For years Americans have been weary of Nuclear Energy. Perhaps it is because France gets almost 90% of its energy from nuclear power plants. Or perhaps it is because the Soviets were not as careful with their nuclear power plants as Democracies are. The reasons are varied, but whatever you reason is, get rid of it now. Nuclear power is the way foreword. And the way to save the Earth.
This is not to say that wind, ocean, river, Sun, and geothermal power generating sources are on their way out. In fact, it is quite the contrary. Wherever we can build renewable resource power plants, we should do so. Nevada should have many solar power plants; the Great Plains should have many wind power plants, large fast flowing rivers that do not contain much silt should have river turbines placed in them. Then, after using as much of our renewable resources as we can, we should begin to build nuclear power plants. (Article Continues)
There are 5 main benefits of nuclear power.
2) No destroying the Earth through open pit mines.
3) With current technology, there are hundreds of years of supplies.
4) With technology coming out right now, it will last thousands of years.
5) With technology coming out within decades, fuel will last billions of years.
(http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html)
5.1) Fusion power plants may one day be reality. They would have no emissions, no waste, and almost infinite fuel supply.
There are 3 main objections to nuclear power plants.
1) Safety
2) Nuclear Waste
3) Environmental Effects
Assuming no major objections to the benefits, I will move on to addressing the objections.
There have been no more and no less than exactly 0 deaths caused by a nuclear power plant in our fair nation. On the other hand coal mines kill tens if not hundreds of miners per year in the US, and thousands of miners in China. Coal emissions from the US alone are estimated to kill tens of thousands of people by polluting the air.
The 103 nuclear power plants currently operating in the US all have extremely high security. While the exact specifications are secret, observations have shown that there are many many ground based armed guards, touch sensitive fences, quick shut downs, long restarts, and anti-air defenses. There may also be no-fly zones around nuclear power plants, or if not there should be.
Nuclear waste, with our current policies and technology, is a problem. Every other nuclear nation has allowed the waste to be recycled, where the harmful elements are removed and the material that can be reprocessed is used again. This cuts down on waste, and as long as it is done properly, there are no adverse affects. We have just recently allowed this to happen, so it will cut down on waste immensely.
In a recent Popular Science Magazine article, they ere describing a new type of nuclear process that could produce up to 100 times the amount of energy while producing only 60% of the waste; a net savings of 600% (or is that 6000?) less waste per Kilowatt-Hour. This type of nuclear energy production, still unnamed, is being developed by the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (funded by the US government). With America’s electrical usage predicted to jump 45% from 2024 to 2024, this will be a Godsend. While the article did not go into a lot of detail, its key points are nuclear recycling processes that convert the fuel into pellets for new nuclear power plants (the article makes it seem like they have already been developed), and then are recycled again. And unlike current nuclear waste, this process will not isolate the worst chemicals (the ones terrorists could use to make dirty bombs with) so terrorists would have to refine the waste before using it in a bomb. And as we all know there are lots of chemical and high tech industries in Afghanistan.
A last note for this section; nuclear power plants release minute radiation into the air. Fossil Fuel plants release tens or hundreds or thousands of percentage points more.
Lastly we have environmental effects. This is where I am least educated, so it will be the shortest section. Nuclear power produces a lot of waste heat, as do fossil fuel sources. For all of these the water must be cooled back down to acceptable levels to avoid killing fish from the rivers that the water is emptied into. This is where the towers you always see come into play. The help the water release the heat they collected from the fuel source into the air. Then you ask, doesn’t this contribute to global warming/climate change? The answer is yes. But for every carbon molecule rescued from the air, there is that much less sunlight being trapped in the earth. So think about it, the gigantic sun, or the power plant, which can produce more heat? I would vote for the plasma ball.
Please bear in mind that this is only draft 1, some changes may be needed as new information and corrections come to light. Also, I am not an expert, and chances are, neither are you. We both get stuff wrong sometimes, so if you see any fact that does not check out or is from an extremely biased source, let me know.
Pro-nuclear article from one of the founders of Greenpeace:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-yn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209_pf.html
THIS IS A MUST READ!!!!!
The article quoted previously:
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html
Sincerely,
~JFK from Virginia
P.S.
The impact America has on Global Warming and Climate Change could further be reduced once we have a large renewable and nuclear power structure in place. Electric cars. I encourage you to look more into that subject as well. There are electric cars that can beat Ferrari s going from 0 to 60, as well as ones that will be able to go 450 miles on a single charge, and then recharge in 10 minutes. All in a mid to small size SUV.
I agree that nuclear should be a piece of the energy puzzle - particularly fusion, which needs more funding for research.
I also feel alternate fuels - not corn ethanol - but fuels from cellulose, a cleaner way of making synthetic oil from coal, etc - should be explored.
