Opinions on Nuclear Power

[NukeManSoon]

I am an mm3 in the navy nuke program and i was wondering what all you smart people thought about nuclear power.

[Comments disabled...  this is not really on topic here.  There's lots of controversial stuff like this we could get distracted with.  Maybe it'd fly in diaries...]

[JW]

sURE POST THIS question before the board scramms

 I feel that Nuke Reactors use a ~mineral~ Fossel Fuel.

So that fuel for nuke reactors, is fuel soon to be just as finite as and petrolium distelate. Granted,,, a cubic centimeter of good fuel, in a good reactor, is eqivenlent to a mountain sized pile of coal... But its still finite. Dont knoe about you, But I would like to have the peice of mind that if my wind genny falls down, its in my pay scale.(perhaps a squriel(sp?) gets smashed) Considering that, I dont think its wrong, per-say, but if 100 sq miles of prime realestate gets wiped out(which has only happened in urope somewhere) I might be pissed... Negating that, we do need the supply of cheap power to stregthen our manufacturing and service base here in the US. cLEARLY RE/AE will need time to incubate.

 Now bear in mind Im talken Fission here to Fusion...

All the moneys spent on hydrogen fuel cells is a waste, in my humble opinion... Since a successful fusion type of reaction would use raw hydrogen HUNDREDS of time more efficiently than some hydrogen economy, based on fuelcells that are only 60% efficient, and reley on crogenic systems that need to be vented continuously. But I digress, I just speaking of the electrical grid.

When I hear about de-salination plants for making hydrogen from electrolisis I AM concerned. If we need a bunch of hydrogen for transportation energy's, I say get it from coal.. that'S my 3-cents worth, with interest over 10,000 years

JW  

[wind pirate]

Forgive my ignorance, but what is an MM3? Are you going to deploy on a boomer? I have several friends that have served "under" - seems to be a unique profession.

WP

[oztules]

Hmmmm....

Nuclear power is what breathes life into this planet. The hydrogen conversion in the sun powers it, and the remnant nuclear materials in the earth keep the core hot and liquid and so through the magnetic field it creates, protects us from the solar radiation which would destroy all life on earth in fairly short order.

So it seems both fission and fusion are absolutely natural, and fundamental to our existence and without it, there is no liveable earth.

As used for power generation, it is a balance between economics, safety, and terrorism.

In your application (ship/sub power I assume), it is the best solution to the problems at hand...... however, a direct hit on the reactor would release a mess that I would rather not have to clean up.... although at least at sea, dispersion back to background levels my help solve the problem, on land it becomes much more of a problem.

It is hard to cut through the hype from both the pro and anti groups. Somewhere in the middle there lurks a workable system, which your Navy seems to have found and put to good use. The Russian experience does not seem to be as happy.

.........oztules

[Walt]

WP

MM3 is machinist mate 3rd class if I recall.

.

[Nando]

Nuke Man:

What you really asked, I think, Nuke Energy for the forthcoming years and centuries.

Hydrogen is going to be the ultimate energy for the Planet EARTH.

BUT meanwhile somebody discovers the way how to dissociate H2O into Hydrogen and Oxygen with efficiency to at least with the energy used to presently recuperate hydrocarbon fuel from the earth.

Right now hydrocarbons should not be used as fuel but to convert to fertilizers and products for the human kind.

Hydrocarbons are being miss used, terrible, on earth.

CO2 hydrocarbon byproducts are affecting the Earth atmospheric stability causing temperature rise to dangerous levels -- as now it is happening.

Nuclear Energy is presently a total necessity, though many will fight to death this remark.

Nuclear energy should have a single type, like let's say 500 MW model ONLY and not a New model with each plant built, to produce a stable source.

Nuclear Fission should not be used.

Nuclear Fusion would be the logical one to be implemented, though it may take years to develop such energy source.

This way the radioactive byproducts may be minimized, which is a problem for many because of those that do not really comprehend, though those products can be "buried" in stable geological areas.

Nando

[Tom in NH]

I worry that the cost of keeping the waste products of fission reactors from contaminating the environment will be so costly as to make them a financial disaster for future generations.

I worry about the risk of serious accidents such as Chernoble (and 3 mi. island was a close call) where thousands of people had to be moved from their homes and 100s of thousands experience health risks.

Maybe fusion is a natural phenomenon on Earth, but it is one that is in the Earth's core, far removed from living organisms.

My opinion is there's got to be a better safer less risky way to fill our power needs than large scale fission reactors. --tom

[Volvo farmer]

Nando wrote:

"Hydrogen is going to be the ultimate energy for the Planet EARTH."

Now perhaps I don't fully understand your statement here but I might like to debate you on this topic. Hydrogen is not an energy source at all, rather it is a energy carrier, and a poor one at that. It takes an awfully good tank/pipeline/compressor to transport hydrogen (the smallest, lightest element on earth) and the energy losses in compresssion are significant.

