Originality Rating for this thread: 4.5/5 (8 votes cast) |
Interest Rating for this thread: 4.6/5 (8 votes cast) |
Scholarship/Prose Rating for this thread: 4.7/5 (9 votes cast) |
RAK
Minster of Plenty
Post #57481
Joined: 15 May 2004
Posts: 1689
Total Words: 320,480
Average words per post: 189.75
PoliMatch: n/a
   
   
|
Posted: Sat 2008-10-18 11:10
|
 |
| Politics: Democratic Socialist |
Country: Ireland |
|
| Nuclear Power: Time to reconsider? |
Post Rating: 2.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
(This argument is based on research done for a speech that I delivered on the 15th of October.)
There has always been a lot of NIMBYism surrounding nuclear power, probably from public perception of nuclear weapons, and to be honest, I'd be frightened out of my mind if I thought that nuclear power had much in common with Texan bomber pilots whooping and waving hats as they descended to the ground.
Luckily, nuclear power is nowhere near as violent or dangerous, and in this day and age of increasing oil prices, there are a number of advantages which should be considered before trying to condemn nuclear power.
- Nuclear power has far lower carbon dioxide emissions than all fossil fuel sources, and as it stands, lower emissions than even wind and solar power.
- Nuclear power is reliable. Capacity factors of 75%-plus are comparable, and sometimes even superior to fossil fuel sources, and far superior to the 15-30% capacity factors of wind and solar power.
- Nuclear power is flexible. Because nuclear reactors are constantly running while not being routinely maintained, they can cope with surges in demand easily, such as those in the morning or evening. Wind and solar power lack this capacity, being dependent on weather conditions.
- Nuclear power is scalable. A nuclear reactor can currently be scaled to fit everything from comparatively small aircraft carriers and submarines to the biggest metropolises. Recent developments, including the Toshiba 4S, seek to make the nuclear reactor even smaller, with 40MW of power produced in a building little bigger than a current electricity substation, and because a single pound of U-235 can produce hundreds of thousands or even millions of times the energy of a pound of coal or oil, nuclear reactors can hypothetically be made even smaller than that.
- Nuclear power has an exemplary safety record in most modern nuclear countries. There have been absolutely no fatal accidents in France and Japan, for instance.
But you may be thinking, "How can you say that nuclear power has an exemplary safety record when the likes of the Chernobyl disaster was allowed to happen?" In response, I will note that even though the Chernobyl disaster may have been tragic and devastating, there were several characteristics of the reactor design and elements of staff training which make it difficult to compare to modern reactors.
The Chernobyl reactors were RBMK-type designs, based on 1950s technology and known for being extremely crude. In fact, they were noted to be one of the most unsafe and dangerous reactor designs ever put into production. The RBMKs were made for two purposes: to be cheap and to produce plutonium, and they were only later adapted to produce electrical power. For this reason, safety features suffered, leaving the reactors with design flaws including:
- Control rods with graphite tips which, when initially placed into the reactor, displaced coolant, speeding up the reaction before slowing it down.
- A SCRAM, or emergency shutdown, procedure which took eighteen seconds, compared to the five seconds of modern reactors.
- A design which left the reactors more dangerous at low power - counter-intuitive and confusing to the reactor crew.
- No concrete shielding around the reactor, unlike all contemporary American designs.
But the shocking thing was, even with these critical design flaws, it took gross incompetence and human error to cause the Chernobyl disaster. The catastrophic decision was made to test the emergency cooling system in the reactor during routine maintenance, a decision that no trained nuclear engineer should have made. More shockingly than that, it was done just before a shift change, leaving the incoming workers completely unknowledgeable about the experiment.
The first thing that most people would think of when they hear the word "Chernobyl" would probably be, "meltdown". That would be incorrect. Chernobyl was not a meltdown of the traditional kind - it was a power excursion which caused a steam explosion, which would not have been anywhere near as devastating if the reactor had been enclosed with concrete. When the disaster was first realised, the technicians attempted the SCRAM procedure, which was ineffective due to the previously discussed design flaws - pointing to both abominable design and human error as causes of the disaster.
However, despite the far-reaching consequences of the event, a 2005 report by the Chernobyl Forum, made up of members of the International Atomic Energy Agency and several UN organisations, including the World Health Organisation, established that apart from the 57 direct deaths due to the disaster, total deaths from the event were estimated at 4,000 to 9,000 due to thyroid cancer.
This is a figure which has to be looked at in context. More deaths occur every year as a result of particulate air pollution from fossil fuel sources than have died as a result of accidents and radiation release from the entire history of nuclear-fuelled energy. Hydroelectric power is no more innocent - the Banqiao Dam collapse in China caused an estimated 26,000 deaths due to flooding and an extra 145,000 due to epidemics and flooding. Imagine the devastation if the likes of the Hoover Dam were to collapse or be destroyed - a large part of western America would be redefined, leading to the deaths of millions.
Considering these figures, the Chernobyl disaster shows less about the inherent dangers of nuclear power than the inherent dangers extant in all energy sources if proper safety precautions are not taken. What is important to remember is that the Chernobyl reactors were of a kind unlike all contemporary Western reactors and that such an event would be extremely difficult, if not impossible to replicate in any modern reactor.
A more relevant nuclear accident was the 1979 Three Mile Island reactor failure. This was a true partial core meltdown in a more modern reactor design, but it isn't at all appropriate for arguing against the dangers of nuclear power - the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission reported absolutely no deaths as a result of the accident.
Unlike Chernobyl, the Three Mile Island reactors were shielded with concrete, leading to no detectable release of radiation outside of the plant. The disaster is more relevant because it shows that even a potentially more dangerous reactor accident than the Chernobyl disaster could be averted with proper safety procedures. Safety records have only improved since then - there is a higher emphasis on computers, which do not tolerate deviation, unlike humans, and do not make mistakes due to fatigue, et cetera.