Reducing energy waste - like LED lighting - is another area that needs to be pursued.
I would like to see the US become independent of overseas fuel imports, and I think we can combine that desire for energy independence with a recognition of global warming and come out better.
We need a government not tied to the oil industry, not anti-science, and with intelligence to look ahead to the future.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69
Nuclear Fusion is closer than you think. A multinational European scientific endeavor to unlock the science of and to create a working nuclear fusion reactor. The project is based in England and has been goin on for over 30 years now. Recently, the scientists have made a great deal of progress with the reactor. They say that a working fusion reactor is in the very near future.
However great this sounds, we cannot rely on this as our savior to our energy/environmental problems. We must work more diligently towards renewable resources and improving the efficiency of the energy consuming products we have today.
Once everyone is taking the small steps... and as many small steps as they can, we will be a great moving force. It is not the end that we seek, but the means to get us there that is most important.
This is a critical time in American/World history. We can do this!
J. Erich Dautel
Student/War Veteran/Concerned citizen
Florida International University
I heard about this on Radio Sweden this morning, and none of the mainstream press here in the U.S. seems to cover such news as this and the problems of nuclear energy in general.
And this doesn't even address waste disposal.
I'm dead set against nukes for energy because of these ongoing problems with it.
Fire at German Nuke Power Facility
Wow, its the end of the world. There was a fire! There are tons of fires at every type of power plant. And coal and gas power plants ALWAYS have a fire going! They are spilling out polutants and carbon and smog into the air every second of every day! We need to stop it NOW, and this is the ONLY way!
And you can help us, Clara! The best way to do so is to research Nuclear Power and everything that goes with it. You can see my title post for some good starting points, and Wikipedia is always a good place to start too.
The stack gases can be cleaned and or in some facilities. The final cost is just as good as nuclear and can get to the market much faster and payback the investment much faster. Just stop the oil&gas interest that are psying legislators not to require very much of it. That way they can showcase a plant or two, do a few broadcast ads, and leave the other 95% of production untouched.
Bill"for what we are together"
bill713.unity08@sbcglobal.net
Solving the energy crisis, dependance on foreign oil (security), and global warming will require some difficult choices. And, we need to get away from the hype and deal with facts.
None of the commonly-noted alternatives can possibly produce as much energy as the world demands. They all (ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen, hydroelectric, solar, wind, tides, etc.) should play a role, but will never collectively provide more than about 1/3 of the US energy needs.
Frankly, the only known energy source that can replace fossil fuels in terms of quantity of energy is nuclear fission, and we're all aware of the risks. Fusion is still a wet dream, and (according to most credible scientists) is still 50 years away from practicality (long after petroleum reserves are gone).
Here's a partial outline of a detailed plan that I freely gave to both major political parties more than 4 years ago ...
1. Develop a nationwide conservation program, including education, incentives, goals, and mandates.
2. Provide significant tax incentives for small scale privately owned biodiesel facilities. Note that large scale biodiesel will impact food costs. One important note about biodiesel is that it requires about 1 gallon of alcohol (ethanol or methanol) per 4 gallons of biodiesel. Today, we produce methanol primarily from coal, which isn't carbon neutral. As it's made today, it takes about 0.9 gallons of oil to make one gallon of ethanol. We need to make sure that ethanol distillation is powered by something other than fossil fuel plants.
3. Begin again to build nuclear fission plants. It takes about 10 years, after permits are approved. We can't wait any longer.
4. Begin production of hydrogen facilities, but only if the hydrogen is produced by electrolysis and the electricity comes from somewhere other than fossil fuel plants.
5. Provide incentives for people to use mass transit.
6. Begin slowly increasing the tax on gasoline to fund the above programs.
JDK
Utah
I think that people still think Three Mile Island when they think of nuclear energy. I think this mind-set will have to be overcome by a massive educational program. I am all for nuclear energy, like Quicksilver says, as a piece of the puzzle. One article I read recently seems amazing and I have not heard it mentioned anywhere but Popular Science magazine. This is a unit, the size of a two-car garage, that uses a city's garbage to fuel the city. It is a currently available technology that is said to "burn" any type of garbage except nuclear waste. Here is the link to the article, it's a very interesting read.
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/873aae7bf86c0110vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html
Yeah, I remember that article. The one where Florida got a couple.
Things like that and renewable energy should always be used first, and when there are no other clean options, Nuclear Energy.
JFK, you make some good points. I have long advocated nuclear power along with other clean power sources and I think that you have done a good job with your post. Thanks
A few additional thoughts:
- We need to get going on building more Nuclear Plants now, they take years and because of the lack of growth in this area the available technical work force will be an issue to solve. Point is all of this is solvable but, takes years to get results. The first post talked about France's spent fuel recycling program. Where do you think a lot of the technology for that came from? That is right the good old USA. Our politicians are the roadblock to deploying this renewable technology in the US. What a shame. Meanwhile we are continuing to entagle ourself in the middle east. Jeez Louise.
