Neo-power source

[Ean Hufwetulyu]

 
The choice is yours alone.

[El Jacko]

Nuclear Fission for at least the coming 50-100 years. The French have already proved that the radioactive waste can and is used to fuel different reactors down the chain, resulting in a less hazardous and smaller amount of waste. The only thing standing in the way of this is the widespread view that such power plants are dangerous (often pointing to Chernobyl) - this is not the case, if the plant is operated correctly (after all, the Chernobyl accident was caused by operator error, breaking the safety rules in order to heat the core faster during a test).

I can, however, see Nuclear Fusion becoming viable within 50 years, which would provide clean, bountiful energy, with the only waste product being the core itself after its 50+ year lifespan.

[Rain]

I have to admit my ignorance as to how nuclear power works, and I have to add my concerns regarding how they plan on getting rid of the waste.

[Ean Hufwetulyu]

nuclear power has many benefits but does it off set the wastes and dangers it produces?

[Rain]

That's a really good question. Part of the reason I'm pro wind and solar power.

[Ean Hufwetulyu]

ditto i studying engineering so i can build a new engine that runs on wind and water.

[El Jacko]

I have to admit my ignorance as to how nuclear power works, and I have to add my concerns regarding how they plan on getting rid of the waste.

nuclear power has many benefits but does it off set the wastes...

Nuclear waste comes in several forms. There are high-level radioactive wastes, which have a relatively short half-life. These drop around 99.9% of their radioactivity within 40 years. Second is long-lived medium radioactive, which remains radioactive (albeit at a lower rate) for longer periods of time. Of this, high level radioactive can be safely stored underground and sealed off, as its uses as fuel are limited. The medium level radioactive usually comprises Uranium and Plutonium, and after reprocessing the former can be cast straight into new fuel rods and the latter can be turned into MOX fuel rods. With good reprocessing, the same quantity can produce 60 times more power than a single use, which theoretically could take around 200 years of cycling.

Admittedly, the waste from reprocessing is highly radioactive and needs to be disposed of. The usual method is to bury it in heavy bedrock (granite is popular), which blocks pretty much all the radiation from reaching the surface to a level comparable to the CMB radiation.

... dangers it produces?

As I said before, nuclear power is perfectly safe when done properly. Reactor design has moved on since the Chernobyl disaster, as have the safety mechanisms. The chances of a reaction growing out of control is virtually nil, as the reactor will have multiple systems and failsafes in place to keep the reaction in check. If they fail, the system will release all the control rods, which will drop into the core under gravity and kill the reaction.

['Ì'awn Menari]

it's either between solar and nuclear (i voted for solar btw).

Nuclear does work the only problem is, if something happens to the plant...then it's like oh (insert one of the appropriate cuss words here lol)

Solar the only problem i have with it is all this hunking equipment for it, that won't always work...

[Ean Hufwetulyu]

a very logical opition.  So if you where create a new engine what power would you use?

[Rain]

As I said before, nuclear power is perfectly safe when done properly.

AMEN!! I'm all for safety and regulations.

[Puvomun]

Oy. I dare not vote yet. Let me think...

Hydrogen would be great as that is abundantly available, but too little is done with it so far.

Solar is fabulous, but there are too many places in the world where that is an unreliable source of energy, unfortunately. If there are means to store that energy for later use (rainy days for instance), that would be magnificent of course. And we're experiencing a lot of rain here lately (Northern Europe).

Nuclear... splicing or fusion? Fusion is a long time away, I'm afraid. Too bad, since that is (as far as I know) rather safe procedure. Splicing is still quite a dangerous thing and I worry about the waste. Did see the comments about storing the residue in granite, but how much granite is there to store things in? How much do we need? Advantage here is however that an enormous amount of energy is available from a relatively small space.

Okay. I have decided. Although I would prefer hydrogen and solar both, I think the solution would lie in nuclear power.

[Rain]

I have my reasons for liking solar but that DOES NOT MEAN that I'm outting down anybody else's opinion!

I like sloar because:
It's clean (no more burning coal for electricity)
It's pretty much free (I mean, it's coming down on us every day and nobody pays for it although the equipment is pretty pricey)
Nobody has to touch it or otherwise work with it for it to start working.
It's quiet!
I'm still learning about it.

People plz correct me if I have made a mistake!

