In our Energy class: Burning the world at both ends, we have been introduced nuclear energy as a potential alternative towards our depleting source of fossil fuels. There are some stereotypical negatives that are drawn immediately at the thought of nuclear energy. However, some of the up sides to nuclear energy is: an extremely high energy density (50 million times more powerful per until weight than coal), no emissions, and the technology is readily available for fission methods of harvesting the energy. Yet there are negative characteristics to it: The operational nuclear plants in the US are built from the 1970s and have had minimal technological updates, and the wastes that would be generated can be purified into weapons-grade material, but it highly costly.
The few questions that I pose to you are:
What are your stands towards nuclear energy?
Is nuclear energy the solution for our search for another source of energy fuel?
How would our society change with an access to virtually unlimited energy that doesn't pollute the environment?
As we start to move closer and closer to the depletion of petroleum, it's now that we need to start changing how we live and move closer to a solution for the future.
I think that with sources for oil steadily being used up, that it IS necessary to start thinking about other forms for energy. I don't know too much about nuclear energy to begin with, but it is a start for alternative energy. None of us can really predict exactly when we will run out of petroleum, so it would be better to have something available for use when the need arises. Whether or not nuclear energy will be the most practical source for nuclear energy, it is at least an option and a start. Either way, it is cost is bound to be an issue that comes up, and as with any situations, there are of course pros and cons, and it becomes a matter of picking the lesser of two evils. A change in society would be inevitable, and I would imagine that technology could sky rocket with all sorts opportunities readily accesible. I suppose the question would be whether or not society would be ready for such a change. Sooner or later however, the need will arise for an alternative energy source, whether or not the public is ready for it, and it would be better to have something rather than nothing.
Okay, so my answer to your questions will be a little kiddie-ish and such.
Nuclear energy is something that i haven't heard of for an alternative source of energy. however, if it is nuclear, then it would have to be huge and explosive cuz it's nuclear and it has been tested for extreme powerful as i heard in chem. i would think that nuclear energy is something to consider since there isn't that much choices as to an alternative energy instead of what we are using right now. Everything has its pros and cons, like oil is used everyday for cooking and driving. it's kinda like an everyday use thing, however it pollutes the earth. if nuclear energy is one that doesn't pollute the earth, then it should be at the top of the list. However, is it enough for the world to change and use? will it run out like oil? Oil will run out eventually, and not a lot of people are thinking about it right now. well, if nuclear energy is surplus, it will gradually grow to be a popular use. Hybrid is very eco friendly and also electric cars, however money is the problem. everything that is being used needs money. money is something to think about and with some big changes for it also. hybrid is very rare, and the majority of the people don't really have that much money to change from one source to another. our society would be better maybe if it is not costly though. health would be better, the climate would go back to normal, animals won't be extinct and such. changing it to nuclear energy could be a positive effect, though will it work????
Nuclear energy is something that i haven't heard of for an alternative source of energy. however, if it is nuclear, then it would have to be huge and explosive cuz it's nuclear and it has been tested for extreme powerful as i heard in chem. i would think that nuclear energy is something to consider since there isn't that much choices as to an alternative energy instead of what we are using right now. Everything has its pros and cons, like oil is used everyday for cooking and driving. it's kinda like an everyday use thing, however it pollutes the earth. if nuclear energy is one that doesn't pollute the earth, then it should be at the top of the list. However, is it enough for the world to change and use? will it run out like oil? Oil will run out eventually, and not a lot of people are thinking about it right now. well, if nuclear energy is surplus, it will gradually grow to be a popular use. Hybrid is very eco friendly and also electric cars, however money is the problem. everything that is being used needs money. money is something to think about and with some big changes for it also. hybrid is very rare, and the majority of the people don't really have that much money to change from one source to another. our society would be better maybe if it is not costly though. health would be better, the climate would go back to normal, animals won't be extinct and such. changing it to nuclear energy could be a positive effect, though will it work????
