Thread: Nuclear Power

Originally Posted by Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy

EFN considers that environmental opposition to nuclear energy is the greatest misunderstanding and mistake of the century.

If well managed, nuclear energy is a very clean energy, does not reject polluting gases in the atmosphere, uses very few construction materials (per kWh) compared to solar & wind energy, produces very little waste (almost totally confined), and does not contribute to the greenhouse effect (no carbon dioxyde).

Here's a topic about which I've heard plenty of conflicting and mutually exclusive claims; especially around such topics as the long-term availability (and cost of extraction) of uranium; the indirect fossil fuel emissions compared with other sources; and the dangers and problems posed by waste products.

What says the board?

Edit: I missed one major source of confusion as well. How much it all costs in comparison to other sources.

I consider myself to be fairly liberal in my political beliefs. That said, I'm not crazy about nuclear power, but I recognize that it's the best available option with the capacity to provide the levels of energy needed by a large population.

Wind, solar, tidal, hydroelectric... All of these are fine, but even combined, they're not going to produce enough power for our population. They're excellent supplements to the power grid, but not enough to stand by themselves. Not yet.

Until we have a technology with a power yield that exceeds that of nuclear energy, we gotta go with what we have.

One of the greatest inventions of the 20th century; nuclear energy is not used nearly enough.

From these guys I will hear GW arguments:
Nukes costs 70% less than comparable sources.
fusion will be technically feasible about 2030
nukes cost less because the costs are all up front but take 30 years to depreciate.
Financial projections are hanging fire due to fusion.

Originally Posted by william the wierd

From these guys I will hear GW arguments:
Nukes costs 70% less than comparable sources.
fusion will be technically feasible about 2030
nukes cost less because the costs are all up front but take 30 years to depreciate.
Financial projections are hanging fire due to fusion.

Do you have any backup for these assertions? I've heard people claim that nuclear is by far more expensive than most other power sources and not economically viable without state support, and the history of failed private enterprises rescued by massive government subsidy in the UK would seem to support this. Where do your figures come from, and what assumptions are they based on?

Please source your figures in this thread, so we can try and have something more than a 'Oh not it isn't!' debate.

The simplest and cheapest source for fission utility cost in the US is Jim Jubak in MSN money. Access and archive search is free. Legal for sure and to some extent construction costs are higher for nukes and much more so in the UK than in the US because the UK is a net exporter of fossil fuels. What is true for the US is not true for the UK.
Fusion will be technically feasible in 2030 because both China and the US are in the process of planning He3 mines on the moon in the 2020s. He3 fusion does work but acquisition costs on Earth are so high that it is not economically feasible to use it, deuterium and even tritium are dirt cheap by comparison. I seriously doubt that lunar He3 will be economically feasible but NASA and the Chinese space agency will give you more data than you ever wanted on the subject.
Hope that helped.

In the end, we're going to run out of uranium ultimately. I suggest solar. Somehow, this source of energy needs to be made use of. So *many* areas of our planet are not hospitable. Why not cover the entire desert and areas of the ocean where climate is predictable with viable solar panels? Not with what we have now, but a better version that may harness more energy from the heat.

What's the point of having a desert in your territory when you can even have people live there! Make use of it...

Originally Posted by william the wierd

The simplest and cheapest source for fission utility cost in the US is Jim Jubak in MSN money. Access and archive search is free. Legal for sure and to some extent construction costs are higher for nukes and much more so in the UK than in the US because the UK is a net exporter of fossil fuels. What is true for the US is not true for the UK.

I'm not sure if the UK still is a net exporter of fossil fuels. I'm having trouble finding figures, but our oil production peaked almost a decade ago and I can find lots of things written five years ago or so that predict we'll be a net importer by about now. The Danish Prime Minister claims that Denmark is the EU's only net energy exporter, but I don't know if that's true.

Originally Posted by Desidude666

In the end, we're going to run out of uranium ultimately. I suggest solar. Somehow, this source of energy needs to be made use of. So *many* areas of our planet are not hospitable. Why not cover the entire desert and areas of the ocean where climate is predictable with viable solar panels? Not with what we have now, but a better version that may harness more energy from the heat.

What's the point of having a desert in your territory when you can even have people live there! Make use of it...

I agree - unfortunately many deserts are far from population centres - that means the infrastructure for building the powerlines etc is far more expensive and once again you have a problem of getting the money up front to build the infrastructure to make better use of what we get for free. Until now there just has not been ANY impetus to put money into this. The much maligned carbon trading scheme was supposed to overcome this in a capitalistic friendly way.

Originally Posted by Bowerbird

I agree - unfortunately many deserts are far from population centres - that means the infrastructure for building the powerlines etc is far more expensive and once again you have a problem of getting the money up front to build the infrastructure to make better use of what we get for free. Until now there just has not been ANY impetus to put money into this. The much maligned carbon trading scheme was supposed to overcome this in a capitalistic friendly way.

With what we've got, I don't think solar energy is a viable source. Considering the amount of energy we can actually convert. We obviously need to find ways to amplify the amount we receive. With the guarantees of the planet getting warmer, this should be exploited. Ocean waves should also be exploited, why not harness energy on resources that are ubiquitous and will never deplete?! Wind energy?

I've just read that there are possibilities that oil will be a highly valuable resource by 2025. That's about 15+ years now, what would happen to the cars and electricity..?! But we have to spend money into it, even if there are possibilities of wastages, it's just a process of R & D, sometimes you make it, other times there are risks you have to incur. Since now, it's possible to use wireless charging for small devices, prices for cabling should decrease in the future...