So, we move onto the other great big complaint about nuclear power - the problem of nuclear waste. Nuclear waste is universally considered to be a Bad Thing, by all parties involved, including reactor operators, to which it represents wasted power. That is why modern nuclear power plants make provisions to cut down on the amount of waste produced by their power plants.
But before I discuss the problems associated with nuclear waste, there is one matter which has to be considered: the issue of coal waste. According to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory of the United States Department of Energy, not only does coal combustion produce 100 times the population effective dose of radiation of nuclear power plants, because of the presence of radioisotopes of thorium and uranium in coal waste, but this nuclear waste in coal ash is equivalent to dozens of nuclear fuel loadings, and in fact is present in such high quantities that there is more energy present in that nuclear waste than is liberated from combustion of that coal.
Yet, there are few people complaining about the problems of disposing of coal waste. At least waste from nuclear reactors is present in one place. But, considering that, I return to the issue of nuclear waste. The usual way of disposing of nuclear waste is to vitrify it, or to turn it into a sort of glass. This would reasonably be combined with reprocessing in order to allow the maximum of energy to be taken from the nuclear material, and leaves the waste with a much lower radioactive dose. Some may consider that the idea of placing nuclear waste underground is dangerous and irresponsible, probably forgetting that the nuclear material came from underground in the first place. In any case, it is far easier to dispose of nuclear waste than it is to dispose of the carbon dioxide produced by fossil fuel consumption.
In conclusion, nuclear energy is not a perfect alternative. There are inherent dangers in processing nuclear waste which do lead to expense, if not particular danger, but with fossil fuels becoming increasingly expensive and having inherent dangers associated with them which are far more prevalent than those posed by nuclear energy, and with wind and solar having capacity factors which leads them to be only useful as backup sources of energy at best, it is time to reconsider the advantages of nuclear energy versus the disadvantages.
Weighing them up, I am convinced that the superior capacity factors, scalability and flexibility of nuclear energy, along with the very small amount of material needed to produce energy and its surprisingly exemplary safety record far outweigh the problems posed by nuclear waste, and therefore, I am fully in support of nuclear power as the energy source of the future.
_________________
"Rejection of technology ruins a good mind." - RAK
* * * * * * * * * *
INTERNET NEWS SERVICES
[ Online Radio Resources:
RTE: www.rte.ie
BBC: www.bbc.co.uk ]
[ The Irish Times Online: www.ireland.com ] |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #57526
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3002
Total Words: 1,168,805
Average words per post: 389.34
PoliMatch: n/a
  
 
|
|
Posted: Sat 2008-10-25 05:24
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
I would concur. The universe is made of energy (literally), and I see no problem with tapping into this limitless supply. There is no reason that modern civilization should ever have to suffer from an energy crisis.
_________________
"The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wraith
Outer Party
Post #57568
Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 229
Total Words: 19,019
Average words per post: 83.05
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2008-10-29 08:39
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian |
Country: Fascist States of America |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
I agree, but anything nuclear scares the proles to such an extent I cannot see nuclear reactors becoming the main source of energy in my lifetime. I mean, it took a 3? month long salmonella scare to get the FDA to approve irradiation, mostly due to public outcry (HURR I DONT WANT NO RADIOACTIVE VEGETABLES). Also, regions which depend on coal miners will undoubtedly pitch a bitchfit if anyone suggests anything other than coal-powered plants.
sigh
_________________
"We just report the news, we don't make it up. That's the government's job."
-British Television Network staff, V for Vendetta |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Major General Despair
Junior Spy
Post #57918
Joined: 05 Nov 2008
Posts: 78
Total Words: 11,587
Average words per post: 148.55
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2008-11-26 19:12
|
|
| Politics: Silly Party |
Country: Scotland |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
My uncle worked in a nuclear power plant for 20 years. He has no more radiation in his body as someone who lives in a city made of granite. He also stated that of all the nuclear waste produced in Great Britain; only 20% could be dangerous. Since it is dumped in the ocean - coated in concrete I might add - it proves no threat.
For these reason I would say that the cons expressed in RAK's original - excellent and persuasive - post, are more or less negligible. In any case the enviromentalists will never agree and do you know why? For the simple fact that they don't want clean energy; they want no energy.
| Quote: |
| - Nuclear power is reliable. Capacity factors of 75%-plus are comparable, and sometimes even superior to fossil fuel sources, and far superior to the 15-30% capacity factors of wind and solar power. |
Enviromentalists don't care about clean energy. They still complain about wind farms because the windmills are "eyesores". Nuclear plants are the most efficient and unpolluting sources of energy. They are most definitely safe.
But there are too many negative connotations to nuclear power.
| Quote: |
I agree, but anything nuclear scares the proles to such an extent I cannot see nuclear reactors becoming the main source of energy in my lifetime. I mean, it took a 3? month long salmonella scare to get the FDA to approve irradiation, mostly due to public outcry (HURR I DONT WANT NO RADIOACTIVE VEGETABLES). Also, regions which depend on coal miners will undoubtedly pitch a bitchfit if anyone suggests anything other than coal-powered plants.
|
As Wraith accurately put it "sigh" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheCoolBreeze
Prole
Post #58233
Joined: 11 Dec 2008
Posts: 15
Total Words: 6,715
Average words per post: 447.67
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2008-12-16 13:48
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Nuclear Power is not my ball game, but what I would like to know is what would we do with all the excess that is left over. Slymonkey says throw it in the Ocean. Question is where at in the ocean? Can't just throw it anywhere. Hell, why not put it in the polar ice caps? Nevermind, it takes so long for those things to cool that it'd melt the caps. Hmm, there's a point. Wouldnt the heat and stuff from the capsules, if in a great enough quantity affect Ocean Currents and all that stuff. I don't know. As said before, I'm not exactly a genius in this field. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mars_evo
Junior Spy
Post #58235
Joined: 09 Dec 2008
Posts: 43
Total Words: 2,893
Average words per post: 67.28
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2008-12-16 14:52
|
|
| Politics: Anarchist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| I don't think we should use nuclear power. I would rather nations fight over oil rather nuclear waste. If we did use nuclear power what would we do with the waste. Ever heard of depleted uranium...it's very very bad. Nuclear waste is the worst kind of waste because why? it's nuclear |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Erethemeus
Outer Party
Post #58240
Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 185
Total Words: 75,663
Average words per post: 408.99
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2008-12-16 18:15
|
|
| Politics: Atheist |
Country: United Nations |
|
| |
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Nuclear Power is not my ball game, but what I would like to know is what would we do with all the excess that is left over. |
| Quote: |
| Nuclear Power is not my ball game, but what I would like to know is what would we do with all the excess that is left over. |
......