John
We need any energy source that is clean and nuclear is certainly underused in the US. But where do we locate them? No one wants one in their back yard. I have sister who was involved in the Three Mile Island mess. She recently retired from the IAEA. She supports nuclear energy, so I take her word that it is safe. But any ideas about where to build these babies.
We have room out West, but it makes no sense to put them that far from population centers. I would like to hear ideas from others as to how we address citing issues.
The US government is the largest landowner - even in NJ, the most densely populated state, there have been military base closings....
Heck, we get electricity from Canada!
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69
Great Question!
Ideally, they would be located just outside of population centers. But in the case of large expanses of dense population, they could very easily be built in smaller buildings at the same location as coal and natural gas plants are located. Those power plants involve chimneys, while nuclear power does not have to. So while people may see the other power plants and the smog they emit, nuclear power plants would not have to be seen (see picture below).
http://www.aaenvironment.com/Pictures/IndianPoint1.jpg
Besides, right now most nuclear power plants in the U.S. ARE located near high density centers along the east coast (See map below).
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2005/113-11/image/foc4.jpg
(I had found a better US only map before, but I can't find it again)
There's a place in the U.S. where not many people live, it's really hot and dry all year round, and is really isolated. We like to call it a desert. Plenty of room there if you really wanted to put them somewhere out of the way.
truth be told ,the oil companies are not the only ones to blame. The gas station owner's are too. They think because memorial day weekend is comming oil prices will go up or there will be a shortage so they jack up prices. Notice that gas prices keep going up when oil prices are going down. The government lies to us all the time. They have no interest in finding other sources of fuel to ease the burden on the american people. They care about their pockets, and that is it. The politicians will tell you what you want to hear, then do the opposite.Maybe when the economy goes to crap, because we can not afford to pay outrageous prices for gas and travel, shop, eat, ect. maybe they will see the light. I doubt it. they arenot like us hard working blue collar citizens. They have gas, food, health insurance, and a roof over their heads. as i have to choose between rent and health insurance. SAD, very sad. I bet the forefather's are turning over in their graves.
Let's start with a couple of truths.
First, we can never totally eliminate artificial greenhouse gas emissions unless we develop totally new energy technologies. Second, the United States has absolutely no long-term comprehensive energy policy.
For that reason, I am proposing the following Energy Plan for the United States (and the world) in the following 3 steps.
Short Term - Conservation and Alternative Power
Five to Thirty Years - A Strong Nuclear Program
Long Term - We Need New Technologies
First - Immediate Efforts - Conservation and Alternative Power
Conservation is a good initial step to take to help reduce greenhouse gases and lessen our dependence on foreign energy sources: driving a Prius, if practical, is great, turning off lights, lowering the thermostat, all those things are great; but in the grand scheme of things do very little to help us in the long run. As the population of the world keeps growing and becoming more "middle class", more people want the same things we already have and the demand for power and energy worldwide will continue to grow. Conservation slows the growth (slightly), but the growth of greenhouse gases worldwide will continue regardless of what we as a nation try and do. Every little bit helps, but in the mid-run it will not help enough and in the long-run it will be an absolute disaster.
Solar, wind and other environmentally "safe" technologies do exist and should be used as much as practical, but the current state of their technologies cannot produce enough energy to fully solve the long-term problems that we are facing as a nation and a world.
Second - Intermediate Effort - What we can do next
As stated in my previous document, nuclear power is strong in Europe with about forty-two percent of their energy produced by nuclear fission. Nuclear generation provides about 17% of world electricity, avoiding the emission of up to 2.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide annually. France produces 76% and Lithuania produces 85.6% of its energy by nuclear fission. (http://infoweb.magi.com/~dwalsh/wfsesr.html)
In the United States, a lot of people and almost all environmentalists are antinuclear because of 3 Mile Island in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986. However, many experts say that it is a safe, clean, and reliable source of energy. Nuclear Fission produces no greenhouse gases, but does produce highly toxic radioactive wastes. (http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/greenhouse.htm)
As President I would immediately call for the United States to embark on a strong nuclear power building program. We have the land upon which to build the power plants (here in California we could throw a half dozen plants in Eastern San Bernardino County alone and no one would ever see them and taxing the energy might solve California's budget deficit), we have technology that is extremely safe and we have an extremely safe depository for the waste in the Yucca Mountain facility that could be opened very soon if the politicians would quit being politicians and become statesmen and do what is right for the United States and the World.
