Poll Nuclear Power

[T.Neo]

It would still be less waste heat than ANY nuclear plant. The largest, most recognizable structures in most nuke plants are the cooling towers.

Don't you think it would be wise to do some maths on the matter before saying that?

I guess my point all along has been the fact that such an effect would be likely be minimal.

 

[cymrych]

My 2 cents: Is nuclear safe? In terms of basic energy production - yes. In terms of waste dispossal - hardly. In terms of mismanagement/cost cutting/political override in the decision-making process - probably no better or worse than any other highly technical industry.

But I think it's rather a moot point. Green energy is the way of the future. Yes, there is inefficiency with the technology at present, but the Model T was pretty inefficient as well. Better efficiency will come with maturation of the industry, in terms of energy production and energy utilization, as well as storage.

I'm continually amazed by the resistance towards green efforts, in this country at least. We're always fretting about the ever increasing costs of fossil fuels, and yet we have access to several low environmental impact energy sources but for some reason there is huge opposition to attempting to utilize them. Even with their current inefficiency, they're still WAY better than burning coal, oil or gas, or producing tons of radioactive waste that'll be "hot" for many generations. Plus, the basic resources in green energy are entirely renewable and will continuously replenish as long as our sun burns, unlike fossil fuels or radioactive fuels.

It seems totally ludicrous to me that folks still carry around the big-energy banner declaring solar, wind, hydro, tidal, or geothermal proponents as some enviromentalistic "hippie" fringe culture, or that those technologies shouldn't be funded because they still need work. Of course they need work, they've been grossly underfunded from the beginning! But the number of us enviromental "hippie" types is on the rise, and eventually things will come to a head. They'll have to: we can see a definable time limit on coal, oil, natural gas, or nuclear fuel resources (whatever number of years of useable reserves you choose to believe, there IS a number regardless). I have no doubt that green energy will ultimately win that debate.

 

[Tommy]

T.Neo - Ok, perhaps not more than the tiniest reactor - but still less "waste heat" per watt generated.

Most reactors in the world convert less than 1/3 of all heat into usable energy over the plant's lifetime, including shutdowns, etc. While on the surface, that sounds better than Solar (which has lower efficiency) you have to consider that much of the heat from the Sun is going to be absorbed by the Earth anyway. It also doesn't account for the heat that spent fuel puts out - which isn't high enough in temperature to be practicably usable, but does continue to be emitted for hundreds of years. In fact, "spent" fuel will, in it's "lifetime", produce MORE calories than it did when it was in the reactor (just at a much slower rate). Add in the heat used in the refining process, etc. Take away the very tiny amount of heat put out by raw ore in nature, and the balance is still MUCH more heat "leakage" than Solar.

At today's level of power generation (from either source) it's pretty minimal - but over time it will add up and contribute to climate change. Even the cleanest, greenest, power sources like wind and hydro produce waste heat. No matter how we generate our power, the more energy we use, the more we contribute to global warming - unless we somehow manage to get around the second law of thermodynamics.

 

[T.Neo]

While on the surface, that sounds better than Solar (which has lower efficiency) you have to consider that much of the heat from the Sun is going to be absorbed by the Earth anyway.

How much is absorbed 'anyway' depends on the albedo of the ground surface upon which you build your solar plant(s), compared to the albedo of the solar panel(s).

In fact, "spent" fuel will, in it's "lifetime", produce MORE calories than it did when it was in the reactor (just at a much slower rate).

The (relatively) low rate means a lot. It's got a lot of energy but it is, relatively, low power.

A nuclear weapon can provide as much energy to a patch of desert as the Sun does for weeks, months or years. Which turns the desert sand to glass and which merely warms it up?

Take away the very tiny amount of heat put out by raw ore in nature, and the balance is still MUCH more heat "leakage" than Solar.

Do you have a reputable source or mathamatical equation to show that?

At today's level of power generation (from either source) it's pretty minimal - but over time it will add up and contribute to climate change. Even the cleanest, greenest, power sources like wind and hydro produce waste heat. No matter how we generate our power, the more energy we use, the more we contribute to global warming - unless we somehow manage to get around the second law of thermodynamics.

It is all very minimal. Remember that even 200 terawatts, is a really small part of Earth's some 174 petawatt energy budget. The Earth changes all the time, and these changes don't destabilise the whole system, so it is likely that a few extra hundred terawatts would not hurt it.

It'd probably be less damaging to the planet than greenhouse gases, which are acting all the time to change the energy balances surrounding much larger natural processes.

 

[Cras]

Is nuclear power safe? No, not at all.

However, with sufficient safeguards, it most certainly can be used with minimal risk. But I don't think the safeguards currently used can in anyway be considered sufficient.

 

[Tommy]

The (relatively) low rate means a lot. It's got a lot of energy but it is, relatively, low power.How much is absorbed 'anyway' depends on the albedo of the ground surface upon which you build your solar plant(s), compared to the albedo of the solar panel(s).