Did either of you read the OP?'
Here, let me quote so that you don't have have scroll all the way up.
| Quote: |
So, we move onto the other great big complaint about nuclear power - the problem of nuclear waste. Nuclear waste is universally considered to be a Bad Thing, by all parties involved, including reactor operators, to which it represents wasted power. That is why modern nuclear power plants make provisions to cut down on the amount of waste produced by their power plants.
But before I discuss the problems associated with nuclear waste, there is one matter which has to be considered: the issue of coal waste. According to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory of the United States Department of Energy, not only does coal combustion produce 100 times the population effective dose of radiation of nuclear power plants, because of the presence of radioisotopes of thorium and uranium in coal waste, but this nuclear waste in coal ash is equivalent to dozens of nuclear fuel loadings, and in fact is present in such high quantities that there is more energy present in that nuclear waste than is liberated from combustion of that coal.
Yet, there are few people complaining about the problems of disposing of coal waste. At least waste from nuclear reactors is present in one place. But, considering that, I return to the issue of nuclear waste. The usual way of disposing of nuclear waste is to vitrify it, or to turn it into a sort of glass. This would reasonably be combined with reprocessing in order to allow the maximum of energy to be taken from the nuclear material, and leaves the waste with a much lower radioactive dose. Some may consider that the idea of placing nuclear waste underground is dangerous and irresponsible, probably forgetting that the nuclear material came from underground in the first place. In any case, it is far easier to dispose of nuclear waste than it is to dispose of the carbon dioxide produced by fossil fuel consumption. |
I post on boards where failing to read the OP and then making a post asking stupid questions is a bannable offense. Sometimes, I wish this board were less forgiving.
Don't waste our time, read the post and make a constructive reply..
_________________
I really want to hear one more person say, "Throw 'x' under the bus." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Major General Despair
Junior Spy
Post #58279
Joined: 05 Nov 2008
Posts: 78
Total Words: 11,587
Average words per post: 148.55
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2008-12-18 18:36
|
|
| Politics: Silly Party |
Country: Scotland |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Nuclear Power is not my ball game, but what I would like to know is what would we do with all the excess that is left over. Slymonkey says throw it in the Ocean. Question is where at in the ocean? Can't just throw it anywhere. Hell, why not put it in the polar ice caps? Nevermind, it takes so long for those things to cool that it'd melt the caps. Hmm, there's a point. Wouldnt the heat and stuff from the capsules, if in a great enough quantity affect Ocean Currents and all that stuff. I don't know. As said before, I'm not exactly a genius in this field. |
I am not an expert either. Many experts fail to answer the question as well. But I believe an isolated enough ditch in the middle of the atlantic ocean would be safe. Not sure about the heat given off by the waste and it's effect on aquatic factors (gulf stream and similar). Hopefully the effect would be negligible. Nuclear power is after all a great way of producing masses of energy. However so does the Sun but it is also very dangerous. How about we stop complaining about the fact that nuclear power is not being used because of some nervous people and instead try to create a new type of energy? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RAK
Minster of Plenty
Post #58340
Joined: 15 May 2004
Posts: 1689
Total Words: 320,480
Average words per post: 189.75
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sat 2008-12-20 19:49
|
|
| Politics: Democratic Socialist |
Country: Ireland |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| slymonkeyinc20 wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Nuclear Power is not my ball game, but what I would like to know is what would we do with all the excess that is left over. Slymonkey says throw it in the Ocean. Question is where at in the ocean? Can't just throw it anywhere. Hell, why not put it in the polar ice caps? Nevermind, it takes so long for those things to cool that it'd melt the caps. Hmm, there's a point. Wouldnt the heat and stuff from the capsules, if in a great enough quantity affect Ocean Currents and all that stuff. I don't know. As said before, I'm not exactly a genius in this field. |
I am not an expert either. Many experts fail to answer the question as well. But I believe an isolated enough ditch in the middle of the atlantic ocean would be safe. Not sure about the heat given off by the waste and it's effect on aquatic factors (gulf stream and similar). Hopefully the effect would be negligible. Nuclear power is after all a great way of producing masses of energy. However so does the Sun but it is also very dangerous. How about we stop complaining about the fact that nuclear power is not being used because of some nervous people and instead try to create a new type of energy? |
Nearly every form of energy that we could think of comes with some sort of trade off. Those sources of energy which would be considered acceptable by nearly everybody are either inefficient, as in the cases of wind and solar energy, rely on conditions which are rare, as in the case of geothermal energy, or just plain difficult to harness, as in the case of nuclear fusion.
As for the idea of disposing of nuclear waste, firstly, an increasingly large quantity of the waste material of a modern nuclear reactor can be reprocessed into fuel for breeder reactors, secondly, the depleted uranium which makes up most of the waste material has an extremely long half-life, which directly corresponds to a extremely low amount of radiation given off per second (basic physics on that one) and thirdly, just as I mentioned that coal-fired power plants produce potentially far more dangerous waste than nuclear power plants, solar power plants aren't innocent either, as their construction requires calcium carbide, which must be processed from fossil fuel sources.
There is quite simply no reason to be more nervous of nuclear power than there is to be nervous of coal, oil, solar, wind or any other power plant. The accident rate of nuclear power plants is far lower than that of nearly any other power plant, precisely because people are nervous of them. People are nervous of nuclear power usually because they aren't educated on the matter in enough detail to compare the facts.
