HEY! I know how powerful they are ok? I read the 7 layers of pretection they have. I merely posted it because you thought I was lying about the glass. Secondly, doesn't it worry you that they have to seal it so many times just to ensure our safety?
Frankly, Kunark, there's no way to keep something sealed for that long. We are talking tens of thousands of years, perhaps more - I haven't looked up the half-life of plutonium lately.
It will eventually get out. If we're lucky, there'll just be an area of desert that's no-go. If we're unlucky, it ends up in the water table. Plus, a nuclear bomb doesn't generate nearly as much waste as a reactor. | |
>Frankly, Kunark, there's no way to keep something sealed for that long. We are talking tens of thousands of years, perhaps more - I haven't looked up the half-life of plutonium lately. It will eventually get out. If we're lucky, there'll just be an area of desert that's no-go. If we're unlucky, it ends up in the water table.
I don't think the moon has water tables. Maybe we should put it all on the moon. >Nuclear reactors are not currently energy-efficient enough to outproduce oil. Neither is solar, but you guys keep harping about this being the end all of fossil fuels. >The problem with nuclear power, Fiz, is that humans will always be running it. Chernobyl wasn't anything to do with the safety of the plant - it was an exercise in the stupidity of people. Can I call you out on this one? Chernobyl was an old, poorly maintained, and poorly staffed. It is believed that the staff of the plant included coal plant workers, and submarine workers. >Finally, fission power plants use uranium, a resource that is even more limited then oil. We're just switching our dependence to something that'll run out even faster. In a hundred years, people will be going "Why oh why did we use up all our uranium in fission power plants?". Wrong again. There are estimates that with a Fast Breeder Reactor, we could use uranium that costs over $1000 a pound and the cost of the energy would go up a mere penny. At $1000 a pound, we could extract uranium from anywhere on the planet. Estimates of the amount of uranium on the planet means we could live off uranium for over 5 years. By years I actually mean billion years. For example, uranium can be extracted from SEA WATER at around $200-400 a pound. There is enough uranium in Sea Water ALONE to last us 7 million years. I don't know about you, but 7 million years is plenty of time to find a new resource to get power from. Maybe instead we could throw rabbits into an incinerator, they pollute sure, but they multiply like rabbits. Thats what I call a renewable resource. >Additionally, we do not have a good place to store nuclear waste. They do not produce 'not much waste' - you get a significant quantity of what you put in back out as radioactive substances. Think of it like this - as a simplified model, a nuclear reactor converts some of the energy present in the mass fed into it into heat, and the rest comes out again as mass. New reactors like sodium cooled reactors actually do not consume nuclear fuel, they can use the same fuel for their entire lifetime. "The fast breeder or fast breeder reactor (FBR) is a fast neutron reactor designed to breed fuel by producing more fissile material than it consumes. The FBR is one possible type of breeder reactor. " Thus reducing the nuclear waste tremendously. >HEY! I know how powerful they are ok? I read the 7 layers of pretection they have. I merely posted it because you thought I was lying about the glass. Secondly, doesn't it worry you that they have to seal it so many times just to ensure our safety? Im happy they ensure out safety, would you rather they pack it in cardboard and put it in the local landfill? | |
HEY! I know how powerful they are ok? I read the 7 layers of pretection they have. I merely posted it because you thought I was lying about the glass. Secondly, doesn't it worry you that they have to seal it so many times just to ensure our safety? No, it doesn't. There are much worse things to worry about than radioactive waste, like all of the coal-based electrical factories burn and release CO2 into the atmosphere, which could eventually kill just about everyone on the planet. There is a very small chance nuclear waste would cause problems, but there is a big whopping chance that burning fossil fuels will cause worse problems. Also, I never said you lied about anything. I don't think I was even speaking to you. Frankly, Kunark, there's no way to keep something sealed for that long. We are talking tens of thousands of years, perhaps more - I haven't looked up the half-life of plutonium lately. You're right, but I'm sure it's maintined regularly. I believe they said something about every 100 years they do stuff to the waste. | |
I read an interesting article today...