1. As an energy source, nuclear power is both efficient and relatively safe, despite claims to the contrary. In comparison, there have been far more fossil fuel related accidents (mining, handling, extraction, implementation) than reactor accidents. Although nuclear disposal methods have been under fire for the past fifty years, the amount of waste currently being generated has a minimal impact on the environment. Head to head analysis of kilowatt output of uranium and coal, the leading fossil fuel, will show that per gram, uranium will outperform coal almost 100,000 to 1. With this sort of relatively safe, immensely powerful source of energy, it is any wonder that nuclear power has not made a stronger push to replace fossil fuels as the energy source of the future. However, like any good thing, there are many drawbacks to using nuclear power. As stated above, current waste output is too minimal to adversely affect the environment; studies show, however, that should nuclear power be increased by one degree (that is, tenfold), the earth will run out of current storage methods by 2075. Furthermore, nuclear power has been harnessed for commercial use for less than half a century. Whether the containers and current storage methods will hold against the test of time is a question whose answer remains yet to be seen. Going in another direction, nuclear power plants are able to produce weapons-grade fissile material. As global events in the past several years will indicate, these materials, should they find their way into the hands of unstable world leaders, could pose serious security concerns. Currently, United States Marines and other outsourced security groups guard storage facilities, as well as the plants themselves. To increase nuclear power output would entail devoting more resources, both fiscal and military, to additional infrastructure. Lastly, it is questionable whether it is economically prudent to switch to nuclear power at this time. Creation of new plants, with all the costs which come with it, could very well cost more than the current energy production system we currently have in place. The infrastructure for fossil fuel energy already exists, from mines to rail lines—to abandon the system in favor of increasing current nuclear power output at exorbitant cost is a question that is extremely debatable. Personally, I believe that nuclear power’s current production output should be slowly increased while simultaneously decreasing our dependence on fossil fuels. I do not, however, wish to advocate eliminating fossil fuels entirely and believe that nuclear power should always supplement traditional energy sources. Rather than pursuing nuclear power as our primary source of energy, it is better to examine completely renewable energy sources, such as hydroelectricity and wind power/solar power, as replacements for the future.
2. As stated above, I do not think that nuclear power is the end-all to the ever present energy source question. Rather, it should be used in tandem with other sources of energy to ensure that we do not rely too heavily on a single source.
3. The societal cost of a renewable, unlimited energy source is too great to be seriously sought after. As with any product or service, there is a reason that there are costs attached to acquiring them. An unlimited, renewable energy source will drive down energy prices so low as to remove the invisible hand checking the current system of utility prices. Reduced energy prices would mean lower costs for every industry imaginable, resulting in lower prices for goods, services, whathaveyou. On the surface this might seem like a good thing; however, this could also work to undo the good of switching to such an energy source in the first place! Lower prices, lower costs equals more demand and more goods. Disposal of these products would have the effect of undoing whatever good eliminating fossil fuels did, if not exacerbating the harm done. To be effective, such an energy source must be regulated by standards similar to the inherent ones in place now—the market must not be left alone. As anti-laissez-faire as that might sound, it is to prevent a) economic boom followed by collapse
more pollution c) corporations from exploiting these energy sources for their own good. Granted, the benefits would be numerous and impossible to enumerate; however, I believe the cost of such an energy source would outweigh whatever benefits received.
2. As stated above, I do not think that nuclear power is the end-all to the ever present energy source question. Rather, it should be used in tandem with other sources of energy to ensure that we do not rely too heavily on a single source.
3. The societal cost of a renewable, unlimited energy source is too great to be seriously sought after. As with any product or service, there is a reason that there are costs attached to acquiring them. An unlimited, renewable energy source will drive down energy prices so low as to remove the invisible hand checking the current system of utility prices. Reduced energy prices would mean lower costs for every industry imaginable, resulting in lower prices for goods, services, whathaveyou. On the surface this might seem like a good thing; however, this could also work to undo the good of switching to such an energy source in the first place! Lower prices, lower costs equals more demand and more goods. Disposal of these products would have the effect of undoing whatever good eliminating fossil fuels did, if not exacerbating the harm done. To be effective, such an energy source must be regulated by standards similar to the inherent ones in place now—the market must not be left alone. As anti-laissez-faire as that might sound, it is to prevent a) economic boom followed by collapse
more pollution c) corporations from exploiting these energy sources for their own good. Granted, the benefits would be numerous and impossible to enumerate; however, I believe the cost of such an energy source would outweigh whatever benefits received.
