Nuclear Vs. Renewable Energy

[TastyWheat]

I have nothing against solar or other renewable energy sources except the fact they're too inefficient for "prime time". Some planned solar plants in the US will take up as much as 6000 acres and this strikes me as a complete waste of space. Does anyone know of any articles or research papers that show nuclear power as being a much more practical solution (in the short term)?

[Kludge]

Doesn't matter what we think on this issue. Power plants should be owned and operated by private entities without restriction and without interference of any kind by Government.

[TastyWheat]

I'm not disputing any of that, but people who support "green" alternatives should know the downsides.

[Banana]

It's easy to get caught up in hype associated with green power, and not think in big picture.

For example, suppose we had an ambitious plan to make 20% of our nationwide energy derived from solar energy. That's pretty big, right? Well, manufacturing of solar panels are actually toxic and may end up costing more in terms of pollution.

What pisses me the most is how hippies got all uptight about nuclear energy and went "OH NOES! IT'S GOING TO MAKE THREE EYED MUTANT FREAK OUT OF US!!!1!" and did everything to ban it. But what they don't understand is this:

1) Everything we use for energy, be it solar, wind, oil, flatulence, is ultimately derived from sun, and how does it produce energy? Hmmm, oh by nuclear reaction! Everyone knows it's always good idea to kill off the middleman and do it direct, no?

2) By requiring us to bury all radioactive wastes, we're now burdened with stockpiles of glowing waste which we have to dig up every now and then and re-line the stockpile so it doesn't leak this time. Those could have been used in breeder reactors, and there are several way to use low-level radiation for good uses. In fact, there's a prototype in UK for a laptop battery lasting 5 years using tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen. Tritium is an beta emitter which is easily stopped by a thin sheet of metal. There's also another project that uses depleted uranium, an alpha emitter which can be easily stopped by a piece of paper. And for something less experimental, it bears to recall that we've been already using nuclear battery for pacemakers and radioactive materials in the smoke detector.

3) I sometime wonder if they realize that we are continually exposed to radiation all the times... Sunlight being a prime example. The main difference to look at is whether radiation ionizes (which is bad) or doesn't and thus doesn't affect us.

[amy31416]

Great post Banana. Spot on.

I might also bring up drilling in Anwar. The most frustrating thing is that the liberals would have us go to war over oil, rather than relocate some bears. It'd be a good interim plan until we get a better, renewable source of energy.

[Gadsden Flag]

Personally, I would accept the possible pollutants in favor of ending our dependance on foreign countries. Maybe it's not the best solution, but I say it's better than the situation we're in now.

Replace it with something else later if you want.

[Zippyjuan]

Actually most of our energy is created by boiling water and turning a turbine- magnets rotating inside a wire coil. No different from how Edison created his electricity. A nuclear reactor is just a very expensive way to boil water. They are not just tapping into the electrons of the radioactive particles. Wind energy is also a turbine- the air causes it to move. Only solar does not use the turbine method.

The accidents at Three Mile Island and Chrnobyl make some people concerned about the possiblity of accidents and in the wake of 9/11 some are concerned about terrorists crashing a plane into a nuclear reactor. There are still large areas in the former Soviet Union and Europe where people are not allowed due to radiation contamination.

Waste is the biggest concern with nuclear energy. Get too much into too small of a space and it can spontaneasly combust. Another is how long it lasts. There are many different isotopes with different life spans, but most of them have half lives of thousands of years for the particles to decay. That means that after these thousands of years have passed, you still have half of the amount you started with. You need storage for thousands of years.

That said, nuclear is still probably our best option going forwards. Solar and wind are inconsistant and not available in all areas. Solar can be placed on the top of all buildings and thus not necessarily require exclusive space for it. Winds are consistant only in limited locations. Biofuels would replace crops need to feed the world.

Estimates of the reserves in the ANWR range from about five to ten billion barrels. The US consumes about seven billion barrels a year just ourselves. It would help, but only in a limited way.

[Banana]

Actually most of our energy is created by boiling water and turning a turbine- magnets rotating inside a wire coil. No different from how Edison created his electricity. A nuclear reactor is just a very expensive way to boil water. They are not just tapping into the electrons of the radioactive particles. Wind energy is also a turbine- the air causes it to move. Only solar does not use the turbine method.

Technically, this is correct, though the laptop battery I just mentioned doesn't do that. IIRC, out of any power driving turbines, hydrodams is most cost-effective. Also, to qualify the "most expensive", it's probably easier to build a coal-burning turbine-driving power plant than a nuclear power plant, but in terms of kilowatts per hour, nuclear power kicks ass.

Also, it doesn't change the fact that wind and solar (and even fossil fuels and biofuels) are ultimately derived from nuclear reaction in sun.


The accidents at Three Mile Island and Chrnobyl make some people concerned about the possiblity of accidents and in the wake of 9/11 some are concerned about terrorists crashing a plane into a nuclear reactor. There are still large areas in the former Soviet Union and Europe where people are not allowed due to radiation contamination.

