Electricty from Nuclear plants - is it the best option?

[Karlin]

The Canadian government has reportedly spent $70Billion helping Canada's nuclear energy industry.

Thats a lot of solar panels and windmills baby!!

Now we hear the EX-greenpeace Dr. Moore advocating to anyone who will listen that nuclear power generation is the "only source of energy that could replace fossil fuels".

When we hear it like that, he sounds right. But we don't need to replace ALL the fossil fuel, we just need to reduce the rate at which we burn them so the atmosphere can remain in balance.

With that in mind, using various 'alternative' sources of energy that will each replace a portion of the fossil fuels we currently use for energy is still the most reasonable option [electricity from alternate sources can be used to create hydrogen fuel, and so can be thought of as replacing gasoline in that way].

So Moore is using a tactic. How corporate of him!! "its too big of a problem, we have to nuke it" is the tactic. Its not right tho.

There is a resistance to the most sensible approach, and it comes from the big players in the energy industry. What will help a lot is decentralising the energy production - putting solar panels or windmills or hydro-electric etc etc "on site" where electricity is needed.

Instead, we get these "one big project will be the answer" movements going ,like Moore's nuclear stance. Obviously a wealth elite corporate plan to avoid the spreading out of energy profits when all the various alternatives get the nod.

With nuclear, it may be safer to operate than Chernobyl was, but there is still the waste - what to do with it? > AND the huge government subisidies to nuclear industry.

Its not "the answer", but we should have a few nuclear plants as we do now, thats okay, it helps to spread the energy production around. We just don't need any MORE of them built until the solution to the waste problem is found, and until we have at least tried to set up alternatives to nuclear and fossil fuels.

Besides that, I heard it would take 15 to 30 years to build enough nuclear plants to replace fossil fuels we use now. Thats too long, 2012 is 5 years away and we COULD be reducing significant amounts of greenhouse gases within mere months with solar and windmill power. Its true, its right at our feet if we put the effort into it, just get them up and operating, global warming is NOW.

Corporate people will tell us it isn't possible to set them up this summer, but it is.
Up to 30% of fossil fuels could be replaced by windmill and solar panels within one year when considering the basic infrastructure set up - and not the politics or money. Just use government surpluses and set up the soalr panels and windmill now available.

This IS an emergency!!

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: Merits of Nuclear Power

:arrow: The Use of Nuclear Power

I would suggest that nuclear power is safe — so long as the circumstances under which the power is produced are safe. If we were ever to consider this type of energy as an alternative to fossil fuels, however, I think that it would be imperative that we search for some method by which we can cause the waste of nuclear energy to be destroyed, or contained in some manner that would be appropriate given the needs of the environment.

:arrow: Surplus Moneys to Debt, Not Energy

While I recognize the imperative nature of ensuring that the environment can be sustained, and the urgency of this matter, I would recommend that we appropriate funds for these alternate sources of energy from sources other than budget surpluses; I would suggest that it is important for us to continue to use surpluses to pay off the debt and that, as our debt continues to be reduced, we are going to be in a better position to redirect funds that would otherwise be used to pay the debt's interest on other measures, such as those relating to the environment.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I doubt that nuclear energy is the best option, it's merely one of the options. I'm inclined to think there is no "best" option, the key is diversity; I wouldn't support a big switch to nuclear power generation, but I wouldn't close the door on it either. It should just be part of a package that includes solar, wind, tidal, conservation, fuel cells, and other such good stuff.

Hydrogen has promise as a fuel, though it doesn't have the energy content of gasoline or natural gas, so you need more of it to do the same job. One possible way to generate it is to use power from nuclear plants to dissociate sea water in large quantities. Liberate the oxygen, preferably in a windy place to promote rapid mixing so we don't get locally high concentrations of the stuff, pipe the hydrogen into the existing distribution system for natural gas, then when you burn it it just recombines with the oxygen and turns back into water. There are some major engineering problems to be solved, like how to store enough hydrogen safely in a package that'll fit into a vehicle to give it a decent range, and how to prevent large amounts of it from leaking out of wherever it is. The hydrogen molecule is so small it'll leak out through a seal that'll hold natural gas back.

Waste disposal from nuclear plants is also a fairly serious engineering problem, but at least is is just an engineering problem, not a question of needing to discover new basic science. And there are grounds for optimism. There's a place in Gabon where natural processes concentrated enough radioactive material to start a chain reaction some billion or so years ago, and the byproducts of that are still in place. So it is possible to store that stuff in stable geological formations more or less indefinitely.

I agree though, we do have an emergency. It's not of crisis proportions yet, but a major disruption of oil supplies from the Middle East could make it so very quickly. Depletion will do it eventually anyway, of course, but a prudent society plans for such things and makes investments to try to solve them.

 

[Jay]

One possible way to generate it is to use power from nuclear plants to dissociate sea water in large quantities. Liberate the oxygen, preferably in a windy place to promote rapid mixing so we don't get locally high concentrations of the stuff, pipe the hydrogen into the existing distribution system for natural gas, then when you burn it it just recombines with the oxygen and turns back into water.

Sounds good to me.

 

[#juan]

I read somewhere last year that

A new catalytic hydrogen storage system had been developed. A system not requiring platinum. The scarcity of platinum is one of the things that is holding up the developement of efficient, affordable, fuel cells.

 

[Karlin]

I doubt that nuclear energy is the best option, it's merely one of the options.
It should just be part of a package that includes solar, wind, tidal, conservation, fuel cells, and other such good stuff.

Hydrogen has promise as a fuel

One possible way to generate it is to use power from nuclear plants to dissociate sea water in large quantities.

.

Hey dexter, that quote is heavily edited, but ya man, everyone seems to like this idea.