I'm impressed. You aren't a crank, and that is very refreshing!
The harnessing and utilization of energy develop in two distinct ways. 1) technologies for harnessing, storing, and distributing energy changes 2) technologies for utilizing it and consuming it change.
When the discussion about #1 is on the table, it is usually assumed that #2 is relatively fixed. In truth, the two are inseparable. When an incandescent bulb that uses 60W is replaced with a 15W fluorescent, the same amount of light is produced with less heat. With LEDs the energy is even less.
Now, efficiency in energy consumption also develops in two ways. 1) technologies like lightbulbs and energy-saver appliance are innovated to use less energy 2) cultural patterns are modified to use less energy.
#1 is popular because it allows people to avoid #2, but as with going to the bathroom, it is not wise to always only do #1 and avoid doing #2 at all costs.
The question is whether cultural energy efficiency developments are comparable to technological innovations. Is the development of a higher-exercise winter lifestyle that allows you to burn less fuel for heat comparable to a wood stove that generates more heat because it burns wood more efficiently (80% compared to 50% for example).
Bio-technology would seem to be the point of conjunction between cultural and technological approaches to energy efficiency. Since an efficient heating system is really just a means of getting heat to your body by means of radiation and convection, exercising your body does the same thing except the fuel that is burnt is your food, and the convection takes place through your circulatory system and tissues to reach your skin, from the inside instead of from the outside.
Exercise is an example of culture-based bio-technological energy efficiency, but another one might involve temperature-perception. So, for example, acclimatization studies have been done on people living in arctic climates that show how exposure to cold, for example by walking in bare feet in freezing weather, results in people shivering less in temperatures several degrees above freezing. The same occurs in hot climates. So acclimatization techniques may be another approach to decreasing energy demand.
My really crazy idea in this area involves tapping into the physiology of hot flashes experienced by women during menopause. If some pharmaceutical or natural intervention into body chemistry could be developed to induce hot-flashes in controlled ways, people could be taking heating pills instead of turning up the thermostat.
So, while the technologies of generating, harnessing, and utilizing more grid-power more efficiently are important, I think that cultural and bio-technological innovations are going to provide the ultimate key to sustainable energy demand and usage.
When the discussion about #1 is on the table, it is usually assumed that #2 is relatively fixed. In truth, the two are inseparable. When an incandescent bulb that uses 60W is replaced with a 15W fluorescent, the same amount of light is produced with less heat. With LEDs the energy is even less.
Now, efficiency in energy consumption also develops in two ways. 1) technologies like lightbulbs and energy-saver appliance are innovated to use less energy 2) cultural patterns are modified to use less energy.
#1 is popular because it allows people to avoid #2, but as with going to the bathroom, it is not wise to always only do #1 and avoid doing #2 at all costs.
The question is whether cultural energy efficiency developments are comparable to technological innovations. Is the development of a higher-exercise winter lifestyle that allows you to burn less fuel for heat comparable to a wood stove that generates more heat because it burns wood more efficiently (80% compared to 50% for example).
Bio-technology would seem to be the point of conjunction between cultural and technological approaches to energy efficiency. Since an efficient heating system is really just a means of getting heat to your body by means of radiation and convection, exercising your body does the same thing except the fuel that is burnt is your food, and the convection takes place through your circulatory system and tissues to reach your skin, from the inside instead of from the outside.
Exercise is an example of culture-based bio-technological energy efficiency, but another one might involve temperature-perception. So, for example, acclimatization studies have been done on people living in arctic climates that show how exposure to cold, for example by walking in bare feet in freezing weather, results in people shivering less in temperatures several degrees above freezing. The same occurs in hot climates. So acclimatization techniques may be another approach to decreasing energy demand.