If we converted almost all of our electrical power generation from oil and coal to nuclear we would go a very long ways towards lowering our greenhouse gas footprint and show the rest of the world that we mean to do what we can to contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas production. Such a step would also go a long ways towards lowering our dependence on foreign sources of oil and help bring stability to unstable portions of the globe. We could also use the nuclear power plants to help convert sea water to fresh water which addresses another threat looming just over the horizon - the shortage of potable water.
This, however, is an intermediate step and we can't as a country and a world just continue to sit on our hands and hope for the next step in energy production - we have to go out and make it happen.
Third - The Future - New Technologies
Everything I have talked about in this email so far concerns what we can do with old and existing technologies. NO MATTER WHAT WE DO, NO MATTER HOW MUCH WE CONSERVE, OUR CURRENT TECHNOLOGIES WILL ONLY TAKE US SO FAR AND IT ISN'T FAR ENOUGH. WE NEED SOMETHING NEW.
As I have stated before, as President I would call on the country to immediately start a "Manhattan Project" for energy independence. We put a man on the moon back in the "dark ages" of technology and I firmly believe that we have the brain power to come up with solutions to the world's energy problems if only we apply ourselves and our resources to the task. We are quickly on our way towards spending $1,000,000,000,000 (that a trillion) of your tax dollars on the war in Iraq. If that money had instead been pointed towards new research and development into fuel cells, hydrogen power, solar power, fusion and other technologies, I believe we would already be well on our way towards major break-throughs in renewable and alternative energy solutions. The world and the United States will be much better off if we weren't all relying on a small region of the world for the lifeblood of our economies and we had a new technology to take us into the future.
That is my proposal for the long-term energy policy of the United States and, quite honestly, the world. Why don't we have a long-term energy policy in United States now? Because it doesn't make for interesting sound-bites and it requires politicians to be statesmen rather than politicians. Politicians aren't interested in something that may be a success after they leave office, but statesmen are because they understand that their job is to do what is best for the nation they lead, not for their political career.
Sincerely,
Frank McEnulty
frank@frankforpresident.org
www.frankforpresident.org
I agree completly! Bush's and Obama's energy policies of ethanol could be thrown in there too. They are only thinking short term, and even their short term ideas would not help that much.
-
Most people are paranoid about Nuclear Power. However, France is big time into it and I do not remember any reported major catastrophes. Then there is Chernobyl, the perfect example of cost cutting and incompetence, what else would you expect from a government that had no principles. For now I feel it is viable and if can avoid the explosion of lawsuits that all the radical environmentalist are waiting to file Nuclear Power will have a chance.
****
unity08_ct02@yahoo.com
You used the words, "extremely safe" to describe the Yucca Mountain facility.
I think this is a dangerous line of thinking. First, you need to consider the amount of time that nuclear waste will need to be stored in this facility. It plans to open in 2024, so that means that it must be secure and without incident from 2024 until 1002017 at minimum. This time frame in incomprehensible. Our country has only had its independence for less than 300 years, now we are going to commit to a facility which needs to contain the most vile and deadly materials on the planet for 3,000 times longer than our country has been in existence? Can we do it? Well, yes I think we can. But using the phrasing, "extremely safe" to describe the process is [i]extremely naive[/i].
Actually, the half-life of Uranium is only 10,000(that's ten-thousand) years, not 1,000,000(one million), so if Yucca Mointain opens in 2024, it will only be in use until 12017, give or take a few decades for additional uranium deposited in the mountain.
This is misleading information in a number of ways. First, the half-life of a radioisotope is the amount of time it will take for it to lose half of its radioactivity. So even isotopes which have a half-life of just (!) 10,000 years would need to be shielded for longer than that!
The current proposal from the EPA has Yucca Mountain on a timetable of requiring to be secure with monitored radioactive levels for 1 million years. This would be most likely due to the fact that while yes, some isotopes in radioactive waste loose their radioactivity within days, some within a few thousand years, some do in fact take hundreds of thousands --> millions of years.
You assume that the human race will not advance its technology between now and then. Humans have been around for about 50,000 years as a race(Homo Sapiens). 10,000 years ago, we were still city-states with zero knowledge that anything such as the vastness of space, width of the oceans, or size of the earth could even be imagined. To assume that we will not advance in the next 10,000 years, or even the next millions of years as you put it. Within 1,000 years we will be able to perminently and safely dispose of the nuclear waste in Yucca Mt. By that I mean we will have a way of making the nuclear waste safe for people to be exposed to, or to destroy it entirely. I don't know how they will do it, heck, at the beginning of the 1900s everyone thought that we would be traveling to the moon in a giant cannon! Yucca Mt. will not still be in use for even 10,000 years, and it is completely ludicrous to think we will still be using Yucca Mt. for nuclear waste disposal for 10,000 years, much less a million or more.
nuclear waste is here to stay for thousands of years. Yucca mountain is currently our hope for a "safe" repository for the nuclear waste however Yucca mountain is NOT SAFE! It is on a fault line and it would only take one major earthquake to release the nuclear waste that we will store there. Those that tout nuclear power as safe are putting there heads in the sand. nowhere in california is it safe to put a nuclear facility. In fact nowhere that earthquakes occur is safe,which is most of the nation.
