]

we have the computing power to safely control nuclear power nowadays. you just have to be smart where you build them. don't put them on the coast where they can be hit with tidal waves or hurricanes. don't build them near active earthquake zones.

but all of that would take someone using a little brain power when choosing building sites. and we all know how smart the people in charge are now.

 

[kn00tcn]

when the people/gov/lawmakers in charge arent reliable or just plain stupid or bribed, it's hard to trust any power system to get done properly

 

[AsRock]

UAE = nothing extraordinary
Japan = draws power from the grid at night (almost entirely fossil fuels because after Fukashima, they stopped nuclear).
Babcock Ranch = will draw from the grid (#1 coal, #2 natural gas, #3 nuclear) at night.

It's better than doing nothing at all..

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Not really because of the way the grid works. If there is a coal power plant filling in the night gaps, for example, they take 48 hours to turn on and off. In other words, they're producing an equal amount of carbon emissions with or without those solar panels. Seeing how Japan is almost entirely powered by coal and USA is over 40% powered by coal, odds are this is exactly what is happening. The same will likely happen in UAE.

Not only is it worse from the carbon stand point, it is also worse for the environment because creating photovoltaic panels is a very dirty industry.

So yeah, doing nothing at all is better. Wind doesn't make sense ever because it doesn't produce when you need it. Solar makes sense (and not the PV kind, the mirrors and steam kind) when it is connected to a nuclear and hydroelectric backbone. Solar produces maximum output when power demand is also at it's peak. It's also relatively easy to predict what days are going to be big producers and what days are not.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

To be blunt, nuclear is the only viable option as a backbone. There's room for other forms as supplementary power, but they either don't have the availability or the endurance.

Nuclear technology, the stuff we think of traditionally, is too old. Plants built 30+ years ago are still running. If we built new plants we could have safety, greater output, and decrease waste output. The public stigma is keeping them from becoming a reality, but I have the feeling that $5 per gallon of gas (in the US) would change peoples minds. Too bad that our educational system has failed people so completely.

Solar is a great opportunity. Not solar panels, the redirection of sunlight onto a central sodium boiler mechanism. The thermal energy will continue to produce power for hours after the sunlight diminishes, and the efficiency of the boiler will not substantially degrade over time.

Wind and tidal generators are interesting conundrums. They don't have the general viability to work everywhere, and creating the power requires heavy metals. Those solid state magnets and copper windings aren't exactly environmentally friendly. On top of this, there are limited viable designs to put them in dangerous areas.

Geothermal is another puzzle that has yet to be solved. It's effectively just a boiler that is powered by Earth heating. The problem is that super heated water has the tendency to dissolve things, and forced cooling has the tendency to create stresses. If you have a chance look up Rupert's Drops to get an idea there. Those kinds of unknowns have the tendency to be caustic, and the limited areas in which it is feasible are a huge problem.


Closing this out, the future is in question. Fossil fuels will see their end in our lifetimes, and it doesn't seem like we've got an answer. It's shameful to say this, but the future is still far too vague. Hopefully the computer of the future can run a lifetime off a single nuclear battery. It's a great dream.

 

[TheMailMan78]

To be blunt, nuclear is the only viable option as a backbone. There's room for other forms as supplementary power, but they either don't have the availability or the endurance.

Nuclear technology, the stuff we think of traditionally, is too old. Plants built 30+ years ago are still running. If we built new plants we could have safety, greater output, and decrease waste output. The public stigma is keeping them from becoming a reality, but I have the feeling that $5 per gallon of gas (in the US) would change peoples minds. Too bad that our educational system has failed people so completely.

Solar is a great opportunity. Not solar panels, the redirection of sunlight onto a central sodium boiler mechanism. The thermal energy will continue to produce power for hours after the sunlight diminishes, and the efficiency of the boiler will not substantially degrade over time.

Wind and tidal generators are interesting conundrums. They doesn't have the general viability to work, and creating the power requires heavy metals. Those solid state magnets and copper windings aren't exactly environmentally friendly. On top of this, there are limited viable designs to put them in dangerous areas.