My really crazy idea in this area involves tapping into the physiology of hot flashes experienced by women during menopause. If some pharmaceutical or natural intervention into body chemistry could be developed to induce hot-flashes in controlled ways, people could be taking heating pills instead of turning up the thermostat.
So, while the technologies of generating, harnessing, and utilizing more grid-power more efficiently are important, I think that cultural and bio-technological innovations are going to provide the ultimate key to sustainable energy demand and usage.
The sun and stars are seemingly inexhaustible sources of energy. That energy is the result of nuclear reactions, in which matter is converted to energy. We have been able to harness that mechanism and regularly use it to generate power. Presently, nuclear energy provides for approximately 16% of the world's electricity. Unlike the stars, the nuclear reactors that we have today work on the principle of nuclear fission. Scientists are working like madmen to make fusion reactors which have the potential of providing more energy with fewer disadvantages than fission reactors
Thanks & Regards
Mariana
recoverybull.com
Thanks & Regards
Mariana
recoverybull.com
There's a fusion reactor project going on in Europe right now. It is called ITER. You can read about it on wikipedia. I would post a link but I don't think it's allowed.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 24 2009, 07:46 PM)
There's a fusion reactor project going on in Europe right now. It is called ITER. You can read about it on wikipedia. I would post a link but I don't think it's allowed.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 24 2009, 11:52 PM)
You mean this?
Wikipedia: ITER
You can post links! ALL HAIL BUTTRESS, ALL HAIL BUTTRESS:)
Actually I already noticed that and wondered about it, but until now it never seemed relevant enough to post about it.
Wikipedia: ITER
You can post links! ALL HAIL BUTTRESS, ALL HAIL BUTTRESS:)
Actually I already noticed that and wondered about it, but until now it never seemed relevant enough to post about it.
Uranium reserves are very limited. Much smaller than oil, gas, and coal. Something like <20 years if all countries used uranium instead of fossil fuels.
Breeders can't be exported since they're the very easy way leading to nuclear bombs, so breeders can't replace fossil fuels in every country, meaning that uranium efficiency can't be improved everywhere, thus nuclear plants can't replace fossil fuels.
Fission doesn't work, won't work in any foreseeable future, and Iter won't prove anything in this direction, because it needs tritium which is unavailable on Earth. Tritium is produced in uranium reactors, which produce >> 200MeV for each tritium atom that will produce <<20MeV in a fusion reactor.
Fusion reactors can't produce their tritium. A demonstration is planned at Iter, but it's a bad joke.
Using He3 instead is even much more difficult than tritium, just as lithium is.
---
In short: no way.
Extremely expensive, no reason to hope it is any solution. Renewables are a working, predictable, and reasonable cheap solution. Something for realistic people. With geothermy and thermal solar, of course - not photovoltaic.
Breeders can't be exported since they're the very easy way leading to nuclear bombs, so breeders can't replace fossil fuels in every country, meaning that uranium efficiency can't be improved everywhere, thus nuclear plants can't replace fossil fuels.
Fission doesn't work, won't work in any foreseeable future, and Iter won't prove anything in this direction, because it needs tritium which is unavailable on Earth. Tritium is produced in uranium reactors, which produce >> 200MeV for each tritium atom that will produce <<20MeV in a fusion reactor.
Fusion reactors can't produce their tritium. A demonstration is planned at Iter, but it's a bad joke.
Using He3 instead is even much more difficult than tritium, just as lithium is.
---
In short: no way.
Extremely expensive, no reason to hope it is any solution. Renewables are a working, predictable, and reasonable cheap solution. Something for realistic people. With geothermy and thermal solar, of course - not photovoltaic.
The classical doomsday scenario of Malthusians is that while humans are multiplying exponentially, agriculture can only increase the food supply arithmetically. Therefore, Mathusians always see a necessity for population control in some form or other. The problem is that limiting your population growth when you don't want to sucks, especially when it comes as some form of mandate.