The energy it takes to produce hydrogen, compress it and transport it have to come from somewhere. Perhaps RE sources, but I think if you look at the efficiencies of these processies, you would agree that RE dierctly into electricity is a much more efficient conversion.

Just my thoughts, would be interested in your response.

[Countryboy]

Personally, I think it is a joke.

We humans are idiots when it comes to harnessing nuclear power.  We use the heat of the reaction to turn water into steam, and use the steam to turn turbines.  My gosh, for all our technology, we're looking back at the steam engines of the 1800's.  We haven't even begun to tap into the nuclear power itself.

Nuclear fuel isn't exactly the easiest to obtain.  A LOT of energy is expended extracting and refining it - only to be wasted in an extremely inefficient manner of turning the nuclear energy into electric.  (Almost reminds folks of solar cells - a ton of energy making the cell, which may never last long enough to generate more power than was required to make the cell.)

It's not clean energy.  It has massive environmental impact, and is non-renewable.

I believe the ONLY benefit nuclear power offers is that it is a huge energy source which can be stored in a small package.

Also, using nuclear power is NOT a practical renewable energy resource.  Why is this topic here on a discussion board devoted to DIY renewable energy?

[Countryboy]

Hi Volvo,

  The first thing that comes to my mind is the discovery of hydrogen crystal form on the ocean floor.  Scientists still don't know the full potential of them, and are studying them intensely.  Edit that - scientists from all over the world EXCEPT American scientists are studying these crystals intensely.  The US has expressed no interest in alternative energy sources such as this.

Technically speaking, all atoms are energy carriers.  It is the nuclear bond holding the atom together that is the actual energy source.  Hydrogen is the simplest atomic structure, which means that nuclear energy is most easily accessed from the simplest atomic structure.  Hydrogen is as close to the source as an atom can get, which is why it is often considered to be the source.

[oztules]

Hi Volvo,

It really depends on what you are going to call differing parts of an entire energy system. If you look at as a complete system, Hydrogen is the basis of it all.

You say "Hydrogen is not an energy source at all, rather it is a energy carrier, and a poor one at that. "......... I think Hydrogen can be both. It will depend on how you define your objectives. Nearly all RE energy comes from Hydrogen. Most RE energy "sources" owe their very existence to the sun and the hydrogen conversion going on in it both now and millions of years ago.

It would seem that fossil fuels are really only condensed sunlight , water and co2. If it is done now, then it's biodiesel, if it was done millions of years ago, it's petroleum fuels, or coal. If it's wind or hydro, it's really recent sun energy, captured as pressure gradients, or condensed vapour, pulled out of the oceans by the sun... again and again.

It would follow that a most RE energy sources owe their very existance to the energy from the Hydrogen reactions in the sun.... the RE sources are really only storage mediums (fossil fuels) or active/passive carriers of kinetic or potential energy. It would seem that hydrogen is the source of fuel for these reactions.

There are other RE sources that are not hydrogen driven, and they are.. tidal power, which derives it's potential from the gravimetric and rotational interactions between the sun, moon and earth, and so is in a truly seperate catergory, and geothermal... from nuclear reactions below ground.

The only other energy sources on this planet that I can think of that are not dependent on Hydrogen reactions from the sun, are those from heavy element nuclear reactions.

These non sunlight energies give rise to RE in the form of geothermal energyand tidal energy.... it is interesting that both these systems are really not infinite. The earth is slowing down it's rotation, and the earth will cool down eventually.

Nuclear : It could be noted that even these heavy elements (U238 etc) derive their origin from hydrogen. All the elements that make up the earth have come from the debris of dying stars.... driven by hydrogen initially. All elements of atomic weight above iron will have had their genesis from super-nova (exploding stars). So geothermal and heavy nuclear reactions come from other stars (hydrogen driven), and all other sources of energy (except tidal) comes from the hydrogen economy of the sun.... every thing else we derive energy from is really only a carrier of that effused energy.

So what now.....

We can use Hydrogen as a carrier, just as we use petrol. It is as you have pointed out, not very efficient to use power from RE to convert h20 to h2 and o2, and is more useful to use the power directly...... provided it suits our purpose. Some here use petrol or diesel to charge their batteries.... poor conversion indeed, but it suits them...... thats what counts.

So I contend that hydrogen can be both a source, and a carrier. Fossil fuels can only be a carrier (potential energy stored in chemical bonds) of past energy from the sun. Re energy sources are really only forms of kinetic energy (wind) or radiation energy (heat and solar power cells, plant and vegatable matter). Geothermal is potential energy stored from previous steller explosions, and tidal is kinetic energy derived from a potential energy stored as rotational mass. The current crop of nuclear power devices are in the same catergory as geothermal, but harvested differently.

clear as mud as always...........oztules

[kurt]

"Why is this topic here on a discussion board devoted to DIY renewable energy?"

because i was away when he posted it and by the time i got to it it had a bunch of comments and i did not think it would be fair to the commenters to remove it.

[Stonebrain]

Being optimistic,this post is kind of joke.