There is something else you have missed in this: All the near disasters that have happened at nuclear facilities in which most of the public is not aware of. This done so that there is no panic of the communities surrounding nuclear facilities.
PrettyMeadow you are absolutely incorrect. Many top scientists in the nation have been studying this site since the 70s. They have concluded hat it is an extremely safe site for disposing for nuclear waste. It is NOT located on a major fault line. I have no idea what you are talking about there. Yes there are small earthquakes, but the scientists have said that even a major earthquake would not harm the safety of the site. Waste is just not thrown into a hole, it is placed in extremely safe and durable containers and then placed in a deep hole.
And saying that there is a cover-up to prevent word of nuclear accidents puts you in the realm of Bigfoot hunters and UFO abductees.
“Yucca Mountain is not in an area where continental plates meet”
And Aaron, hopefully in he next few hundred to thousand years we will be able to develop a way to decrease or eliminate the radioactivity of nuclear waste. I do not believe that it will have to sit there for a few million years.
And I think someone implied that Yucca Mountain was in California. It is not.
http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=2&catid=325
Nuclear Power Plants are safe as well^
Frank,
Nice post. IF it looks like you're beating me in the race, I just might vote for you!
The post shows some reasonable forethought and planning. Quite unusual in politics. Thank you!
We appear to agree on pretty much everything except the "greehouse gas/global warming" hoopla.
Carbon dioxide is what plants use to grow... See my website for a proper debunking of CO2/Global Warming...
There are a few problems with Nuclear energy beyond just waste disposal...
1)It generates A LOT of heat.
2)It is generally run by corporations who do not always have public safety as a priority.
3)Strip mining.
Just about all energy sources have their pros and cons. But a couple things we agree on are: breaking our foreign oil dependence is crucial, and the fact that the $1T we have wasted in Iraq probably could have done it for us already!
I look forward to chatting with you some day...
Richard H. Clark
Independent Presidential Candidate
www.MiddleClass2008.com
Sorry, if I had to choose between you and Frank, I would choose Frank. After reading both your sites I have found that he is less radical and more thoughtful is answers.
Betty McLeod
PA 06
Betty327@ptd.net
Betty,
Sometimes it's difficult to write moderately when one is furiously typing away at the keyboard trying to get a point across. In general, moderates are, well, moderate, and don't even bother with politics. Passion is not a bad thing, usually.
Thank you for at least visiting my site and reading a bit, and I'll take a look around to see what I can clear up, tone down, and display a little more thought on. But I'm getting the feeling that you're maybe a bit more moderate than I am anyway. I certinaly wouldn't call myself a radical though... ow.
Wish I had more time... that's my biggest problem...
Richard H. Clark
Independent Presidential Candidate
www.MiddleClass2008.com
Frank,
This is well stated. Another reason we don't have a long-term energy policy is because politicians and environmentalists don't really understand basic science. Everyone is looking for the silver bullet. But, what we really need is silver "buckshot." And, you have captured this. There is no single perfect solution. Nuclear is the only technology that we know of today that can produce the amount of electricity we need, but we all know the risks. But, we also need a certain amount of combustible liquid energy (hydrogen, biodiesel, syn-gas, etc.).
A major problem with your plan is that it's going to take a real statesman to convince the public to use nuclear. Sources of energy like wind, solar, and tides, sound so "nice & clean" that it's going to be very difficult to convince the media and Hollywood (who control the sound waves) that they're not really practical (from strictly a "volume" of energy point of view) to address the world's energy demand. Even I personally don't want to use nuclear. But, I realize it's the best of the options available.
Jerry Kilpatrick / Utah
Nuclear Fusion is closer than you think. A multinational European scientific endeavor to unlock the science of and to create a working nuclear fusion reactor. The project is based in England and has been goin on for over 30 years now. Recently, the scientists have made a great deal of progress with the reactor. They say that a working fusion reactor is in the very near future.
However great this sounds, we cannot rely on this as our savior to our energy/environmental problems. We must work more diligently towards renewable resources and improving the efficiency of the energy consuming products we have today.
Once everyone is taking the small steps... and as many small steps as they can, we will be a great moving force. It is not the end that we seek, but the means to get us there that is most important.
This is a critical time in American/World history. We can do this!