_________________
"Rejection of technology ruins a good mind." - RAK
* * * * * * * * * *
INTERNET NEWS SERVICES
[ Online Radio Resources:
RTE: www.rte.ie
BBC: www.bbc.co.uk ]
[ The Irish Times Online: www.ireland.com ] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rix
Prole
Post #58529
Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Posts: 12
Total Words: 958
Average words per post: 79.83
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Mon 2009-01-12 22:11
|
|
| Politics: Doublethinker |
Country: Airstrip One |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
As far as I'm aware the main concern in my country is how to dispose of the waste in a way which makes it easy to get at in the future when fuel reprocessing improves.
_________________
I know what I believe at this point in time |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Major General Despair
Junior Spy
Post #59020
Joined: 05 Nov 2008
Posts: 78
Total Words: 11,587
Average words per post: 148.55
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2009-05-27 20:47
|
|
| Politics: Anarchist |
Country: Scotland |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Quote: |
| As far as I'm aware the main concern in my country is how to dispose of the waste in a way which makes it easy to get at in the future when fuel reprocessing improves. |
Not to worry, quite rare that you can get more efficiency for waste products, apparently they've tried with Carbon Dioxide, not sure how much gets reused, not sure if it reduces waste products. It does seem like Nuclear Power is quite a bit better than most others. Long as it's treated with due caution, nobody does dangerous experiments unsupervised and safety measures have the modern improvements suggested in the initial post.
_________________
Nothing's ever different
'Cause all government's the same
They can call it freedom
But slavery's the game
There's nothing that you offer
But the dream of last years hero
The truth of revolution brother
Is year zero
Wealth is a ghetto |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WesFox13
Spy
Post #59115
Joined: 22 May 2007
Posts: 105
Total Words: 13,833
Average words per post: 131.74
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2009-06-11 15:58
|
|
| Politics: Democratic Socialist |
Country: United States |
|
| |
Post Rating: 2.2/4 (5 votes cast) |
|
|
I believe that we should have a massive nuclearfication of the power grid until about 70 to 80% of America's Electricity comes from nuclear with some renewables providing some more power for peak power usage. Sure uranium is a limited resource like oil, but with reprocessing our uranium deposits can last for about 50,000 years, which is a hell of a lot longer than oil will last.
I mean if France can get a majority of it's power from Nuclear why can't the USA?
_________________
NS Dictionary's resident Furry and Inflato-Muscle Fox.
Life is all the eternity you get, use it wisely.
People are stupid. One of the worst things about being smart is realizing just how retarded the general population really is. - Darth Servo on StarDestroyer.net BBS
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -4.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.97
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Golgo 13
Junior Spy
Post #59439
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 50
Total Words: 15,770
Average words per post: 315.4
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2009-09-18 20:03
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
This scenario is absent any major initiatives in nuclear energy that would spike the growth in consumption.
_________________
"I've never made bets because of what I have to gain.
Simply having people die meaningless deaths over the outcome of a gamble... It's better that way.
That gets closer to the meaningless death that is the essence of gambling.
I'll get closer to it's depths.
That's where the real pleasure in gambling is."
- Akagi Shigeru
"To even maintain a 1% chance of survival, you must have instincts that transcend human comprehension.
You must have senses that overpower all.
You must have godly talent, and you must be insane!
Your sense of reason must be gone!
You must be damaged as a human being!
No matter what the situation may be, you cannot fear it!
Do you have that insanity within you?!"
- Washizu Iwao |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ingsoc Officer
Minister of Truth
Post #59451
Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Posts: 3714
Total Words: 367,784
Average words per post: 99.03
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Mon 2009-09-21 21:55
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Golgo 13 wrote: |
This scenario is absent any major initiatives in nuclear energy that would spike the growth in consumption.
|
Good point, G13. I see a number of potential problems with relying on nuclear power:
- There's disagreement on when the uranium peak will occur - or has occured! The most pessimistic estimates claim that the peak occured in 1980! Eleven countries have de facto already exhausted their uranium resources, and half a dozen countries will follow.
- Currently, only 58 % of the total uranium demand is being produced!
- All potential uranium resources have not been explored and mapped yet. This means that there might be more uranium than estimated - or less.
- Nevertheless, there are 36 reactors under construction, 97 reactors planned, and 221 reactors proposed. Furthermore, the following nations seriously consider starting up nuclear programmes: Italy, Albania, Portugal, Norway, Poland, Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Ireland, Turkey, Iran, Yemen, Israel, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Nigeria, Ghana, Namibia, Chile, Venezuela, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, Australia, and New Zealand.
- Production of uranium creates radioactive waste in itself.
- Uranium enrichment is in itself energy intensive.
- Breeder reactors are more efficient, but there are of course limits; there will still be waste.
- If the Western world will rely on nuclear power, it will be difficult to deny the rest of the world the right to do the same. This will increase the risk of nuclear proliferation.
- Having uranium resources will mean power. For instance, consider the fact that more than 10 % of all uranium is produced within the SCO today, potential members such as India and Ukraine not included.
I'm not necessarily against reliance on nuclear power, but I'm not so sure it's a good idea to expand the nuclear power industry. The long-term consequences are simply too difficult to foresee. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jefferson Davis
Junior Spy
Post #59455
Joined: 05 Sep 2009
Posts: 31
Total Words: 8,880
Average words per post: 286.45
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2009-09-22 00:11
|
|
| Politics: Constitutionalist |
Country: United States of Oppression |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Ingsoc Officer wrote: |
| Golgo 13 wrote: |
This scenario is absent any major initiatives in nuclear energy that would spike the growth in consumption.
|
Good point, G13. I see a number of potential problems with relying on nuclear power:
- There's disagreement on when the uranium peak will occur - or has occured! The most pessimistic estimates claim that the peak occured in 1980! Eleven countries have de facto already exhausted their uranium resources, and half a dozen countries will follow.
- Currently, only 58 % of the total uranium demand is being produced!
- All potential uranium resources have not been explored and mapped yet. This means that there might be more uranium than estimated - or less.