Being pessimistic this might be an attempt to

go into evil propaganda.

And anyway,it's off topic.

ok,admin you can not allways be present

cheers,stonebrain

[richhagen]

Hydrogen crystals at the bottom of the ocean?  The only crystaline form of energy at the bottom of the ocean in vast quantities that I am aware of is methane hydrate, it takes very high pressures to maintain it in a stable form above very cold temperatures.  It is a hydrate formed of methane gas, and of course water.  There are believed to be vast quantities, however the issues of how to mine it and bring it safely to the surface have not been resolved that I am aware of.  Of course when you react it with oxygen you still get carbon dioxide and water.

It strikes me that since the infrastructure already exists, and the energy density per unit volume is higher, synthetic hydrocarbons as energy cariers might make more sense, at least in the short run.  Of course you still have to have the energy to be put into them in the first place. It strikes me that one day we may 'mine' carbon from the atmosphere either directly, or by using biomass, and use a modified Fischer-Trophe process to make the organics.  Carbon dioxide dissociates and is in equilibrium with carbon monoxide and oxygen at high temperature. Carbon monoxide can be used by the process.  Again, of course you need tremendous amounts of energy to pull this off.  Perhaps a few square miles of solar panels would do the trick, but how to store the energy for continuous operation would still be a broblem.  It would be a major undertaking, which would require additional massive increases in oil prices to be profitable.  

I had read of possibilities for carbon sequestration whereby iron and other fertilizer would be added to small areas of the ocean, which would result in rapid growth of algae blooms and capture of large quanties of disolved carbon dioxide which would subsequently die and ulimately fall to the ocean floor.  One could use a similar process to obtain a biomass feedstock for generating other fuels.  Choose an appropriate algae, and run a processs by which an ideal liquid solution is airated to grow the algae as rapidly as possible, then separate, and dry, to use as a feed stock for producing transportable fuels.  I do not know how it would compare to other possible feed stocks, but I suspect the mass per unit of time and area could be pretty competitive.  Especially since the location would have to be a sunny location anyway.  

The future is uncertain.  One thing for sure is that we will need different methods to obtain organics if we intend to keep using them at the current rate.  I don't know of anyone who would argue that new carbon based fossil fuels are being created at the same rate that they are being consumed, and that is not sustainable for the long run.  Besides, if they were being created at the same rate, we would not see a buildup over time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Just some ideas, Rich

[Goose]

"Why is this topic here on a discussion board devoted to DIY renewable energy?"

I think it was very interesting to hear different points of view on the subject.  If you don't like it don't read it!  Pretty simple solution.

[TomW]

Goose;

I do not get the logic of people that say:



If you don't like it don't read it! Pretty simple solution.

They must think many of us are clairvoyant. How do you know if you will "like" it until you have read it? Regardless of that, it should have been removed, it is out of place here, other than a Diary, in my opinion.

Posted by a person with a 'nick that, on the surface, appears to call for someone to "nuke" humankind soon makes it appear as a troll from here. I actually removed this post awhile back but that was then and  this  is now.

Hydrogen and nuclear, both appear as fools goals to me. Hydrogen is just big oil keeping your eye off the true issue, our gluttony for energy that keeps them rich. any near future hydrogen "source" will be their product in a different form for the most part.Nuclear plants have never operated at anything like a sensible level of long term safety, despite plans to entomb the waste. Only massive subsidies make nuclear "seem" viable as energy sources. That old BS about solar panels taking more energy to build than they will produce does rear it's head occasionally even now. I could easily debate for either side on these issues but chose to go for the side that is sensible.

This comment is off topic to here on the board. The thread should be closed.

Just my personal opinions. Not held by many.

Cheers.

TomW

[Gary D]

Welcome to the N.S.A.! This post/thread has increased our readership. This site is about spinning magnets past magnet wire for the most part.... Nukes are here to stay, for the near term at least. The thought of ONLY hundreds of thousands being affected is quite a bit low! Depends on the wind at the time.... From one living my whole life fairly near TMI.  Gary D.

[kenl]

 Nuke plants though are in the short term a cleaner way of producing energy the long term waste storage issues do not to me make it a viable alternative for energy production. TomW's comment that this is a off topic thread is true. This site is for people that want an alternative to the environmental damaging effects of non RE fuel. Some due to their distance from the grid, some because of the cost of power in their local and some like me because even though I may never see a break even point producing my own electricity I don't want to be lining the pockets of oil producers just so they can continue to rape the environment. I look at my kids and wonder what their world will be like when they get my age. And personally it really pisses me off! We are letting corporations steal their future. We have an administration that only cares about the short term. They have managed to water down everything previous administrations have done to protect the environment. Not to help the general public but to help increase the profits of large corporations. And the sad part is most of the public have let them do it. We haven't been keeping our eye on the ball but have been letting them keep us pre-occupied so we don't see what they don't want us to see. That we are getting a royal hosing by our government and corporations.

sorry TonW guess I went off topic too. kenny