Nuclear energy - Is nuclear energy worth exploiting?
The Big DebateIf you feel the need to get your teeth stuck right into a heavy debate on a subject you feel really passionate about, then this is the place to do so. Post about religion, politics, laws and all things juicy like that here.
Nuclear energy - Is nuclear energy worth exploiting?
Should nuclear energy be a central part of plans to combat global climate change?
Nuclear power is any nuclear technology designed to extract usable energy from atomic nuclei via controlled nuclear reactions. The most common method today is through nuclear fission, though other methods include nuclear fusion and radioactive decay. All current methods involve heating a working fluid such as water, which is then converted into mechanical work for the purpose of generating electricity or propulsion. Today, more than 15% of the world's electricity comes from nuclear power, over 150 nuclear-powered naval vessels have been built, and a few radioisotope rockets have been produced.
Some countries in the world currently use nuclear power. However, high construction costs have hindered the development of nuclear power in many countries. Yet, rising concerns regarding global warming and energy prices, however, nuclear energy has seen renewed attention as alternative form of energy.
The world energy demand is projected to grow by 50% by 2030. To meet the short-term demand, the use of coal and other fossil fuels will increase.
The main question and debate is whether nuclear energy should be included as a major component of 21st century plans to combat global warming and to help us meet the growing energy demand? Many questions frame this debate: Is nuclear power helpful in reducing greenhouse gas emissions? Can nuclear power scale to become a serious energy replacement to coal electric power (the main source of electricity globally)? Does the construction of nuclear plants contribute to global warming in any significant ways? What about the mining of Uranium, and what general environmental risks might this pose? What concerns surround nuclear waste? Can these concerns be addressed? How long can we expect supplies of Uranium and nuclear energy to last? Centuries? Even if it will run out in the future and is not "renewable", is it still worth pursuing now (particularly in the face of global warming)? Do nuclear plants pose a risk of "melting down", or have modern nuclear plants eliminated the risk of another Chernobyl or Three Mile Island disaster? Are there any radiation risks to local communities and to workers at nuclear plants? What about the threat of terrorist attacks on nuclear plants? What weapons proliferation risks surround nuclear energy? Should this prevent the further development of nuclear energy, particularly if it is believed that nuclear energy is part of the solution to the global warming crisis?
See Wikipedia's article on nuclear power for more background.
Yes, nuclear energy should be exploited or the lights go out in Britain - simple as that. All other forms of energy are too expensive, take too long to be effective or only produce a tiny fraction of our national requirement. Managing the waste is something we will have to learn. These words were said to me about 30 years ago by a distant relative who worked in Sellafield for 18 years.
All other forms of energy are too expensive, take too long to be effective or only produce a tiny fraction of our national requirement.
Thinking outside the box is highly recommended.
There's a way to meet the demand and then there's a way to lower the demand. We should put more resources into inventing energy saving products, and secondly we need to find green ways to produce energy.
One way is to get them energy saving lamps, which do have lower total cost of ownership.
[quote=LippoW;703264] One way is to get them energy saving lamps, which do have lower total cost of ownership. /QUOTE]
Sorry LippoW, That's only one tiny positive contribution to an enormous problem. On our scale of energy needs, it equates to lighting ant farts to melt steel. Answer, copy the French and Germans, massive nuclear energy capability with large chunks of the profits beeing reinvested in alternative energy sources.
I am in favor of nuclear power. I think the safety concerns are no longer a serious problem, and the efficiency is excellent. Note that there is still a heat by-product, but no excess carbon output.
nukey power has been around a long time now, its a mature and tested technology.
OK so maybe we have a few sheep that glow in the dark in the lake district but so what ?
a lot more people have had their health adversely affected by coal and oil than nuclear power, although I guess you would have to look at the proportion of energy production.
I think we are very committed to nuclear power coming on line, at least to replace old and possibly not very safe old nuclear power stations, but as part of the plan to handle the increasing demand.
I think theres a lot of possibilities for both reducing energy usage and using alternative energy and using what energy we do use in a more efficient manner such as making use of other wise wasted heat.
some of the energy saving solutions might seem small and insignificant but it adds up if everyone contributes, however it should be evaluated by a competent engineer rather than a spin doctor.
expansion of nuclear energy production is inevitable, fossil fuels will be exhausted within decades, by that time there will be a reliable and efficient electric car,
the only worry is how to safely manage the waste produced by nuclear energy,
and make it safer to use.
Modern reactors are: safer; often completely fail safe, produce more power, create considerably less waste, etc. but we still have no plan for the storage of the highly (probably more so) radioactive waste.
AFAIK we have zero uranium, or thorium, deposits in the UK, so its not "exactly" going to make us energy independent. Maybe we could use all the plutonium* from nukes instead?
Shame wade/tidal power got knocked back so far due to government incompetence a few decades ago.
*obviously not modern weapons as its hydrogen, but I believe we still have a lot of it lying around due to reprocessing, decommissioning, etc.
expansion of nuclear energy production is inevitable, fossil fuels will be exhausted within decades, by that time there will be a reliable and efficient electric car.
do you know how much of an impact on the electric grid it wil be if al the cars went electric ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ixpah
Modern reactors are: safer; often completely fail safe, produce more power, create considerably less waste, etc.
fail safe but not idiot safe, humans can still fuck it up if they are stupid enough, and we all know what homer Simpson is like.
close to shore energy stations I think are an excellent idea and the way to the future,
you could have 3 types of energy at the same spot :- tidal, wave and wind.
there is more than enough energy in the wind and sea to supply al our needs many times over.
in the UK we have a very favourable coastline to person ratio.
Nuclear energy - Is nuclear energy worth exploiting?
Linear Mode