- Nevertheless, there are 36 reactors under construction, 97 reactors planned, and 221 reactors proposed. Furthermore, the following nations seriously consider starting up nuclear programmes: Italy, Albania, Portugal, Norway, Poland, Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Ireland, Turkey, Iran, Yemen, Israel, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Nigeria, Ghana, Namibia, Chile, Venezuela, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, Australia, and New Zealand.
- Production of uranium creates radioactive waste in itself.
- Uranium enrichment is in itself energy intensive.
- Breeder reactors are more efficient, but there are of course limits; there will still be waste.
- If the Western world will rely on nuclear power, it will be difficult to deny the rest of the world the right to do the same. This will increase the risk of nuclear proliferation.
- Having uranium resources will mean power. For instance, consider the fact that more than 10 % of all uranium is produced within the SCO today, potential members such as India and Ukraine not included.
I'm not necessarily against reliance on nuclear power, but I'm not so sure it's a good idea to expand the nuclear power industry. The long-term consequences are simply too difficult to foresee. |
100% in agreement.
The trick here is to develop a nuclear energy technology that is too difficult to abuse for the purpose or 'weaponization'.
Most of the world's woes come from competition for resources, mostly energy. WWI was fought over access to the oil in what is now Iraq (i.e.: the Berlin to Baghdad Railway and 'triadism' in Austro-Hungarian Empire that was a smoke screen for the economic realities involved - enough for arcane historical references) as well as WWII and every other war (fighting over cheap resources mostly being energy).
I'm all in favor of cheap energy that is safe, efficient and has no military byproducts and believe that every nation has the right to such energy. Unfortunately the oil companies want to maximize their profits before the whole petroleum shithouse goes up in flames. Maximizing profits is OK with me as long as governments don't promote it or restrict it in such a way that if denies efficiency and utility.
_________________
#1 Though Criminal
"Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RAK
Minster of Plenty
Post #59460
Joined: 15 May 2004
Posts: 1689
Total Words: 320,480
Average words per post: 189.75
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2009-09-23 15:23
|
|
| Politics: Democratic Socialist |
Country: Ireland |
|
| |
Post Rating: 2.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
| Ingsoc Officer wrote: |
- There's disagreement on when the uranium peak will occur - or has occured! The most pessimistic estimates claim that the peak occured in 1980! Eleven countries have de facto already exhausted their uranium resources, and half a dozen countries will follow.
|
The question needs to be asked: Do these estimates include the significant quantities of fissionable uranium and thorium isotopes that are contained in waste byproducts of coal combustion? As I mention in my piece, according to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, coal waste contains sizable quantities of uranium and thorium, which if disposed of in such a cavalier fashion from a nuclear facility, would lead to public uproar.
As well as that, a fast breeder reactor design, produced with enough efficiency to use depleted uranium fuel instead of enriched uranium, could lead to vastly increased supplies of nuclear fuel, as uranium-238 makes up the vast majority of all uranium in both natural supplies and spent nuclear fuel. Even thorium-based breeder reactors would have a significant advantage over current enriched uranium reactors in terms of nuclear fuel supplies.
| Ingsoc Officer wrote: |
| Production of uranium creates radioactive waste in itself. |
Nuclear waste in general happens to be predominantly uranium-238, the most common naturally-occurring isotope of uranium. U-238 has an exceptionally long half-life at approximately 4.5 billion years, and thus a correspondingly low release of radiation. The other side products, the ones which happen to be dangerous, result from inefficient reactor design. People who operate reactors typically don't want production of waste; it represents wasted energy, and therefore, there is a push to design more efficient reactors which reduce the amount of waste.
If we're examining the waste from nuclear reactors, though, we need to look back to coal waste again. It seems rather hypocritical that we should criticise nuclear facilities for their production of waste when coal combustion not only leads to the careless disposal of dozens of nuclear fuel loadings a year, but also contains some of those isotopes that anti-nuclear campaigners have such a problem with when they're produced by nuclear fission.
| Ingsoc Officer wrote: |
| If the Western world will rely on nuclear power, it will be difficult to deny the rest of the world the right to do the same. This will increase the risk of nuclear proliferation. |
This would seem to be the case, although I will note that from a purely economic standpoint, the generation of nuclear weapons leads to the waste of perfectly useful energy, as plutonium is a product of inefficient reactor designs. It happens to be a tradeoff between production of energy, which is what the world actually needs, and the production of nuclear devices, which have almost never been used constructively, despite the fact that there are potential constructive uses for the technology in nuclear weapons.
Unfortunately, we are talking about politicians here, who have a tendency to be some of the most closed-minded people you'll ever find, and as much as I criticise politicians for their myopia, engineers haven't had a very good reputation when they have attained political power either.
| Ingsoc Officer wrote: |
| Having uranium resources will mean power. For instance, consider the fact that more than 10 % of all uranium is produced within the SCO today, potential members such as India and Ukraine not included. |
Possession of oil resources means power right now, and in a circumstance where energy was less limited, having raw metals and industrial resources would mean power. The difference between uranium and oil is that oil resources are centred around an area which is largely hostile to Western interests in a way that the SCO countries can't compete with, and an area which is made up of unstable states, whose economic relevance often seems to be almost completely dependent on oil.
I'm not sure about you, but I'd much rather be dependent on my energy from Australia than the Middle East. At least I know that the Aussies don't go to sleep dreaming of splitting my infidel face open with a scimitar.