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so even though this energy is being released slower - it's still there, accumulating. Granted, much of it will bleed off into space, but not all of it.

Do you have a reputable source or mathamatical equation to show that?

Other than the 4 laws of thermodynamics? Do I really need more than that?

It is all very minimal. Remember that even 200 terawatts, is a really small part of Earth's some 174 petawatt energy budget. The Earth changes all the time, and these changes don't destabilise the whole system, so it is likely that a few extra hundred terawatts would not hurt it.

It'd probably be less damaging to the planet than greenhouse gases, which are acting all the time to change the energy balances surrounding much larger natural processes.How much is absorbed 'anyway' depends on the albedo of the ground surface upon which you build your solar plant(s), compared to the albedo of the solar panel(s).

It is less damaging than greenhouse gasses, but the process of mining and refining, transporting nuclear fuels and waste generate quite a lot of greenhouse gasses.

How much of an effect entropy will have remains to be seen - and it will be a VERY long time before we can determine the effects. It is known that nuclear power generates higher levels of entropy than Solar, Hydro, and Wind. It's not yet known what effect that will have, and it could well me insignificant. Or not.

I'm not saying Nuclear isn't better than coal or oil - just that it's worse than the truly clean alternatives we have available.

 

[T.Neo]

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so even though this energy is being released slower - it's still there, accumulating. Granted, much of it will bleed off into space, but not all of it.

The point is that the rate of release (i.e. power) is much lower, thus it won't have the same potential to raise temperature.

Other than the 4 laws of thermodynamics? Do I really need more than that?

Oh no, I believe the 4 laws of thermodynamics. And I'll accept the possibility that a rocket engine is more efficient than an incandescent lightbulb. But if someone wants to speak about actual figures, or differences between figures, then I have to know the actual difference, and why there is a difference.

It is less damaging than greenhouse gasses, but the process of mining and refining, transporting nuclear fuels and waste generate quite a lot of greenhouse gasses.

When did I say anything about nuclear fuels and/or waste? :dry:

Of course they release greenhouse gases, but as much as a coal-fired plant over its entire operational lifetime? I have trouble believing that.

How much of an effect entropy will have remains to be seen - and it will be a VERY long time before we can determine the effects. It is known that nuclear power generates higher levels of entropy than Solar, Hydro, and Wind. It's not yet known what effect that will have, and it could well me insignificant. Or not.

So... let's not use nuclear energy, because it'll forshorten the heat death of the Universe by about a nanosecond? :facepalm:

I'm not saying Nuclear isn't better than coal or oil - just that it's worse than the truly clean alternatives we have available.

Debatable. You might be able to sell nuclear as a 'necessary evil' or a 'stopgap', but it most definitely isn't the ideal source of energy around, or something you want to work towards having as your main source of power.

 

[Tommy]

Of course they release greenhouse gases, but as much as a coal-fired plant over its entire operational lifetime? I have trouble believing that.

I have never said that they produced anywhere near as much greenhouse gasses as fossil fuels - only that they will produce (over the lifetime of the nuclear plant) more than Solar, wind or Hydro.

So... let's not use nuclear energy, because it'll forshorten the heat death of the Universe by about a nanosecond? :facepalm:

I clearly stated my reasons against Nuclear Power earlier in the thread - risk of catastrophic failure and issues with waste storage. I was merely pointing out that Nuclear creates more entropy than Solar.

Debatable. You might be able to sell nuclear as a 'necessary evil' or a 'stopgap', but it most definitely isn't the ideal source of energy around, or something you want to work towards having as your main source of power.

Um, I'm not sure what we are arguing about. We both seem to agree that fossil fuels are quite damaging and present a bigger immediate threat, and that Solar (and Solar derived sources like Wind and Hydro) are better choices than Nuclear. I've never tried to "sell" Nuclear power for anything - and have consistently opposed using it.

 

[T.Neo]

I have never said that they produced anywhere near as much greenhouse gasses as fossil fuels - only that they will produce (over the lifetime of the nuclear plant) more than Solar, wind or Hydro.

Yeah. I don't have trouble believing that.

I clearly stated my reasons against Nuclear Power earlier in the thread - risk of catastrophic failure and issues with waste storage. I was merely pointing out that Nuclear creates more entropy than Solar.

I don't really think it's an issue, especially considering various other factors.

Um, I'm not sure what we are arguing about. We both seem to agree that fossil fuels are quite damaging and present a bigger immediate threat, and that Solar (and Solar derived sources like Wind and Hydro) are better choices than Nuclear. I've never tried to "sell" Nuclear power for anything - and have consistently opposed using it.

Fair enough.

I'm talking from the point of a nuclear proponent (not even a very strong one) as opposed to your point of view on "selling" nuclear, of course.