[Ean Hufwetulyu]

those are good some good reasons
I favor hydrogen because like solar it's all around us. It's replace itself when burned or used in fuel cell, and its clean

[Puvomun]

Srane, solar is the best form, as it is there easiest. Put up the panels and the equipment under it, and you have electricity. I tried to make sense of their efficiency value, but that's beyond me. Only thing I found understandable (and already knew) is that they need to be cleaned once in a while.

An alternative to this is wind energy. That's available almost everywhere too, and once the mill is up, it works. (We have lots more wind than sunshine over here.) Or generators/turbines that are driven by the tides or other watermovement.

Hydrogen needs a converting powercell that uses air to generate electricity, and according to Wikipedia they are not very efficient yet (50%, and dropping when pushed hard). But they are there, and I am certain their power will be boosted once taken seriously.

Nuclear... we all know about that I guess. High power against relatively high risk.


Eywa ngahu.

[El Jacko]

...Did see the comments about storing the residue in granite, but how much granite is there to store things in? How much do we need?...

To block out Alpha radiation, almost none. Beta takes a bit more, but past about 1-2 feet the radiation falls to background level. Gamma takes significantly more, but again, past about 100-200 feet it falls near to background level (varies on density of the rock, of course). So burying it 500m (1650ft) in granite bedrock as they do in france is plenty enough.



Anywho, on to solar. Quiet, simple, endless energy...yes. Trouble is, you have to make the panels (assuming photovoltaic), which unfortunately dribbles back down to the much maligned black gold. Mirror and tower arrays are preferable, as they are generally more efficient, but you need 1) consistent sunlight and 2) complacent locals ("Not in my back yard", etc.)

[Rain]

Anywho, on to solar. Quiet, simple, endless energy...yes. Trouble is, you have to make the panels (assuming photovoltaic), which unfortunately dribbles back down to the much maligned black gold. Mirror and tower arrays are preferable, as they are generally more efficient, but you need 1) consistent sunlight and 2) complacent locals ("Not in my back yard", etc.)

Why wouldn't someone want a quiet, safe solar panel in the vicinity of their yard as opposed to a smelly, noisy and possibly explosive oil rig? just curious.

[Puvomun]

Why wouldn't someone want a quiet, safe solar panel in the vicinity of their yard as opposed to a smelly, noisy and possibly explosive oil rig? just curious.

Absolutely. Not to mention the invisible damage that is done by the oil rig. I always wonder (worry) when the earth will crack after so much liquid (which supports the weight of what's on top) has been pumped out. And what will happen then.

[Rain]

Absolutely. Not to mention the invisible damage that is done by the oil rig. I always wonder (worry) when the earth will crack after so much liquid (which supports the weight of what's on top) has been pumped out. And what will happen then.

Sinkholes, earthquakes, landslides, gas leaks, all manner of unhappy stuff.

[Puvomun]

Sinkholes, earthquakes, landslides, gas leaks, all manner of unhappy stuff.

Lu tìngay. In the north of the Netherlands there are minor earth tremors because of all the gas that's being pumped up. A relatively small-scale sign, compared to what's happening in the Gulf, but nonetheless just as worrying.

We should hurry with canceling all this big profit thinking and put some more pressure on clean and safe energy. There is so much all around us. Why wait until the old matter has been depleted (or destroyed us indirectly)?

[El Jacko]

Anywho, on to solar. Quiet, simple, endless energy...yes. Trouble is, you have to make the panels (assuming photovoltaic), which unfortunately dribbles back down to the much maligned black gold. Mirror and tower arrays are preferable, as they are generally more efficient, but you need 1) consistent sunlight and 2) complacent locals ("Not in my back yard", etc.)

Why wouldn't someone want a quiet, safe solar panel in the vicinity of their yard as opposed to a smelly, noisy and possibly explosive oil rig? just curious.

People tend to object to things ruining their view. You get the same reaction from wind farm projects; average Joe public, unfortunately, will tolerate the building of more coal- or oil-fired power stations because of the simple fact that they can generate more power from a given size than any renewable source, thus not 'being an eyesore' to as many people.

It's a crying shame, but perhaps some good will come from the Deepwater Horizon and people might clock that oil isn't the 'manna from heaven' they always thought, and begin to tolerate some new ideas. I for one quite like the Pelamis project....