Recent nuclear conspiracy at McMaster University

The point is that certain places have no available conditions to take proper advantage of the elements.
 
The fuck they don't. Tell me one place where you can't harness the power of the wind. Guess what buddy, the wind might not be a constant flow of energy, but it sure isn't going to disappear on this planet before the earth stops spinning on its axis.

You can put wind-power generators just about anywhere in the world. Off the side of the coast in the water, or in the middle of vast fields or even on the mountains.

The world is, what, 75% covered with the single substance that is virtually entirely composed of H20 molecules, right? And unless they are stuck in a glacier or something, the water molecules are in constant motion. You don't think that there just might be a chance that we can harness all of this power? And for free without ever having to worry about where you're going to find water the very next day?

And don't underestimate the virtually limitless energy we can get from geothermal sources.

The father of one of my friends back at home is a respected local biologist. And when I mean respected, I mean that he's famous for what he's done in his field.

That, and he's famous for being one of the dudes at the bars who everybody talk about for years afterwards. In fact, me and my friend once went to an apartment party on the floor above a local bar in Wisconsin once. We were probably one of the youngest people there that night and there was quite a few people that were in their late twenties that had come and gone that night. I knew most of them and my friend was my guest to the party. When he kept introducing himself, they would always catch the last name and bring up some crazy-assed bar story involving his dad when they were just turning 21 themselves.

Carazy man.

Anyways, the point is that he hasn't had to pay for a single utility bill in about fifteen years. Why? It's because he has a small wind generator on the top of his roof and two solar cells on the roof as well. The power runs down to the basement where he has batteries to charge up so he still has a supply when the wind dies and the sun gets blocked at the same time.

As for heat, he has an electric furnace (I think), solar warmth from the specifically positioned windows, and a wood stove with a modest pile of firewood cut from his own trees in the woods.

How much is that costing him? Except for perhaps the gasoline to run the chainsaw, nothing.

And you're against free AND safe energy that has been proven for years and will stay proven for more years to come.
 
I didn't say I was against using renewable resources, I'm just saying that one shouldn't put too much stock in it as it'll be a long time before wind or solar power become economical.

Your friend's bio-dad is well and great, but outfitting every house in the nation with wind and solar generators is simply impossible. Not to mention how reliable solar power would be in the winter months considering overcast, unless you had a large and cumbersome supply of batteries.

Geothermal energy is simply too expensive to justify its benefits. Not to mention that you can only set them up in places with limited geothermal activity. And its power output isn't anything close to hydroelectric dams.

Its just not practical, that's all I'm saying.
 
Nah, renewable power sources won't do much good. For example, under perfect conditions, on a bright and sunny day, the Sun's power that can be utilized is close to 200 W/m^2. And in power consumption in a city like New York is about 400 W/m^2. Thus, solar power can't be captured efficiently on Earth. Maybe one day we'll be able to set up solar collectors in space, but until then... Geothermal power is too inaccessible. Drilling to get close enough the sources would presently take almost as much energy as we would gain from them, so that's out of the question. Power of wind is cool, but the kinetic energy of wind simply isn't dense enough - imagine how many windmills we would have to build all over the Earth's surface to satisfy even a small part of our present energy needs (and they are likely to keep increasing in the future). It would be VERY uneconomical. Same goes for power of water - harnessing the power of water basically means harnessing gravitational potential energy. As we all know, gravitational force is the weakest force in the universe, which means its energy isn't dense enough to justify the cost of building thousands of hydro plants. Not to mention that hydro power plants do terrible ecological damage, as they destroy entire ecosystems with their lakes and obstruct and slow down the river's flow.

Nuclear power is, on the other hand, clean and very efficient. Nuclear power plants pollute very, very little, and produce incredibly small amounts of dangerous waste when compared to the amount of power they produce. It is therefore my belief that humanity should work towards harnessing the power of nuclear reactions and making nuclear plants world's number one source of power.

I have nothing against harnessing the natural and renewable power sources, such as Sun and water, but let's face it, both from scientific and economic point of view they are not capable of meeting even world's current energy needs, not to mention its future needs.
 