So the question is whether some (combination of) developments in technology, culture, and energy resourcing will facilitate unlimited population growth. In theory this should be possible because plants can be grown using artificial light, which means the food supply is not limited to the total sunlight available. Also, cultural malleability is also theoretically unlimited, although humans tend to cling stubbornly to cultural habits, so humans should be able to adapt to any form of life-architecture, including something like in the movie, The Matrix, where no mobility or non-virtual contact is possible - although this is a bit of an extreme scenario.
Still, I'm not so sure that fusion won't work. If ITER drops the ball, it is probably due to EU politics of cultural conservatism and anti-growth - especially through migration. Many Europeans don't want there to be a source of energy as abundant as fusion, because it would take away their excuse to resist migration using resource-limitations as an excuse.
So the question is whether some (combination of) developments in technology, culture, and energy resourcing will facilitate unlimited population growth. In theory this should be possible because plants can be grown using artificial light, which means the food supply is not limited to the total sunlight available. Also, cultural malleability is also theoretically unlimited, although humans tend to cling stubbornly to cultural habits, so humans should be able to adapt to any form of life-architecture, including something like in the movie, The Matrix, where no mobility or non-virtual contact is possible - although this is a bit of an extreme scenario.
Still, I'm not so sure that fusion won't work. If ITER drops the ball, it is probably due to EU politics of cultural conservatism and anti-growth - especially through migration. Many Europeans don't want there to be a source of energy as abundant as fusion, because it would take away their excuse to resist migration using resource-limitations as an excuse.
ITER will fuse hydrogen, it won't prove anything near a viable reactor for electricity production.
Not because of conservatism nor politics, but because nobody has technically working solutions.
And since the technical, or rather physical, problems are obvious and well-known (tritium unavailable) going on with ever more expensive research reactors and not addressing them is simply dishonest.
Because so many people know we have no tritium, we have strong physical reasons to believe we can't produce it, and having none means fusion reactors can't cover our energy needs.
So until this is solved, any time, any money invested in this nonsense is simply lost.
Thousands of brilliant people would better invest their time in serious research, like geothermy or solar thermal.
Not because of conservatism nor politics, but because nobody has technically working solutions.
And since the technical, or rather physical, problems are obvious and well-known (tritium unavailable) going on with ever more expensive research reactors and not addressing them is simply dishonest.
Because so many people know we have no tritium, we have strong physical reasons to believe we can't produce it, and having none means fusion reactors can't cover our energy needs.
So until this is solved, any time, any money invested in this nonsense is simply lost.
Thousands of brilliant people would better invest their time in serious research, like geothermy or solar thermal.
QUOTE (Enthalpy+Sep 27 2009, 01:40 PM)
ITER will fuse hydrogen, it won't prove anything near a viable reactor for electricity production.
Not because of conservatism nor politics, but because nobody has technically working solutions.
And since the technical, or rather physical, problems are obvious and well-known (tritium unavailable) going on with ever more expensive research reactors and not addressing them is simply dishonest.
Because so many people know we have no tritium, we have strong physical reasons to believe we can't produce it, and having none means fusion reactors can't cover our energy needs.
So until this is solved, any time, any money invested in this nonsense is simply lost.
Thousands of brilliant people would better invest their time in serious research, like geothermy or solar thermal.
It would be pretty naive to think that Europeanist political tactitions would take a purely overt approach to arguing against the development of fusion power-generation when there is a risk that their opponents would undermine their reasons on the basis of being culturalist. Face it, Europe's sickness is that it has lost the ability to choose rationality over cultural tradition. So, even if fusion power is the most rational approach to population-growth and migration, there will be a strong-willed culturalist movement that resists growth and migration, in favor of cultural preservation and protection, and sabotaging fusion power would just be one part of this project.
If you want to discover for certain whether the ITER project fails because of technical or political problems alone, you would have to have independent process-audits, and the auditors would have to be at least as clever as anyone trying to sabotage those processes. The next cold-war may be fought by spies over nuclear fusion, if it isn't already.