_________________
"Rejection of technology ruins a good mind." - RAK
* * * * * * * * * *
INTERNET NEWS SERVICES
[ Online Radio Resources:
RTE: www.rte.ie
BBC: www.bbc.co.uk ]
[ The Irish Times Online: www.ireland.com ] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ingsoc Officer
Minister of Truth
Post #59461
Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Posts: 3714
Total Words: 367,784
Average words per post: 99.03
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2009-09-24 02:11
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| RAK wrote: |
| Ingsoc Officer wrote: |
- There's disagreement on when the uranium peak will occur - or has occured! The most pessimistic estimates claim that the peak occured in 1980! Eleven countries have de facto already exhausted their uranium resources, and half a dozen countries will follow.
|
The question needs to be asked: Do these estimates include the significant quantities of fissionable uranium and thorium isotopes that are contained in waste byproducts of coal combustion? As I mention in my piece, according to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, coal waste contains sizable quantities of uranium and thorium, which if disposed of in such a cavalier fashion from a nuclear facility, would lead to public uproar. |
Sounds like an odd point to me. Admittedly, my memory is a little sketchy on this, but isn't there 1-10 ppm uranium in byproducts of coal and 100-500 ppm in normal uranium ore? Be that as it may, the concentrations are considerably lower and I seriously doubt that the uranium in these byproducts could be exploited at a resonable cost.
| RAK wrote: |
| As well as that, a fast breeder reactor design, produced with enough efficiency to use depleted uranium fuel instead of enriched uranium, could lead to vastly increased supplies of nuclear fuel, as uranium-238 makes up the vast majority of all uranium in both natural supplies and spent nuclear fuel. Even thorium-based breeder reactors would have a significant advantage over current enriched uranium reactors in terms of nuclear fuel supplies. |
I don't share your optimism. If I'm not mistaken, almost all existing reactors and planned reactors are good old pressurized water reactors. To modernise the nuclear industry on a global scale would be extremely costly and take decades. Before efficient breeder reactors have become the most common reactor type, we may have exhausted our uranium resources already.
| RAK wrote: |
| Ingsoc Officer wrote: |
| Production of uranium creates radioactive waste in itself. |
Nuclear waste in general happens to be predominantly uranium-238, the most common naturally-occurring isotope of uranium. U-238 has an exceptionally long half-life at approximately 4.5 billion years, and thus a correspondingly low release of radiation. The other side products, the ones which happen to be dangerous, result from inefficient reactor design. People who operate reactors typically don't want production of waste; it represents wasted energy, and therefore, there is a push to design more efficient reactors which reduce the amount of waste.
If we're examining the waste from nuclear reactors, though, we need to look back to coal waste again. It seems rather hypocritical that we should criticise nuclear facilities for their production of waste when coal combustion not only leads to the careless disposal of dozens of nuclear fuel loadings a year, but also contains some of those isotopes that anti-nuclear campaigners have such a problem with when they're produced by nuclear fission. |
That coal combustion argubaly is worse than nuclear fission only makes nuclear fission better than coal combustion; it doesn't necessarily make nuclear fission good. I think proponents of nuclear power have a tendency to be a bit narrow-minded and polarise the debate between coal power and nuclear power. There are other alternatives, you know.
| RAK wrote: |
| Ingsoc Officer wrote: |
| If the Western world will rely on nuclear power, it will be difficult to deny the rest of the world the right to do the same. This will increase the risk of nuclear proliferation. |
This would seem to be the case, although I will note that from a purely economic standpoint, the generation of nuclear weapons leads to the waste of perfectly useful energy, as plutonium is a product of inefficient reactor designs. It happens to be a tradeoff between production of energy, which is what the world actually needs, and the production of nuclear devices, which have almost never been used constructively, despite the fact that there are potential constructive uses for the technology in nuclear weapons. |
You're preaching to the choir.
| RAK wrote: |
| Unfortunately, we are talking about politicians here, who have a tendency to be some of the most closed-minded people you'll ever find, and as much as I criticise politicians for their myopia, engineers haven't had a very good reputation when they have attained political power either. |
I'd choose democracy over technocracy any time.
| RAK wrote: |
| Ingsoc Officer wrote: |
| Having uranium resources will mean power. For instance, consider the fact that more than 10 % of all uranium is produced within the SCO today, potential members such as India and Ukraine not included. |
Possession of oil resources means power right now, and in a circumstance where energy was less limited, having raw metals and industrial resources would mean power. The difference between uranium and oil is that oil resources are centred around an area which is largely hostile to Western interests in a way that the SCO countries can't compete with, and an area which is made up of unstable states, whose economic relevance often seems to be almost completely dependent on oil. |
But wouldn't it be better to have to rely on the mercy of other countries as little as possible?
| RAK wrote: |
| I'm not sure about you, but I'd much rather be dependent on my energy from Australia than the Middle East. At least I know that the Aussies don't go to sleep dreaming of splitting my infidel face open with a scimitar. |
Why should I have to choose between these two options? There are more options, you know. Maybe you should look outside your own country for inspiration? The kWh production per capita in my country is actually higher than in the USA and more than twice as high than in the UK, but nevertheless considerably more ecofriendly:
Nuclear power: 8 620
Fossil power: 580
Hydroelectric power: 6 789
Biopower etc.: 890
Total: 16 878
The use of hydroelectric power is constant, the use of nuclear power and fossil power is decreasing, while the use of wind power, solar power, biopower, and geothermal power is perpetually increasing. I can see wind power generators pop up everwhere, I know plenty of people who heat their houses with private geothermal power generators, and the electricity and heating in my own apartment comes from a waste-to-energy power plant with an efficiency of well over 90 %. Furthermore, our energy consumption is constantly becoming more efficient; our industries use as much energy today as in 1970, even though they produce considerably more today, and private consumption is constantly decreasing.