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20070526/bob8.asp You still believe we should focus more on nuclear? | |
I read an interesting article today...
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20070526/bob8.asp You still believe we should focus more on nuclear? Cloud cover anyone? | |
Strawgate wrote:
I read an interesting article today... Its amazing how fast you feel we need to quit on a technology that is free and is given to us everyday. Instead of new nuclear engines and all that bull, we can focus on creating better solar cells that are cheaper, absorb, and store more energy. Read the whole article - its all possible. | |
So instead of burning fossil fuels until we get highly efficient solar cells, how about we utilize a safe, clean, and cheap source of energy?
Not to mention creating solar cells pollutes the air as well. For every 1 ton of silicon produced, 1.5 tons of carbon dioxide are produced. Silicon being the prime ingredient in solar cells. | |
Strawgate wrote:
>Frankly, Kunark, there's no way to keep something sealed for that long. We are talking tens of thousands of years, perhaps more - I haven't looked up the half-life of plutonium lately. It will eventually get out. If we're lucky, there'll just be an area of desert that's no-go. If we're unlucky, it ends up in the water table. Launching it into space is an even worse idea. If just one of those launchers goes the way of Challenger or Ariane 5, we have big, big, big problems. >Nuclear reactors are not currently energy-efficient enough to outproduce oil. I didn't, actually. I think solar has some place, but I do not think it is a magic bullet solution, in the same way I do not think nuclear power is a magic bullet solution. Earth-based solar panels cannot produce baseline load, as I have stated earlier. They're much better in space, but then you've got the problem of carting back the energy somehow, and they're still expensive to produce. >The problem with nuclear power, Fiz, is that humans will always be running it. Chernobyl wasn't anything to do with the safety of the plant - it was an exercise in the stupidity of people. I think that's what I said - it was poorly maintained because people were stupid. People will always be stupid. You can't stop it. Nuclear reactors are safe, but the people running them will do stupid things every once in a while, and then you have a problem. >Finally, fission power plants use uranium, a resource that is even more limited then oil. We're just switching our dependence to something that'll run out even faster. In a hundred years, people will be going "Why oh why did we use up all our uranium in fission power plants?". I'm sure similar estimates existed for oil. The fact of the matter is that it's crap. It is a limited resource, and it will not last seven billion years. There's something around one trillion tonnes of coal in the earth. At current global consumption, that's gonna go in 600 years or so. Uranium reserves are about half that. It is more energy-efficient, I would imagine, but not that much more efficient. And considering how much energy will have to into refining it - which is an incredibly complicated and expensive process - it will not last very long. It really is just jumping out of a mostly-sunk ship into one that's just been holed. >Additionally, we do not have a good place to store nuclear waste. They do not produce 'not much waste' - you get a significant quantity of what you put in back out as radioactive substances. Think of it like this - as a simplified model, a nuclear reactor converts some of the energy present in the mass fed into it into heat, and the rest comes out again as mass. You do realise that's physically impossible, right? "The fast breeder or fast breeder reactor (FBR) is a fast neutron reactor designed to breed fuel by producing more fissile material than it consumes. The FBR is one possible type of breeder reactor. " Thus reducing the nuclear waste tremendously. Actually, FBR reactors produce more and worse waste then conventional ones. In particular, plutonium. You're right, but I'm sure it's maintined regularly. I believe they said something about every 100 years they do stuff to the waste. Can we be fairly sure that we'll be able to do this, on and off again, for the tens of thousands of years it will take? Governments try to cut costs wherever they can, and things that provide long-term benefits for short-term cost are particularly likely to be cut. I just don't think the waste can ever be stored safely. Nuclear power may be marginally better then current fossil-fuel approaches. It's one of the few alternative power sources that can produce baseline load. But it has its dangers, and we can't see it as a magic bullet, because its not. | |
"I have no clue if anyone has died from geothermal,"
'AAAA! LOOK OUT! THERE'S A... what the hell is a geothermal plant?' "wind," 'Phew, these wind plants sure look cool in hurricanes.' *one falls over* Smoosh. "or solar power plants," 'Hey, I have an idea! Let's sunbathe on the solar panels!' | |
Lets launch it all into the sun!
