What's the problem with nuclear power?

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Nuke plants create steam, which is a greenhouse gas. Sorry to burst your nuclear bubble.

[Az]

Originally posted by Dauphin
You don't move the equilibrium, you only change the short term variables.

To put it another way, its not a cumulative or persistant effect.

I am sure you're referring to th radiating that heat out. Is it really that negligble?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by DanS


Vastly overblown. Coal-fired plants put out a lot more radioactivity than nuke plants. And you can put the radioactive waste in the Nevada desert.

Eventually, we will be able to launch it in to space and give it a heave-ho toward the sun.

Or repeal the law that doesn't let us reprocess it.

Btw, nuclear energy isn't nonrenewable either, and it's not like the stuff is exactly common... couldn't that be a problem?

[Az]

Yes, it could.

FUSION FUSION FUSION FUSION FUSION!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Nuke plants create steam, which is a greenhouse gas. Sorry to burst your nuclear bubble.

EVERY power plant except wind and solar using photovoltaic cells (which require a bunch of nasty chemicals to produce) makes steam.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Btw, nuclear energy isn't nonrenewable either, and it's not like the stuff is exactly common... couldn't that be a problem?

Reprocessing leaves some waste though. In La Haye, only 90% of the waste is reprocessed, the remaining 10% are fubar.

Sure it dramatically increases the life expectancy of nuclear power, but it doesn't make it eternal.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Sava
I'm for nuclear power.

Our goal should be to develop as much clean energy as possible. And even though there is toxic waste from nuclear power, it can be managed effectively.

Nuclear powerplant arenot design right. The safter nuclear powerplant design is than Helium cool Graphite core reactor. Water cool reactor only make sence on nuclear sub where you are surround by billion of ton of seawater, on land the water cooled reactor are have record number of accidences. That why they have so many complex back up fail saft for those reactor. The graphite core reactor shut itself off by it nature it anything go wrong and the helium even it is turn radiacted willnot react chemical with the evirorent at all an will float up into outer space quickly.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Azazel


I am sure you're referring to th radiating that heat out. Is it really that negligble?

Considering the size of the oceans and the amount of water vapour it generates I would have to say yes.

[mrmitchell]

Can reprocessed waste be reprocessed again, ad infinitum, until it's all (save 0.000001%) FUBAR?

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Sava
Nuclear power could be used to produce hydrogen for hydrogen fuel cell cars. One of the drawbacks to hydrogen fuel cells is that current manufacturing processes are powered by mostly dirty power.

The hydrogen ecomony is still pie in the sky as there are many problem with hydrogen power car. What type of storage system will be use to storage the hydrogen gas, liquid hydrogen, compress hydrogen gas, formalky than chemical storage at room temp ( can release toxic fume into the car easies)metal hydrorate( room temp chemical storage of H2 gas(cost of metal and the metal must be replace very so often).

[Kuciwalker]

CBH said something I understood and agreed with!

[DanS]

The hydrogen economy isn't pie-in-the-sky. There are hydrogen fueling stations and hydrogen-powered cars, for instance. We just haven't figured out a way to make it work optimally.

[Az]

Originally posted by Dauphin


Considering the size of the oceans and the amount of water vapour it generates I would have to say yes.

Yes, but you see, that's the point. It's very very small, but it shifts that massive equilibrium a little bit towards the gas. That little contribution. But the nature of these contributions is to build up. OTOH, it'll probably just rain a bit more somewhere, so.. well, it's a complex question, like it's always is in those matters.

[I Am Jeff]

No more nuclear fission power plants will be built in the US, here is why.

1. There is already large outcry agains them. All of westchester NY wants to Indian Point nuclear power plant shut down. And I am sure other places want nuclear plants shut down in their area. If people do not want them, why would power companies build something that is not as profitable as oil/gas/coal.

2. There is no place to put the nuclear waste, there would need to be a permenatn place to put the waste before more plants are made. No state wants to "volunteer" for this duty.

3. Estimates show that at current consummption rates, there is only enough nuclear fission fuel for about 100 years. So it really is not a long term solution as many think. Solution for us, but not for our children.

4. Just because the actually process of fission does not pollute the air, nuclear fission creates a lot of other pollution. Such as waste created when mining it or the nuclear waste mentioned above.

Really any and all money for energy research should be concentrated on Fusion as that looks like it could be our long term goal.

[DanS]

We've already spent several tens of billions of dollars on fusion research and don't have a reactor to show for our efforts. We don't know when or if it would work and don't know how much it would cost once we got there. We know roughly how much a fission reactor will cost and the associated drawbacks.

Therefore, it seems obvious that we should keep our research efforts diversified. It also seems like a strong case could be made that we should build more nuke plants.

1. There is already large outcry agains them. All of westchester NY wants to Indian Point nuclear power plant shut down. And I am sure other places want nuclear plants shut down in their area. If people do not want them, why would power companies build something that is not as profitable as oil/gas/coal.

A plant might not be politically palatable in Westchester, but it might be politically palatable in other parts of the country.

2. There is no place to put the nuclear waste, there would need to be a permenatn place to put the waste before more plants are made. No state wants to "volunteer" for this duty.

That's why Nevada has been "volunteered" for this duty, no matter if we build another nuke plant or not.

3. Estimates show that at current consummption rates, there is only enough nuclear fission fuel for about 100 years. So it really is not a long term solution as many think. Solution for us, but not for our children.

Uranium is all around us. At some point, it becomes economically viable to extract it from seawater.

4. Just because the actually process of fission does not pollute the air, nuclear fission creates a lot of other pollution. Such as waste created when mining it or the nuclear waste mentioned above.

This is very true, although I don't know the general magnitude of this pollution.