I'm not sure about you, but I'd rather rely on ecofriendlier and locally produced energy than fossil power or nuclear power. Fossil power and nuclear power will obviously not become obsolete over night, but I see no point in increasing our dependence on them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RAK
Minster of Plenty
Post #59463
Joined: 15 May 2004
Posts: 1689
Total Words: 320,480
Average words per post: 189.75
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2009-09-25 11:59
|
|
| Politics: Democratic Socialist |
Country: Ireland |
|
| |
Post Rating: 3.0/4 (2 votes cast) |
|
|
| Ingsoc Officer wrote: |
| Sounds like an odd point to me. Admittedly, my memory is a little sketchy on this, but isn't there 1-10 ppm uranium in byproducts of coal and 100-500 ppm in normal uranium ore? Be that as it may, the concentrations are considerably lower and I seriously doubt that the uranium in these byproducts could be exploited at a resonable cost. |
There also happen to be other materials contained in this slag which could be exploited, and as I mentioned, in a circumstance where energy needs were comfortably met, industrial resources will become the limiting factor when it comes to commercial production.
| Ingsoc Officer wrote: |
| That coal combustion argubaly is worse than nuclear fission only makes nuclear fission better than coal combustion; it doesn't necessarily make nuclear fission good. I think proponents of nuclear power have a tendency to be a bit narrow-minded and polarise the debate between coal power and nuclear power. There are other alternatives, you know. |
All of which have their own limitations, which I examine in the article. Solar power, as it stands, is decidedly limited, despite having the most potential as an energy source. It has a very low capacity factor, on the order of 15-30%, is hamstrung by weather conditions and cannot cope easily with the surges in demand during early morning and evening times. It's most notably limited to times of sunshine, which is a particular problem during winter, which incidentally is the time when energy is most required for heating purposes. Big problems there, then.
Wind power is currently a superior option, but far from perfect. Again, you have low capacity factors, a design hamstrung by weather conditions and little ability to cope with surges in demand. To be fair, the weather conditions that a wind turbine can operate effectively in are less limiting than effective conditions for a solar panel, but while wind turbines are at least able to operate during the night, you have to build a massive excess in case of unfavourable weather conditions, which means a lot of wasted space.
Hydroelectric power is definitely the most reasonable of all renewable power sources as it stands. It's reliable, efficient and cost-effective, and has the distinct advantage of operating throughout the entire day, with very few limits due to weather. However, there are clues as to why there are still problems with it in the name. It's limited to sources of water, which aren't always available when you need them. As well as that, when it goes wrong, it goes very wrong. As it stands, hydroelectric power is by far the most dangerous source of electricity around, as evidenced by the Banqiao Dam disaster. As I mention below, if the likes of the Hoover Dam were to fail or be destroyed, millions could be killed, and a large portion of the Western United States would be redefined.
You can't exactly store the energy from periods where supply exceeds demand very effectively either. Batteries, whether they be lead-acid, nickel-cadmium, lithium ion, et cetera, offer a very low storage capacity per unit volume and weight, and that's before you even consider the cost of producing those batteries. Hydrogen storage, which is a more reasonable option, has its own disadvantages. Hydrogen, being the smallest and lightest element, has a tendency to leak out of the tanks that are used to store it. This slow leaking limits the effectiveness of hydrogen storage, meaning that you can't rely on it for any extended period.
| Ingsoc Officer wrote: |
| I'd choose democracy over technocracy any time. |
Indeed. Technocracy has the decided disadvantage that scientists and engineers have a tendency to be self-absorbed and careless when it comes to governmental procedures.
| Ingsoc Officer wrote: |
| Why should I have to choose between these two options? There are more options, you know. Maybe you should look outside your own country for inspiration? The kWh production per capita in my country is actually higher than in the USA and more than twice as high than in the UK, but nevertheless considerably more ecofriendly: |
I've mentioned above the disadvantages of many renewable energy sources, and despite rapid development, it doesn't look like those sources of energy will improve much over the coming years. Now, to be fair, Ireland is probably the best place in Europe to develop wind power from, as the western coast is an ideal place for the production of wind turbines, but our government seems to like the dependence on oil and coal. Don't blame me: I didn't vote for them.
Now, my personal ideal situation in a realistic context would be the general decentralisation of power generation, under a sort of "a solar panel and wind turbine on every roof" system, with a small number of nuclear reactors and a larger number of wind turbines providing extra capabilities in the case of surges which the decentralised supply couldn't take care of.
However, such a plan doesn't look like it will come into fruition any time soon; personal wind turbines and solar panels cost money, and people aren't willing to spend that money unless they know they'll get their money's worth. As well as that, in countries unlike Ireland, where the power supply is not controlled by the government, there will be power companies opposing these plans to protect their own profits. Decentralised power has its own disadvantages, because when you scale something like a wind turbine down to the size necessary for it to fit onto a house without contravening planning laws, it becomes far less efficient than the much larger wind turbines found in open areas.
| Ingsoc Officer wrote: |
| I'm not sure about you, but I'd rather rely on ecofriendlier and locally produced energy than fossil power or nuclear power. Fossil power and nuclear power will obviously not become obsolete over night, but I see no point in increasing our dependence on them. |
In a situation where renewable energy was capable of operating on a level where it could actively replace fossil and nuclear power, of course it would be preferable not to use them. Unfortunately, as it stands, all sources of renewable energy have weaknesses which make them incapable of supplying countries on their own. The most important thing to do would be to quickly wean ourselves off fossil fuels, as not only are there the environmental consequences of continuing to use oil and coal, but also the difficulty of synthesising chemicals which we usually derive from petroleum byproducts. A mixture of all available supplies of energy will be required, and that includes the most reliable and flexible source of "alternative" energy that we have to hand.
_________________
"Rejection of technology ruins a good mind." - RAK
* * * * * * * * * *
INTERNET NEWS SERVICES
[ Online Radio Resources:
RTE: www.rte.ie
BBC: www.bbc.co.uk ]
[ The Irish Times Online: www.ireland.com ] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ingsoc Officer
Minister of Truth
Post #59474
Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Posts: 3714
Total Words: 367,784
Average words per post: 99.03
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2009-09-30 08:31
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (2 votes cast) |
|
|
| RAK wrote: |
| Ingsoc Officer wrote: |
| Sounds like an odd point to me. Admittedly, my memory is a little sketchy on this, but isn't there 1-10 ppm uranium in byproducts of coal and 100-500 ppm in normal uranium ore? Be that as it may, the concentrations are considerably lower and I seriously doubt that the uranium in these byproducts could be exploited at a resonable cost. |
There also happen to be other materials contained in this slag which could be exploited, and as I mentioned, in a circumstance where energy needs were comfortably met, industrial resources will become the limiting factor when it comes to commercial production. |
I have no doubt that these byproducts can be exploited. What I doubt is that they can be exploited at a reasonable price, especially as other forms of energy production become cheaper.