Ratty said:
Nuclear power is, on the other hand, clean and very efficient. Nuclear power plants pollute very, very little, and produce incredibly small amounts of dangerous waste when compared to the amount of power they produce. It is therefore my belief that humanity should work towards harnessing the power of nuclear reactions and making nuclear plants world's number one source of power.
Click to expand...

The amount of waste is not the problem. The problem is it's pretty DAMNED dangerous. And what's the average half-life of nuclear waste (I mean, some of the resultant waste has only a half-life of 6 minutes, but some also has 120 years written on 'em)? 70 years? That's a long, long time. And there's always the danger of something going wrong. Imagine a nuclear waste dump being hit by something. It'd hurt.

And then there's exploding reactors. Impossible, you say? You gotta be kidding me. One of the major fallicies of capitalism is that, if allowed, "capitalists" will do everything in their power to circumvent costly maintenance etc. And one small leak spells a whole lot of trouble.

I can't believe how short-sighted you're being. Sure they don't pollute directly, but how 'bout the long-term effects. Like Ozrat said, we haven't been around long enough to be sure there are no additional dangers to nuclear waste. Imagine we find out over 50 years that the oldest nuclear dump is exploding and hurling out clouds of radioactive waste...What do we do with all the other dump we built up?

Also, once AGAIN; there's not that much Uranium on this planet. And even less useful Uranium.

AND FOR THE LAST FRIGGIN' TIME; how 'bout we concentrate on nuclear fission?
 
Kharn said:
And then there's exploding reactors. Impossible, you say? You gotta be kidding me. One of the major fallicies of capitalism is that, if allowed, "capitalists" will do everything in their power to circumvent costly maintenance etc. And one small leak spells a whole lot of trouble.
Click to expand...

Yup. That's why the Three Misle Island incident was averted and Chernobyl was an environmental disaster. Silly irresponsible capitalists. :roll:
 
IMHO until we can harness cold fission, fission is not an option.
And that has a shitload of cientitst working on that.

Yes Hydro destroy ecosystem, but here in quebec, it works for us, since we have a vast territory (unoccupied) most of our population is concentrated along the St-laurent axis and a couple of secondary rivers.
To give you an example of how spatious it is here, France would fit six times in quebec and we only have about 7 millions habitant in quebec.
 
Well that's nice and all for Quebec but what about the rest of the world?

And do you mean cold FUSION?
 
here in chile we don't have much space, but we use hydro power plants because the water flows from the mountains, and chile is full of them

unfortunately when it's a dry-year we can't rely on hydro power and artificial lakes... back in 1998 we had programmed black-outs to save power (1 hour and half per sector).... we don't have enough back-up power plants (who use another stuff, like coal and geothermical power)
 
Kharn said:
Ratty said:
Nuclear power is, on the other hand, clean and very efficient. Nuclear power plants pollute very, very little, and produce incredibly small amounts of dangerous waste when compared to the amount of power they produce. It is therefore my belief that humanity should work towards harnessing the power of nuclear reactions and making nuclear plants world's number one source of power.
Click to expand...

The amount of waste is not the problem. The problem is it's pretty DAMNED dangerous. And what's the average half-life of nuclear waste (I mean, some of the resultant waste has only a half-life of 6 minutes, but some also has 120 years written on 'em)? 70 years? That's a long, long time. And there's always the danger of something going wrong. Imagine a nuclear waste dump being hit by something. It'd hurt.

And then there's exploding reactors. Impossible, you say? You gotta be kidding me. One of the major fallicies of capitalism is that, if allowed, "capitalists" will do everything in their power to circumvent costly maintenance etc. And one small leak spells a whole lot of trouble.

I can't believe how short-sighted you're being. Sure they don't pollute directly, but how 'bout the long-term effects. Like Ozrat said, we haven't been around long enough to be sure there are no additional dangers to nuclear waste. Imagine we find out over 50 years that the oldest nuclear dump is exploding and hurling out clouds of radioactive waste...What do we do with all the other dump we built up?

Also, once AGAIN; there's not that much Uranium on this planet. And even less useful Uranium.