/sarcasm | |
Geothermal power plants use heat from underground volcanic activity to produce steam and spin turbines.
| |
"I have no clue if anyone has died from geothermal,"
'What pretty lava... AAAAARGH! IT BURNS! AAAUGH! AAAAA! *blub* *blub*' | |
New reactors like sodium cooled reactors actually do not consume nuclear fuel, they can use the same fuel for their entire lifetime. You do realize that's physically impossible, right? No it's not. The fission of the uranium, creates additional fissionable material. Read about fast breeder reactors. I never said nuclear energy was a magic bullet, but I do believe it should be part of the future energy solution, not the entire solution, but part of it. I believe solar energy also has a part in the future energy solution, but we can not rely on only solar energy. The advantage of nuclear power is that you can get nuclear power when its cloudly, rainy, stormy, lightning outside, and bright and shiny. Solar on the other hand, not so much. | |
No it's not. The fission of the uranium, creates additional fissionable material. Read about fast breeder reactors. I suggest you read up on something called thermodynamics. It is physically impossible for a reactor to use the same fuel for the entirety of its life. It can produce fuel, but you need to put in /other fuel/ to get it. I note you've completely ignored the fact that geothermal is the alternative power source I would suggest could serve baseline load. The best you're going to get with solar power is a satellite at a lagrange point. | |
I vote for solar energy, it does not pullute the air like those of all fossil fuel materials. We should focus on producing and discovering the solar energies other good sources. Is this statement right? Im not realy good at these kind of comments, im still 12
| |
I vote for solar energy, it does not pullute the air like those of all fossil fuel materials. We should focus on producing and discovering the solar energies other good sources. Is this statement right? Im not realy good at these kind of comments, im still 12 You cant get solar energy from anything besides a sun. Unless you create the light, which ends up losing you power. It is physically impossible for a reactor to use the same fuel for the entirety of its life. It can produce fuel, but you need to put in /other fuel/ to get it. The reactor produces more fissile material then it consumes. The fast breeder or fast breeder reactor (FBR) is a fast neutron reactor designed to breed fuel by producing more fissile material than it consumes. The FBR is one possible type of breeder reactor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_breeder_nuclear_reactor I note you've completely ignored the fact that geothermal is the alternative power source I would suggest could serve baseline load. The best you're going to get with solar power is a satellite at a lagrange point. Hmm, your right I did completely ignore it. I love geothermal energy, it is a great source and a great option, however its mass usage and mass acceptance is another issue. I firmly believe geothermal energy is another part of the future energy solution. Many energy sources are needed to fuel the global need for electricity. Geothermal, Solar, Nuclear, Wind, and many others should be used where they are best placed. Some people don't like the loud noise of wind turbines, fortunately we could simply use another source of energy there. There are advantages and disadvantages with every energy source, if we combine them into the future solution we could fuel our need for energy, and stunt the creation of pollution and the burning of fossil fuels. | |
Nuclear wind reactor! To be placed in windy places, creates the energy of a nuclear reactor and a couple wind turbines combined!
The solarthermal generator! Uses both volcanoes and the sun to generate twice the electricity! By our powers combined, we are... THE SOLARNUCLEAR THERMALWIND GENERACTOR! Uses all four to create FOUR TIMES the energy! | |
The last one would be very unlikely, as well.
| |
You're fucking clueless! Even after researching this you still don't have an idea how powerful these containers are? They store it in glass for extra protection, yes, but the glass is surrounded by very thick stainless steel. They are built stronger than bomb shelters.. And even if one leaked, they are never stored in an area anywhere near where they would cause a problem. The government was blowing up NUCLEAR BOMBS in these kinds of areas, which absolutely destroys the atmosphere and is carried by wind, and even those tests didn't hurt many people.