The most effective bias-reduction strategy, which would ensure the project succeeding or failing on the basis of purely technical reasons, would be to eliminate the entire culturalist preservation and protection movement. This could be done by peaceful means, by increasing migration and culture-integration. Linguistic and cultural diversity would need to be disembedded from population management of fixed regions. Language and culture can, and should be, preserved, protected, and practiced - but this can be done at the same time population expansion and migration are occurring.
If migration and integration were liberalized, it might turn out that it's entirely possible to sustain life with renewable sources. All that may be needed are some tough cultural changes in consumption and energy-utilization. On the other hand, it may well be that artificial hydrogen fusion is a good way to generate additional power for a growing and more mobile population. In that case, it would be a shame if political resistances took away opportunities for some individuals to live well, while creating overabundance of privileges for others.
Not because of conservatism nor politics, but because nobody has technically working solutions.
And since the technical, or rather physical, problems are obvious and well-known (tritium unavailable) going on with ever more expensive research reactors and not addressing them is simply dishonest.
Because so many people know we have no tritium, we have strong physical reasons to believe we can't produce it, and having none means fusion reactors can't cover our energy needs.
So until this is solved, any time, any money invested in this nonsense is simply lost.
Thousands of brilliant people would better invest their time in serious research, like geothermy or solar thermal.
It would be pretty naive to think that Europeanist political tactitions would take a purely overt approach to arguing against the development of fusion power-generation when there is a risk that their opponents would undermine their reasons on the basis of being culturalist. Face it, Europe's sickness is that it has lost the ability to choose rationality over cultural tradition. So, even if fusion power is the most rational approach to population-growth and migration, there will be a strong-willed culturalist movement that resists growth and migration, in favor of cultural preservation and protection, and sabotaging fusion power would just be one part of this project.
If you want to discover for certain whether the ITER project fails because of technical or political problems alone, you would have to have independent process-audits, and the auditors would have to be at least as clever as anyone trying to sabotage those processes. The next cold-war may be fought by spies over nuclear fusion, if it isn't already.
The most effective bias-reduction strategy, which would ensure the project succeeding or failing on the basis of purely technical reasons, would be to eliminate the entire culturalist preservation and protection movement. This could be done by peaceful means, by increasing migration and culture-integration. Linguistic and cultural diversity would need to be disembedded from population management of fixed regions. Language and culture can, and should be, preserved, protected, and practiced - but this can be done at the same time population expansion and migration are occurring.
If migration and integration were liberalized, it might turn out that it's entirely possible to sustain life with renewable sources. All that may be needed are some tough cultural changes in consumption and energy-utilization. On the other hand, it may well be that artificial hydrogen fusion is a good way to generate additional power for a growing and more mobile population. In that case, it would be a shame if political resistances took away opportunities for some individuals to live well, while creating overabundance of privileges for others.
Uranium is getting really expensive, we need to import it. I don't if there is enough to replace oil, natural gas etc. And the safety of byproducts, obviously questionable.
QUOTE
In comparison, there have been far more fossil fuel related accidents (mining, handling, extraction, implementation) than reactor accidents
Uranium is also mined, handled, extracted and implemented is it not? There have been more incidents/accidents with fossil fuels but few of which mean that uranium is "safer". Two that come to mind are...
1. The use of fossil fuels in more places and more often with more mining, handling, extraction and implementation than uranium would certainly result in more incidents/accidents with fossil fuels than with uranium.
2. Due to the potential uses of a product like uranium, there are most likely better regulations and procedures in place which result in lowering the chance of incidents/accidents from occurring. In other words, a difference in safety practices.
However when there is a critical failure at a fossil fuel plant, it hits the local town's news paper. When a nuclear plant has a critical failure, the local town might not be able to print a news paper depending on distance and prevailing winds.
However I believe Enthalpy has the best view on this.
Coal mine shafts collapse with people killed and trapped in them.
People fight over oil-drilling territory.
Natural gas . . . wasn't there some big political battles being fought in the EU over a Russian pipeline or something like that, I can't remember.
People fight over oil-drilling territory.
Natural gas . . . wasn't there some big political battles being fought in the EU over a Russian pipeline or something like that, I can't remember.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.