J. Erich Dautel
Student/War Veteran/Concerned citizen
Florida International University
I believe that nuclear fusion will be able to completely and perminently get us away from our dependence on fossil fuels. The only problem is time though. The first major experimental reactor is going to be based in France, by international approval(U.S., Japan, China, Russia, S. Korea, and the E.U.), but won't be up and running for 10 years, even then, it is still only an experimental reactor, not a commercial, energy supplying one. Scientists working on the project do not think there will be commercially viable fusion reactors until 2024. Despite this, I still think we should keep investing a lot of money and scientists into this project.
The renewable energy I believe will revolutionize the world is Orbital Solar Power. It is basically a giant solar pannel in orbit around the Earth, able to absorb solar power 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. In order to get the energy down to Earth cheeply and efficiently, it would send the energy collected down in a low-frequency microwave beam(low frequency as to not damage/harm anything on the way down) to an energy collection facillity on land or offshore. It won't be cheap to develop or deploy(a couple hundred billion dollars), but neither was the development of the Atomic Bomb during the Manhatten Project, or the Iraq War, which if we had spent the money we spent in Iraq on Orbital Solar Power, we could have several Solar Space Stations in orbit and sending energy down to Earth. Plus, we not only would become energy independent, we could also make other countries energy dependent on US, which as a side-effect could also be a solution for our national debt.
Technology developed by an Irish firm that allegedly defies basic laws of physics to produce free power today goes on public display for the first time.
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2007/0704/breaking46.htm
There have been several times in the past that scientists have claimed to have discovered free energy. All claims have been disproven, and it is looking like this is also going to be disproven as well. I do believe however, that we will one day be able to harness Zero-Point Energy(not the same as "free energy", but honestly, the science to fully understand it is well beyond me), just not in our lifetimes, and would be very suprised if it is harnessed before the year 3000.
Orbital Solar Power, on the other hand, could get us completely off non-renewable resources within 20 years if we fully commit to it.
Nuclear energy truth is:
Nuclear energy is not the answer to greenhouse gas emissions
The uranium mining process requires an enormous output of energy. The transportation of the uranium and its waste requires further energy. Unless the uranium is of medium to high grade, the energy required to produce it is greater than the energy it provides. Obviously the highest-grade uranium will be mined first, meaning whatever small gains it may have would diminish to nothing and then very quickly become a negative. This is a non renewable fuel with a very limited future. The UK Sustainable Development Commission found that even if the UK doubled its existing nuclear capacity the best-case scenario would be a small 8% cut in CO2 emissions by 2024 and nothing before 2024. Even Australia's BHP admit in an info sheet about their Olympic Dam at Roxby Downs that the mining and processing of uranium is energy intensive and results in greenhouse gas emissions.
Why replace non renewable fuels with a non renewable fuel?
According to the Centre for Energy Conservation in the Netherlands, if all the world’s electricity was obtained from nuclear reactors, and if all currently known uranium deposits were mined as efficiently as possible, the world would still only have enough uranium to supply electricity for just nine years. At current rates of use it is estimated that there would only be enough uranium to last thirty to forty years. In other words we would still be searching for alternative energy sources. It makes a lot more sense to go down the road of renewable energy now.
Economic madness
For each net unit of carbon dioxide displaced by nuclear energy, wind power would provide the same carbon dioxide reduction at less than half the expense. Even then that figure applies to fully operational nuclear power plants, which take years and considerable amounts of money to build, and does not take into account the significant amount of greenhouse gases emitted by the construction process. Nuclear power is expensive and the industry relies on Government subsidies to survive. As of 2024 the EU was spending 61% of its research and development funding on the nuclear industry despite the fact it contributes only 13% of the EU’s energy supply. In the fifty years to 1998 the US Government spent $67 billion in direct subsidies to the nuclear industry. In June 2024, President George W. Bush has said the nuclear industry needs a ‘kick start from Washington’ – a clear reference to more taxpayers money needing to be given to the economically inefficient nuclear industry.
The romance with nuclear power has, from the start, been strongly associated with the use of plutonium as a fuel. This is because the most abundant uranium isotope in nature is uranium-238 - more than ninety-nine percent of natural uranium is U-238, which cannot sustain a chain reaction and is therefore not useful as a reactor fuel. The starting reactor fuel must necessarily be uranium-235, which is fissile but constitutes only about 0.7 percent of natural uranium. But U-238 has another property - when placed in a reactor, it absorbs a neutron, undergoes nuclear reactions, and gets transmuted into plutonium-239, which is fissile. Like uranium-235, plutonium-239 can be used to make bombs and fuel reactors. Converting uranium-238 into plutonium-239, in a kind of reactor called a "breeder reactor," can create more fuel than the reactor uses in its power generation mode. This is the "magical" aspect of nuclear power that has fascinated physicists and propagandists alike. About $100 billion have been spent worldwide over half a century in the effort to commercialize plutonium fuel and reactors that will "breed" it from uranium-238. The effort has been a vast economic and technical failure. Plutonium fuel is used to supply part of the fuel of less than three dozen reactors, most of them in France, out of a world total of more than 400 commercial reactors. The fuel is subsidized by ratepayers and taxpayers to the tune of about one billion dollars per year in France alone.