AND FOR THE LAST FRIGGIN' TIME; how 'bout we concentrate on nuclear fission?
Click to expand...
On the contrary, you are the one being short sighted. Any disaster can be avoided through tough safety standards and rigorous control. Yes, Chernobyl did happen, but that was in communist USSR, and we all know what that says about technology and safety measures involved. You don't have to worry about radioactive compounds exploding, because they can't - ever. Bi-product of nuclear fission is U-238, an isotope that can't start a chain reaction, so don't worry about explosions. Radiation could be a problem, but there is always a possibility of launching nuclear waste to space and getting rid of it forever.

As for amount of uranium on the planet, you are right, but only partially. 97.3% of uranium on the planet in U-238, the rest is U-235. U-238 can't start a nuclear reaction, so it's useless as a nuclear fuel. Reason why there is so fucking lot of it is because U-235 decayed into U-238 in the course of history. So it's true there is enough U-235 for only a century or two. BUT, when U-235 reacts in a fission process, U-238 turns into Pu-239 (plutonium), and Pu-239 has even better energetic properties than U-235, which means there is more than enough nuclear fuel on Earth to power the civilization for many, many centuries.

Environmental damage caused by nuclear power plants is really negligible when compared to other power plants. For example, let's take a small 1000 MW coal power plant. Such plants produce more than 70% of world's energy. Such a plant uses 8000 tons of coal, generates 19000 tons of CO2, 2000 tons of toxic, radioactive ash, 300 tons SOx compounds (they cause acid rains), 50 tons of NOx compounds and huge amounts of thermal energy (which increases the temperature of the environment and changes climate) EVERY DAY! Every year 3 MILLION PEOPLE die from direct consequences of these power plants running all over the world.

Hydroplants aren't much better, either. They destroy entire ecosystems of rivers and surrounding countryside, change the microclimate of entire regions and cause exodus of millions of people. On top of that, they don't produce all that much power when compared to the amount of space they take. If we wanted our civilization to be powered by nothing but hydropower, we'd need to destroy every river in the world and it still wouldn't be enough.

Don't believe me? Check this table:

1 kg of wood = 1 kWh of energy
1 kg of coal = 3 kWh of energy
1 kg of oil = 4 kWh of energy
3600 m^3 of water per hour ~ 1000 kWh of energy
1 kg of U-235 = 50 000 kWh of energy (!)
1 kg of Pu-239 = 6 000 000 kWh of energy (!!!)

As for solar, geothermal and wind power, I don't even need to comment it. To utilize the power of Sun, we'd have to cover entire Earth's surface with solar panels and destroy all photosynthetic plants in the process. To utilize geothermal power, we'd need to drill the whole planet full of holes or split it like an apple. To harness power of wind, we'd have to spend all materials on Earth to construct enough windmills. In all these cases we'd also need a giant amount of batteries to store power for times when elements are unavailable.

As much as I'd like we had a safer, less scary source of power to meet our energy needs, I'm afraid facts speak for themselves. Nuclear power is presently the ONLY way to go, at least until we discover something better. Currently there are at least theoretical plans to exploit nuclear energy (energy of nuclear forces, such as one released in process of fusion), which should solve humanity's power issues indefinitely.
 
Ratty said:
On the contrary, you are the one being short sighted. Any disaster can be avoided through tough safety standards and rigorous control. Yes, Chernobyl did happen, but that was in communist USSR, and we all know what that says about technology and safety measures involved.
Click to expand...

Because it never happened, it can't? Uh...huh...

The reason it doesn't happen now is because the restrictions on nuclear plants are HUGE and nuclear plants pretty scarce. Don't tempt fate by posting nuclear plants everywhere. Already several checks in Europe have been alarming, I don't think we need more than that.

Ratty said:
You don't have to worry about radioactive compounds exploding, because they can't - ever. Bi-product of nuclear fission is U-238, an isotope that can't start a chain reaction, so don't worry about explosions. Radiation could be a problem, but there is always a possibility of launching nuclear waste to space and getting rid of it forever.
Click to expand...