And missile silos aren't a concern? Nuclear submarines that can be stolen?

The real problem is the mismanagement, IMO. Government's intervention only worsens the mismanagement.


Waste is the biggest concern with nuclear energy. Get too much into too small of a space and it can spontaneasly combust. Another is how long it lasts. There are many different isotopes with different life spans, but most of them have half lives of thousands of years for the particles to decay. That means that after these thousands of years have passed, you still have half of the amount you started with. You need storage for thousands of years.

As I alluded to earlier, those "waste" are just materials which use we've yet to discover and already are finding good use for it. Burying it is actually more expensive than coming up with a practical use such as breeder reactors which becomes an investment.

Mind explaining the "spontaneously combust" when we have too much material in too small space? Are we talking about reaching critical mass and creating a chain reaction, just like a bomb, or it'd erupt in flames?


That said, nuclear is still probably our best option going forwards. Solar and wind are inconsistant and not available in all areas. Solar can be placed on the top of all buildings and thus not necessarily require exclusive space for it. Winds are consistant only in limited locations. Biofuels would replace crops need to feed the world.

I agree with the idea of placing solar panels on rooftops, as they are usually wasted space anyway (unless someone happen to have a rooftop garden, of course ;) ). However, the manufacturing process of panel is very toxic and may be actually more harmful than benefit derived from. Until it improves, it won't be worth doing this on a large scale.


The only one thing I can't figure out is why they couldn't use hydrodam at sea and utilize the tides to drive the turbines.... It would just require that we reverse polarity and time it with the movement of water.

Of course marine lovers will probably hate me for suggesting that we destroy the essential home of many marine species.

[Zippyjuan]

However, the manufacturing process of panel is very toxic and may be actually more harmful than benefit derived from. Until it improves, it won't be worth doing this on a large scale.

This is true of everything we have and use. But over the life of the panels, the energy that did not have to be produced from fossile fuels saves more pollution than the production of the panels created.


Are we talking about reaching critical mass and creating a chain reaction, just like a bomb, or it'd erupt in flames?
Something along those lines. But since that is a known possiblity, steps are taken to avoid it and are pretty unlikely.

Presently, cost per kilowat is higher for nuclear than other current sources, but that could be brought down with the construction of smaller and more efficient plants. France has done pretty well with nuclear energy.
Costs per KW hour: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Cents_Per_Kilowatt-Hour

[pcosmar]

Waste is the biggest concern with nuclear energy.

Put it on an unmanned rocket and launch it into the sun.
Hydrogen fuel in a rocket does not pollute, and the sun won't even notice.
Radioactive materials are routinely used in spacecraft.

I always thought the Industrial Revolution was a mistake, or at least badly mishandled.
It would be nice to continue to advance in a more thoughtful manner.
Since we can't go back and get a "do over", we should look at all the possible sources of energy.
That includes nuclear.

[aravoth]

Well if the government would stop subsidizing "green energy" Maybe it would be affordable enough for us to have our own plants. I've always wondered what the point of even having a power plant was. If people put Solar Panels on their roofs, and were allowed to store the excess power, rather than be forced to sell it back to a power company( like they do in Oregon, yes it's true, you cannot keep all the power you generate on your own here), then Green power wouldn't be an issue, becuase everyone would have it. But I guess it has to be an issue, becuase you can't tax something that is free.

Hell you could do community things if the people wanted it. Think about all that unused space on the top of a shopping mall, or any building really, barn roofs, you get me. Anyway, there's no need for 6000 acres of panels, or 100 sq miles of windmills. If everyone generated thier own, we'd be fine, and we'd save a lot of money.

[Banana]

I knew I missed something about the solar energy.

If we built enough of solar panel (which would cover most of SW USA) to meet the national need, this changes how the environment receives/release the heat, which would have major ramification on climate possibly leading to massive droughts.

That's something to think about.

[amy31416]

I knew I missed something about the solar energy.

If we built enough of solar panel (which would cover most of SW USA) to meet the national need, this changes how the environment receives/release the heat, which would have major ramification on climate possibly leading to massive droughts.

That's something to think about.

I've wondered about that too. Add in the cost of start-up and disposal concerns--I don't know what's the best answer.

Probably a variety of sources, nuclear, wind, solar, water, wood, coal, natural gas, whale fat, snuggling up with your dog to keep warm.

My idea to reduce energy use when I was a kid, was to have these cool-ass space age suits that you kept at whatever temperature you specified. That way you only have to heat the bathroom and your water pipes to keep them from freezing. And since there's an a/c version, you don't need to cool an entire house or business in the summer. Only run your refrigerator.

You could recharge the suits using whatever electricity source you like. Ya know, I still kind of like the idea. I know it doesn't take into account the other things you need energy to run, but we can figure that all out after we get our nifty suits.