Finally, consider an electricity growth rate of two percent, which is far less than that occurring in China and India, but more or less typical of recent U.S. trends. To make a substantial contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we might hypothesize that (i) all present day nuclear power plants will be replaced by new ones, (ii) half the electricity growth will be provided by nuclear power, and (iii) half of the world's coal-fired plants will be replaced by nuclear power plants. This would mean that about two thousand large (1,000 megawatts each) nuclear power plants would have to be built over the next four decades. That is a rate of about one per week.
The Nuclear Compromise
The only sensible way of using nuclear power is in eliminating nuclear weapon plutonium safely - by using it as fuel in nuclear reactors- we would need to retain only several hundred bombs, just enough to keep the peace. This solution to two problems - nuclear weapons and the energy shortage - is in fact, the only justification for continuing to operate our hundred-odd nuclear reactors- nuclear disarmament is the strongest argument for continuing the development of peaceful nuclear power.
While it would take at least 30 years, using all the reactors in the United States, to burn up this quantity of plutonium, the alternative - burying it - means the plutonium will be around for millennia. (Plutonium takes about a quarter of a million years to decay naturally - and it would be available for that long to any bomb-maker who wanted to dig it up.) Antinuclear activists who favor shutting down nuclear plants forget this fact: Unless we burn the plutonium as fuel in nuclear reactors, we will never get out from under the threat of nuclear war.
P.S. Coal + Electric Cars is the way. Both are currently available and abundant resources and Electric cars allow more reasonable centralized carbon dioxide collection [at the power plant] -- let's subsidize their purchase to the consumer and capture carbon dioxide at the utility using the same amount of money we're subsidizing the ethanol and biodiesel manufactures!
There’s a problem with carbon capture. You still have to put the carbon somewhere, and eventually it will find its way to the atmosphere. And carbon capture does not capture everything. Tons and Tons of Co2 will still find their way into the atmosphere directly from coal powered plants.
Guess what, mining coal requires even more energy for the same amount of output than Uranium! The energy required to mine Uranium is NEVER higher than its output. Where are you getting your information from? And surprise, almost EVERYTHING you do helps in someway to emit green house gasses. It is impossible to totally get rid of our emissions, but with Nuclear and renewable energy, it is possible to reduce it to below the amount that nature can handle. That means nature will naturally be removing more carbon than we put out, reducing the carbon in the air.
Nuclear fuel does not just come from Uranium, there are a number of sources for nuclear fuel, and your scientist is clearly mistaken or, more likely, quoted out of context. There are Thousands of years of Uranium alone. Another possible thing is that your scientist was quoted before the new technologies that recycle 95% of waste were developed. And that raise the energy output 50%. So we are now able to use 5% of the fuel to output 150% more energy. That is a huge gain, and further advances in nuclear energy are on their way.
67 Billion over 50 years is nothing! Especially considering that there are over 100 nuclear plants in the US, and that they have super high security. Look how much funding wind power alone will require over the next 2 years. Look at how much was spent in Iraq. Money is nothing here.
Umm. Are you still living in the 90s? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
We have something called construction crews to build buildings. Its not a new thing.
Using nuclear bombs for fuel is a great idea. We just need to make sure that Iran can’t call us hypocrites for using nuclear bombs for energy when that is hat we don’t want them to do.
Electric cars all the way!
Most of every living thing (including your body) that is not water is a form of carbon. Carbon is a soild and in chemical compounds can be solid, liquid, or gas. The gases and liquids burned to make gases are the issue,...hense,'greenhouse gases'. When gases can be returned to a solid or liquid they can move on to other uses or recycling indefinitely without significant emmissions. I'd like to get to nuclear power without bankrupting everyone on the way.
Bill"for what we are together"
bill713.unity08@sbcglobal.net
Oh, and I hope it does not look like I am implyin that carbon capture is totally bad. It is an important short to mid term step in the clean electricity process.
I supplied my sources. Where are yours a wilkipedia web? Why not quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinch_River_Breeder_Reactor
Mining coal creates much, much less pollution and uses much less energy than uranium!!! The quality of uranium is most critical to measuring how much is available - low value cost so much more and pollutes so much more! Electric plants for nuclear cost much more, use much more concrete [carbon dioxide generation]; require huge backup power because their on-line performance is much worse than any petrol or coal.
Why not look up how much of the current energy budget is spent on nuclear! Imagine if we spent that 67 billion on alternative fuels. or even the multi-billions we're spending now
How are nuclear wastes recycled without problems? The longer life for the fuel does not mitigate the cost, emissions and wastes affliated with mining and refining uranium. where are these advances?