Geothermal is another puzzle that has yet to be solved. It's effectively just a boiler that is powered by Earth heating. The problem is that super heated water has the tendency to dissolve things, and forced cooling has the tendency to create stresses. If you have a chance look up Rupert's Drops to get an idea there. Those kinds of unknowns have the tendency to be caustic, and the limited areas in which it is feasible are a huge problem.


Closing this out, the future is in question. Fossil fuels will see their end in our lifetimes, and it doesn't seem like we've got an answer. It's shameful to say this, but the future is still far too vague. Hopefully the computer of the future can run a lifetime off a single nuclear battery. It's a great dream.

Ya know back in the mid-80s there was talk of using the strong current of the Florida straights between Key West and Cuba to build a 10 mile hydro electric plant. The idea was scrapped for lord knows what reason but, I remember them saying it would generate enough power for at least 50% of the state at the time. The concept was so cool. Looking back it seems almost science fiction. However with the right budget I bet it could be done.

Edit: One thing I will disagree with you on is the end of fossil fuels in our lifetime. No way is that happening. The US now produces more oil than Saudi Arabia and we haven't even scratched the surface of what we have.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Disrupting ocean currents can translate into serious biological and climate problems far away. That's a road best left untraveled.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

Edit: One thing I will disagree with you on is the end of fossil fuels in our lifetime. No way is that happening. The US now produces more oil than Saudi Arabia and we haven't even scratched the surface of what we have.

Allow me to frame this correctly. I'm currently about 1/3 of the way through my life (based on current estimates of life spans). In the later half of my life (likely the 2060ish era), we'll have run out of the fossil fuels we use today.

I base this assumption on two things. The amount of life on earth that was condensed into fossil fuels is finite. Finally, our population is demanding more and more of this finite resource.

You can take this estimate with a grain of salt (a huge one), but I balance this out by saying that alternative fossil fuels are being found relatively plentifully. Fracking and other technologies may extend the use of fossil fuels significantly farther than I estimate. You're welcome to assume that fossil fuels will outlast us, but I don't see any way that fossil fuels can be the primary source of power for the rest of my estimated lifetime.

Hyperbole aside, my statement was not correctly executed. My oversight.

 

[W1zzard]

but I don't see any way that fossil fuels can be the primary source of power for the rest of my estimated lifetime.

"The United States consumed a total of 6.87 billion barrels (18.83 million barrels per day) in 2011 and 7.0 billion barrels (19.18 million barrels per day) of refined petroleum products and biofuels in 2010. For both years, this was about 22% of total world petroleum consumption."

7 BBL USA per year, 20% of world. world = 35 BBL. Oil reserves: 1500 BBL

-> 42 years

and then there is all this shale oil and gas, consumption reduction by efficiency and price increases.

So I think another 60 years isn't unrealistic.

and there is still the potential of finding another untapped reserve like shale

 

[TheMailMan78]

Disrupting ocean currents can translate into serious biological and climate problems far away. That's a road best left untraveled.

Slowing 10 miles out of 90 miles of high current isn't a big deal.

http://img.techpowerup.org/131118/Capture3092.png

"The United States consumed a total of 6.87 billion barrels (18.83 million barrels per day) in 2011 and 7.0 billion barrels (19.18 million barrels per day) of refined petroleum products and biofuels in 2010. For both years, this was about 22% of total world petroleum consumption."

7 BBL USA per year, 20% of world. world = 35 BBL. Oil reserves: 1500 BBL

-> 42 years

and then there is all this shale oil and gas, consumption reduction by efficiency and price increases.

So I think another 60 years isn't unrealistic.

and there is still the potential of finding another untapped reserve like shale

North America has more shale and natural gas than all the OPEC nations combined. I have to find the estimates but the last I read we have about 180 years left of usable fossil fuel.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Slowing 10 miles out of 90 miles of high current isn't a big deal.

The same was said about wind turbines until birds starting falling out of the sky and weather patterns started changing.

Nuclear power has been utilized (still ~20% of all power generated in the USA today) in the USA without incident for the past 40 years. France has 80% of their power from nuclear reactors and they have not had a single environmental leak of radiation yet.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

when the people/gov/lawmakers in charge arent reliable or just plain stupid or bribed, it's hard to trust any power system to get done properly

Did I mention were getting the french in to build our jap designed one's