To make sure the nuclear energy is used to reduce greenhouse gases, there could be a gaurantee to use it to make Hydrogen so we burn that instead of gasoline. Does this sound good?

As it is, they likely make more money selling electricity, produced by their nuclear plants, into the grid. And that reduces GGs even more than replacing gasoline , if they were reducing the coal burning electricity generators.

So layers of complications exist. The details would be best left to the industry people on how to do it, but they are not really onside with reducing GGs as a priority.

What would do the trick is some legistaltion to create a level playing field for the enrgy industry, with a mandate to reduce GGs from all sources, with money to build infrastructure for any type of alternative energy whereever it is feasable, and a contract to let the industry have the infrastructure and run it, it could all come together.

That way we could wrestle them - the corporations who CAN do this sort of thing - away from fossil fuels. They are not going to do it voluntarily. They would ALL be just as happy to have alternatives to adminsiter as fossil fuels, but crude and coal makes the dollars right now. That is in large part due to the government helping them make sure fossil fuels are viable, with royalty holidays and tax breaks and handouts. Just like Nuclear. It must be done for the others now too.

 

[Karlin]

Re:High Level Agreement with Karlin!!!

Gorbachev Urges G8 to Back Solar Power, Not Oil or Nuclear
[/url]http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0427-03.htm Yesterday, apparently in respons... governing world body of socialist thinkers.

 

[Jay]

So you want him to lead the UN?

 

[dekhqonbacha]

solar energy is not the best option. Sometimes we may be covered by clouds for weeks, then all the region supplied by solar energy will be in trouble.

Nuclear is not the best option either. The waste is also dangerous. There are special storages for those, imagine what happens if there is an accident in those storages?

 

[gc]

I doubt that nuclear energy is the best option, it's merely one of the options. I'm inclined to think there is no "best" option, the key is diversity; I wouldn't support a big switch to nuclear power generation, but I wouldn't close the door on it either. It should just be part of a package that includes solar, wind, tidal, conservation, fuel cells, and other such good stuff.

Hydrogen has promise as a fuel, though it doesn't have the energy content of gasoline or natural gas, so you need more of it to do the same job. One possible way to generate it is to use power from nuclear plants to dissociate sea water in large quantities. Liberate the oxygen, preferably in a windy place to promote rapid mixing so we don't get locally high concentrations of the stuff, pipe the hydrogen into the existing distribution system for natural gas, then when you burn it it just recombines with the oxygen and turns back into water. There are some major engineering problems to be solved, like how to store enough hydrogen safely in a package that'll fit into a vehicle to give it a decent range, and how to prevent large amounts of it from leaking out of wherever it is. The hydrogen molecule is so small it'll leak out through a seal that'll hold natural gas back.

Waste disposal from nuclear plants is also a fairly serious engineering problem, but at least is is just an engineering problem, not a question of needing to discover new basic science. And there are grounds for optimism. There's a place in Gabon where natural processes concentrated enough radioactive material to start a chain reaction some billion or so years ago, and the byproducts of that are still in place. So it is possible to store that stuff in stable geological formations more or less indefinitely.

I agree though, we do have an emergency. It's not of crisis proportions yet, but a major disruption of oil supplies from the Middle East could make it so very quickly. Depletion will do it eventually anyway, of course, but a prudent society plans for such things and makes investments to try to solve them.

I don't understand why you would use nuclear energy to produce hydrogen. Why not just use nuclear energy directly? It would be more efficient. Also, I don't think hydrogen will leak as you suggested, anything that is air tight should also be 'hydrogen tight'.

A new catalytic hydrogen storage system had been developed. A system not requiring platinum. The scarcity of platinum is one of the things that is holding up the developement of efficient, affordable, fuel cells

True. Many different metal complexes have been studied. None of them are perfect, they all have their own drawbacks including cost, hydrogen loading capacity, ability to release hydrogen, toxicity etc...It is being actively studied, so perhaps in the future there will be a good solution.

solar energy is not the best option. Sometimes we may be covered by clouds for weeks, then all the region supplied by solar energy will be in trouble.

Solar energy is the best option, it's just a matter of storing the energy until it's needed. This could be done with hydrogen etc. In fact, all of our energy (except nuclear) comes from the sun, whether directly or indirectly.

 

[razorgrade]

No. not really.

Solar, wind and hydro all the way.

But in the end, people should be encourage to use less electricity.

A recent invention that may replace the energy inefficient lightbulb could go a long way to help

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4906188.stm

In fact, all of our energy (except nuclear) comes from the sun, whether directly or indirectly.

Actually - correction the sun is one big nuclear reactor, so really we do use nuclear energy indirectly.

Mind you, I'd much rather the nuclear reactor was many millions of kilometres away than in my back yard ....

 

[gc]

Re: RE: Electricty from Nuclear plants - is it the best opti

In fact, all of our energy (except nuclear) comes from the sun, whether directly or indirectly.

Actually - correction the sun is one big nuclear reactor, so really we do use nuclear energy indirectly.

Mind you, I'd much rather the nuclear reactor was many millions of kilometres away than in my back yard ....

True, the sun is a giant nuclear reactor, but the energy that comes from our nuclear reactors does not come from the sun. The potential energy that is in uranium, plutonium etc. comes from a previous and now long gone star.

 

[Lineman]

I think some of the projects going on now in Ontario I believe where every home in this new area supplements it's own power through solar panels has the most potential. Large scale projects, even hydraulic, require too much disturbance of the environment. This is no longer acceptable to people regardless of their growing demand for power. If every household in Canada could supplement itself with even just 5 kws it could be enough to run your hot water tank and/or your stove. If industry did the same with supplemental sources it might reduce future demand to the point of not requiring more generation. The technology is out there and it's becoming affordable.