By the way Iran has more uranium per capita than the US and it is a richer source. Under the Shah, the US approved both nuclear reactors, nuclear fuel refinement [for our import] and nuclear weapons.
P.S. I worked at Brookhaven National Lab and now own an green energy company. We are working on things like reducing friction to improve windfarms; new high efficiency dielectric fluids [massive saving in pollution and energy].
Do you know what else produces large amounts of CO2? The electricity to power your computer to post your opinion. Virtually everything you do requires electricity or power that uses combustion that releases CO2, which is why we are all here saying that we need to switch to renewable resources. So you can't really complain that uranium mining requires energy that releases CO2.
You are correct but the amounts for uranium minining are unbelieveably large due to the low concentration of ore followed by its further concentration to obtain the less than 1% useful part. then there is the energy needs to dispose of the tailings which are all radioactive.
Not quite the same as mining coal!!
That is true, but that less-than-one-percent of uranium produces more energy than hundreds of tonns of coal, plus, there are ways to re-use the uranium, you can't do that with coal.
Nuclear Energy exposes very little radiation and is the only source right now that can meet our energy needs in the future. You are more exposed to radiation living in Denver, Colorado from the Sun, than you are living in any nuclear power plant in the World! A new pole came out with Americans at an all time low of being afraid of Nuclear Energy could harm them plus Americans are at an all time high of supporting Nuclear Energy. Anyway, I know someone who works at the Limerick power plant in PA where 90% of the facilities are underground including the reactors. The only buildings that are above ground are the two steam towers making it very safe from terrorist attacks. All 35 nuclear power plants (that are being designed and pending approval) and the two that are being built will all be underground except the steam towers. Nuclear Power plants are very safe from terrorists and meltdowns from heightened security and having many, many, many backups incase something goes wrong.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Learn from our mistakes, history's mistakes, and other countries mistakes, so we don't make the same mistakes today.
FireBird1138@aol.com
Please do not jump all over me here, I've been trying to weigh the pros and cons of this topic for a while now, and if you do some research of your own (highly advise), you will find some convincing arguments on both sides.
Although I tend to feel that nuclear energy has a lot to offer this country, basically cheap power. I will admit that it does have its draw backs, nuclear waste and the possibility of a plant blowing up.
But to play the devils advocate, plant building technology has improved greatly over the years giving us the capability to handle a situation like Three Mile Island or Chernobyl better than it was, most likely it could be completely avoided in the first place.
Waste is the major issue here if you ask me. The only solution we have at the moment to handle such waste is to store it in a large man made cave/bunker somewhere in Arizona. True in the long run it can bite us in the ass (excuse my language), but don't you think in due time we will find a safe way of eliminating it, or a safer way of discarding it. Maybe we can shoot it directly into sun; it's a giant nuclear reactor anyway.
Once again, I'm just trying to weigh the pros and cons. I would also like to hear your opinions on this matter. Pull me to on side or the other; I double dog dare you (my attempt at light humor).
------http://www.myspace.com/sketical_believer------
------PROPS 4 BUDDHA------
I searched the current page for the word tide and found one result. One mention of tides in 42 post and some 8700 words. The Continental United States has approximately 5000 miles of coast line. Surely somewhere along there exist tidal flow.
An important factor to note is just how renewable tidal power is. The number one cause for tides, the moon, is estimated to be with us for a really long time.
Explain Tides Please
------http://www.myspace.com/sketical_believer OR zappafication@hotmail.com------
------PROPS 4 BUDDHA------
Tide
Tidal Power
I'm particularly fond of the tidal stream power approach.
But I feel more research is needed and should be done.
But we should atleast consider using it on a small scale for now.
Excellent idea
------http://www.myspace.com/sketical_believer OR zappafication@hotmail.com------
------PROPS 4 BUDDHA------
What happened in three mile island? A hydrogen bubble formed in the reactor after the cooling systems were shut down. There is a way to harness this. A while back I read about a scientist experimenting with encasing uranium in fused carbon. Once fused, the pellet grenerated the usual heat, but no radiation escaped.
So, imagine a reactor, run in controled overload. producing electricity and hydrogen gas, with no radiation. only waste would be the pellets, no radiation suits or other cleaning materials would have to be stored as radioactive waste. Kills two birds with one stone.
At the moment I'm sure cost of testing and using such insites (for lack of better words) is what's holding them back. Thats the biggest problem facing the whole issue at the moment. So many ways to go, but we can only offord so much. I believe in do time we will find something
------MYSPACE URL myspace.com/sketical_believer OR E-MAIL zappafication@hotmail.com------
------PROPS 4 BUDDHA------
Could you imagine where we would be now if Bush had spent the 600 Billion that he has spent on Iraq on Energy Solutions. We may have been oil independant within 5 years. What a waste!