Nuclear Power? The way foward?

[Mise]

Here's something interesting. Coal, like everything that comes from underground, contains traces of radioactive material. Left alone, this radioactive material is harmless. However, when coal is burnt, this radioactive material is released into the atmosphere. The amount of radioactive material released per kWh by coal burning is higher than the amount of radioactivity material left over from nuclear power plants.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Actually, its not. Or maybe we should define "problem."

That said, I agree that renewable sources should be pursued.

Well, I define it as being a possbile hazard in the future in this case. The more we use, the more space we need to store it.

I am glad to see someone who also wants to pursue renewable energy.

 

[El_Machinae]

I am glad to see someone who also wants to pursue renewable energy

The best way to advance renewable energy, as a common person, is to purchase goods that use renewable energy.

Buying solar panels for your house would push the market, for example.

 

[skadistic]

I am glad to see someone who also wants to pursue renewable energy.

There is alot of us. I'm all for solar power. every house should have a few cells on it. Wind I'm not to sure about. But makeing the propellers out of solar cells would be cool.

 

[.Shane.]

The best way to advance renewable energy, as a common person, is to purchase goods that use renewable energy.

Buying solar panels for your house would push the market, for example.

Where I live we get decent amounts of wind at times. I've considered putting a wind turbine on my roof, but the $$ for hooking up to the power grid is just too much.

 

[Xanikk999]

Right now solar power isnt viable really. It takes more energy to make the power then what you produce.

So until we go past that i would be happy with nuclear power.

And even if we did how would we get power during the night?

 

[El_Machinae]

Where I live we get decent amounts of wind at times. I've considered putting a wind turbine on my roof, but the $$ for hooking up to the power grid is just too much.

Is there a way to get use of the energy without tapping piping into the grid? For example, hooking it directly up to the A/C so that the A/C works when the wind is blowing?

How much is the hookup, compared to the expected long-term payout? If you do it, though, the idea might catch on, meaning the effects will snowball (leading to long-term benefit)

 

[.Shane.]

Is there a way to get use of the energy without tapping piping into the grid? For example, hooking it directly up to the A/C so that the A/C works when the wind is blowing?

Well, short of hooking to the grid, there are 2 options.

1. Use the power immediately. This is the worst because what if the wind is howling at 4 AM and conversely, no wind at 6 PM when everything in your house is on?
2. Batteries. I think this is costly and I'd never want to mess w/ having to set this up, dispose of them, etc....

How much is the hookup, compared to the expected long-term payout? If you do it, though, the idea might catch on, meaning the effects will snowball (leading to long-term benefit)

Well, yes, I'm sure over enough time it would pay for itself. I just don't have the budget to set it up now. I think it would be about ~$4k to hook up to the grid.

Plus, I'm not sure what the zoning laws/rules are here, it may not even be possible.

 

[El_Machinae]

1. Use the power immediately.

I'm trying to think of appliances that don't need to be on, except occassionally, to get the benefit.

An electric heater springs to mind. Your furnace will keep the house warm, but the electric heater will subsidize your furnace at night (ie., when it runs, your furnace won't kick in as often)

 

[.Shane.]

An electric heater springs to mind. Your furnace will keep the house warm, but the electric heater will subsidize your furnace at night (ie., when it runs, your furnace won't kick in as often)

The climate here is pretty good. I rarely have the need to run a furnace/heater at night. Obviously, the thing here is that different people have different needs. I'd be more likely to run the A/C in the summer at night.

 

[El_Machinae]

There yah go. If you hook it up to an additional A/C unit, it would subsidize your original unit.

I'm also thinking the humidifier/dehumidifier might fit under the same principal of 'not always needing to be on'.

 

[happy_Alex]

Is there a way to get use of the energy without tapping piping into the grid? For example, hooking it directly up to the A/C so that the A/C works when the wind is blowing?

How much is the hookup, compared to the expected long-term payout? If you do it, though, the idea might catch on, meaning the effects will snowball (leading to long-term benefit)

Home based turbines have to be plumbed into the grid, because they will only generate power when the wind is blowing.

I saw a bloke on telly who had one in south london, and when his household wasn't using as much electricity as the wind turbine generated, he sold it back to the power station, so it can flow both ways.

 

[sysyphus]

I am 100% for renewables, but the reality is that to meet our needs in the next 50 years, they simply will not be able meet it. Nuclear is the best bridge between now and when we are able to live entirely off renewables.

 

[Sidhe]

I'm in agreement with Sysiphus, the UK is pushing hard to meet renewable targets and is one of the few countries that may well meet those targets, sadly it isn't enough to meet demands, and as Mise rightly says coal, increasing fossil fuel burning is likely to have a greater detrimental effect to the environment and thus to human life than nuclear fuel does. Here's some interesting info on the storage and reprocessing of nuclear fuel, done well it can be a remarkably CO2 free use of fuel, it takes time and comittment though,and the fears of the past tend to exaggerate the harmfulness of it's use. Can't really cherry pick anything from this info it is unbiased though, it's all fairly interesting, if you want to learn more then google it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_nuclear_fuel

Back end

The back end of the of the nuclear fuel cycle, mostly spent fuel rods, often contains fission products that emit beta and gamma radiation, and may contain actinides that emit alpha particles, such as 234U, 237Np, 238Pu and 241Am, and even sometimes some neutron emitters such as Cf. These isotopes are formed in nuclear reactors.

It's important to distinguish the processing of uranium to make fuel from the reprocessing of used fuel. Used fuel contains the highly radioactive products of fission (see High Level Waste below). Many of these are neutron absorbers called neutron poisons in this context. These eventually build up to a level where they absorb so many neutrons that the chain reaction stops, even with the control rods completely removed. At that point the fuel has to be replaced in the reactor with fresh fuel, even though there is still a substantial quantity of 235U and plutonium present. Currently, in the USA, this used fuel is stored. In other countries (the UK, France, and Japan in particular) the fuel is reprocessed to remove the fission products, and the fuel can then be re-used. The reprocessing process involves handling highly radioactive materials, and the fission products removed from the fuel are a concentrated form of High Level Waste as are the chemicals used in the process.

 

[blackheart]

Meltdowns got you down? Try a Pebble Bed Reactor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

 

[Tenochtitlan]

Only if Tony Blair has agreed to store all the worlds nuclear waste in his big echoing empty head. Seriously, where does he plan on dumping the waste?

Dump em in a third world country as usual

 

[Sidhe]

Ah do some research Tenochtitlan. That's just a kneejerk reaction surely. Can we hear some reasoned argument? No? NM.

 

[Odin2006]

I'm all for nuclear energy. When you add in the enviromental devastation caused by some coal mining methods (they cut the tops off of mountains fer Christ's sakes) and global warming, Nuclear is a much better option. The "waste" can be recycled. We will never get most of our electricty from renewables.

 

[bhsup]

Nuclear fusion is the future. In the meantime until it is ironed out, fission is the way to go.

 

[sysyphus]

Meltdowns got you down? Try a Pebble Bed Reactor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

That is a very interesting technology and would be a boon to all if it proves workable. I've been keeping an eye on its progress for a few years, and I'm hopeful that it is.