Bi-product of nuclear fission isn't U-238, at least not only. Generally you have two components with the total atom-mass of U-235, like, say, highly radiactive lead (say, Pb-211, which has a half-life of 36,1 min) or Po-209, which has a half-life of 50 years, or Cs-137, which has a half-life of 35 years or Ce-142, which has a half-life of 5*10^16 years

These substances are generally highly radioactive, and like I said...the average half-life of all these components ranges up to 70 years (just an odd guess, but it is something like that). that means it takes 70 years for half of the substance to have "halved", and not necessarily into non-radiactive particles. In the meantime, you're stuck with a lot of radioactive waste.

Rember, N(t) = N(0)(.5)^(t/tau) (where t is time, tau is the half-life, and N(0) is the radioactivity at t=0) or N(t) = N(0)e^-labda*t (where t is time, labda is (1/tau)*ln2, N(0) is the radioactivity at t=0 and e is a constant). This means radioactivity is diametrically opposed to the half-life.

Now, radioactive waste consists partially of short half-life substances (Pb-211; 36.1 min, Sn-121; 22.7 h) or long half-life substances (Tc-99, 2.2*10^5 y)).Since radioactivity is diametrically opposed to these, this is no problem. You have a substance that goes through it's half-life period rapidly, throwing out huge amounts of radiation, but afterwards it's gone, or you have a substance with such a long half-life that the radiation can't be noticed (this is true of almost all atoms and these atoms exist all around us, so no prob)

There's the third component, though, like Ba-133; 10.8 y, or C0-60; 5.27 y. These components are what give out the largest amounts of radiation for the longest time. Because of these components, nuclear waste is highly radioactive for years and years (again, I think it was 70) and still dangerous for years afterwards.

Then there's another factor. You're basically taking all these residu-substances and tossing them into a vat, and storing it somewhere alongside other (sometimes leaky) vats. These are strange, untested substances, which have no place on this earth and generally don't exist except for human meddling. Did we ever properly test what these substances can do? No.

"Ah, let's toss 'em all together, I'm sure it'll be alright"

Do nuclear plants produce little waste? No, they produce vats upon vats of nuclear waste. Do you think 1 kg of "pure" U-235 produces 1 kg of nuclear waste? Heh.

Ratty said:
1 kg of wood = 1 kWh of energy
1 kg of coal = 3 kWh of energy
1 kg of oil = 4 kWh of energy
3600 m^3 of water per hour ~ 1000 kWh of energy
1 kg of U-235 = 50 000 kWh of energy (!)
1 kg of Pu-239 = 6 000 000 kWh of energy (!!!)
Click to expand...

You ommited a small thing here. U-235 is only 2-3% of the uranium they mine. they usually refine it for the reactors, making it 5% U-235. This means 1 kg of U-235 is 20 kg of uranium. With current methods, the U-238 doesn't turn into plutonium, and even when it does I've never heard of it being reclaimed (too expensive, I think, I mean, you're basically stuck with a ton of nuclear waste and some useful plutonium in it). So we have 20-odd kg of highly dangerous and long-lasting nuclear waste.

Yes, they do refine U-238 into plutonium at times, but as far as I know, not often.

We already have huge storage facilities of nuclear waste spread across the planet, waiting for something to go wrong. Think it's safe? think again. Think it's clean? Hell no, leaky barrels have been discovered before, and will be again, and that spells disaster more so than anything else

Look, Ratty, all is well and good, but don't you think that if it were as easy as you portray it, the whole world wouldn't be using nuclear power?

But the fact it, it isn't. It may not produce a lot of waste, but the waste it produces is the most dangerous waste around, and also lasts the longest. The only way to keep accidents from happening is to keep it on a small scale.

If it all were as peachy-keen as you portray it, don't you think it would've occured to people to exploit it? But apparently, you think it's fair to saddle up the coming generations with vats of nuclear waste...Oh, wait, no, let's catapult it into space, Superman-style! Dude, have you any idea how much nuclear waste we have, and how heavy it is? Do you have any idea how expensive it would be to catapult it into space, not to mention dangerous? Do you think any capitalist venture will spend billions to catapult waste into space when they can store it for millions?
 
So we have a standstill.

Renewable energy is unreliable and insufficient, while fossil fuels are finite and dangerous.
 
Who said it was unreliable? It's just not available at a constant rate. It'll always be there though.

And its only insufficient if you're using way more electricity than you need to. Shouldn't we be focusing on how we can reduced the amount of power an average person in a modern society uses daily? If we can figure out how to not waste so much energy, then we won't have to compensate for it.
 
Can a wind generator stand against hurricane-force winds? Can a personal solar panel survive a hail storm? By relying on the elements for power you also must leave yourself to their whims. Which severely increases the cost of maintenance.

So wind, solar, and geothermal power are all impractical and nuclear power is too dangerous.

All we can do is agree to disagree instead of squabbling over problems that may be solved by the end of the decade.
 
This makes absolutely no sense at all.
Bradylama said:
All we can do is agree to disagree instead of squabbling over problems that may be solved by the end of the decade.
Click to expand...
What? So we should just deny that we should fix the problem and let it fester even longer?

Haven't checked, but I think its safe to assume that a broken wind generator would be much more enviromentally safer and cheaper to fix rather than a broken nuclear reactor.

And yes, a personal solar panel can survive a hail storm. The ones I mentioned have been through several without incident.
 
Whoa, take it easy Bradylama. We shouldn't completely discard renewable power sources. Yeah, they generate low-density energy that isn't good for much, but that doesn't mean that someone living in a nice, sunny area shouldn't have a few solar panels on his house or that someone living in a windy area shouldn't erect a few windmills. The problem is, what will power huge industrial zones or 100-story high skyscrapers? I don't see any alternative other than nuclear power plants.

Kharn, my view of nuclear power was purely scientific one, and you know how everything seems nice and perfect in science. Technological and economical limitations still prevent humanity from constructing nuclear power plants all over the globe, but it shouldn't be long before it indeed becomes possible. It's expensive to filter plutonium from other radioactive metals, but who knows, soon that might become a simple process. Right now it's not profitable to launch radioactive waste to space, but some day it won't be a problem. To power the world's electric grid we'd need to erect tons of nuclear power plants, but research into superconductivity could allow us to construct powerlines from cheap, low-resistance metals, that would transfer same amounts of electric energy, but need much less voltage, which also means much less power plants. Nobody says there are no obstacles and limitations to be overcome in our happy nuclear future, but the point is they can be overcome, which means nuclear power has an excellent perspective and is very likely to satisfy world's energy needs, unlike alternative sources that come nowhere near it.
 
I didn't saw we should discard the notion of renewable power sources. I'm trying to bring up that they're not the end-all be-all that people make them out to be when they still have significant problems.
 
Ratty said:
Kharn, my view of nuclear power was purely scientific one, and you know how everything seems nice and perfect in science. Technological and economical limitations still prevent humanity from constructing nuclear power plants all over the globe, but it shouldn't be long before it indeed becomes possible. It's expensive to filter plutonium from other radioactive metals, but who knows, soon that might become a simple process. Right now it's not profitable to launch radioactive waste to space, but some day it won't be a problem. To power the world's electric grid we'd need to erect tons of nuclear power plants, but research into superconductivity could allow us to construct powerlines from cheap, low-resistance metals, that would transfer same amounts of electric energy, but need much less voltage, which also means much less power plants. Nobody says there are no obstacles and limitations to be overcome in our happy nuclear future, but the point is they can be overcome, which means nuclear power has an excellent perspective and is very likely to satisfy world's energy needs, unlike alternative sources that come nowhere near it.
Click to expand...

This is all ideallism and unrealistic. Are we going to replace all our current powerlines? No.

Your world-view is nice, but just not practical.

I would rather we concentrate more on cold fusion than on overcoming the problem with the vastly inferior fission. Cold fusion research, in case you didn't know, is a very unpopular subject. It's being worked on, but it's damned hard to get financial backing for. Why? Because it's a direct threat to the world-peace.

Cold fusion = no need for fossil fuels = economic collapse in unstable Middle East = war, if not world war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top