| RAK wrote: |
| Ingsoc Officer wrote: |
| That coal combustion argubaly is worse than nuclear fission only makes nuclear fission better than coal combustion; it doesn't necessarily make nuclear fission good. I think proponents of nuclear power have a tendency to be a bit narrow-minded and polarise the debate between coal power and nuclear power. There are other alternatives, you know. |
All of which have their own limitations, which I examine in the article. Solar power, as it stands, is decidedly limited, despite having the most potential as an energy source. It has a very low capacity factor, on the order of 15-30%, is hamstrung by weather conditions and cannot cope easily with the surges in demand during early morning and evening times. It's most notably limited to times of sunshine, which is a particular problem during winter, which incidentally is the time when energy is most required for heating purposes. Big problems there, then. |
I must say that I find it slightly confusing that you focus on the capacity factor. It could as well be as low as 10 % and it wouldn't make a difference. (Besides, solar power towers and geothermal plants have capacity factors that are almost as high as those of conventional nuclear power plants - sometimes even higher!)
The availability factor is a problem, though. However, it's not as big a problem as it may seem:
- Solar power can be combined with wind power. Meteorological studies suggest that they can reach a availability factor of (almost) 100 % together. If 100 % isn't reached, some fossil and nuclear power plants can serve as complements.
- Comparatively low availability factors or not, solar power plants are being produced on a previously unseen level. For instance, Siemens have received orders for 42 solar powered steam turbines and can barely meet the demand. If solar power production would have been so utterly inefficient, I find it hard to believe that so much money would be invested in it.
- Research on energy storage is being conducted as we speak. Technologies that are being researched currently are supercapacitors, flywheels, zinc-bromine batteries, sodium-sulfur batteries, lead-acid batteries etc. I'm admittedly not an expert on these technologies, but I know that plenty of time and money are invested in these research projects, and I don't think it's overly optimistic to believe that at least one of the technologies will prove efficient in time.
- Notice that lakes potentially can be used as solar panels. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure how far this research has reached, though.
- The project commissioning time for a nuclear plant is 10-20 years. Considering how quickly solar power production evolves today, nuclear power plants can become obsolete before they even have become completed.
| RAK wrote: |
| Wind power is currently a superior option, but far from perfect. Again, you have low capacity factors, a design hamstrung by weather conditions and little ability to cope with surges in demand. To be fair, the weather conditions that a wind turbine can operate effectively in are less limiting than effective conditions for a solar panel, but while wind turbines are at least able to operate during the night, you have to build a massive excess in case of unfavourable weather conditions, which means a lot of wasted space. |
Basically, what I've said about solar power applies to wind power as well. The only thing I want to add is that there's plenty of space in the seas.
| RAK wrote: |
| Hydroelectric power is definitely the most reasonable of all renewable power sources as it stands. It's reliable, efficient and cost-effective, and has the distinct advantage of operating throughout the entire day, with very few limits due to weather. However, there are clues as to why there are still problems with it in the name. It's limited to sources of water, which aren't always available when you need them. As well as that, when it goes wrong, it goes very wrong. As it stands, hydroelectric power is by far the most dangerous source of electricity around, as evidenced by the Banqiao Dam disaster. As I mention below, if the likes of the Hoover Dam were to fail or be destroyed, millions could be killed, and a large portion of the Western United States would be redefined. |
Again, hydroelectric power can be combined with other forms of power production. I think you exaggerate the risks with power dams, as the majority of them are quite small. Furthermore, let's not forget tidal power!
| RAK wrote: |
| You can't exactly store the energy from periods where supply exceeds demand very effectively either. Batteries, whether they be lead-acid, nickel-cadmium, lithium ion, et cetera, offer a very low storage capacity per unit volume and weight, and that's before you even consider the cost of producing those batteries. Hydrogen storage, which is a more reasonable option, has its own disadvantages. Hydrogen, being the smallest and lightest element, has a tendency to leak out of the tanks that are used to store it. This slow leaking limits the effectiveness of hydrogen storage, meaning that you can't rely on it for any extended period. |
Please see above.
| RAK wrote: |
| Ingsoc Officer wrote: |
| I'd choose democracy over technocracy any time. |
Indeed. Technocracy has the decided disadvantage that scientists and engineers have a tendency to be self-absorbed and careless when it comes to governmental procedures. |
Engineers certainly make better servants than rulers, but I think that engineers have become too obidient and submissive to the establishment. After all, the Cold War has ended.
| RAK wrote: |
| Ingsoc Officer wrote: |
| Why should I have to choose between these two options? There are more options, you know. Maybe you should look outside your own country for inspiration? The kWh production per capita in my country is actually higher than in the USA and more than twice as high than in the UK, but nevertheless considerably more ecofriendly: |
I've mentioned above the disadvantages of many renewable energy sources, and despite rapid development, it doesn't look like those sources of energy will improve much over the coming years. |
Please see above.
| RAK wrote: |
| Now, to be fair, Ireland is probably the best place in Europe to develop wind power from, as the western coast is an ideal place for the production of wind turbines, but our government seems to like the dependence on oil and coal. |
I would imagine that you could exploit tidal power as well, but I'm admittedly not an expert on your costal conditions.
| RAK wrote: |
| Don't blame me: I didn't vote for them. |
Believe me, I won't.
| RAK wrote: |
| Now, my personal ideal situation in a realistic context would be the general decentralisation of power generation, under a sort of "a solar panel and wind turbine on every roof" system, with a small number of nuclear reactors and a larger number of wind turbines providing extra capabilities in the case of surges which the decentralised supply couldn't take care of. |
Sounds most reasonable.
| RAK wrote: |
| However, such a plan doesn't look like it will come into fruition any time soon; personal wind turbines and solar panels cost money, and people aren't willing to spend that money unless they know they'll get their money's worth. As well as that, in countries unlike Ireland, where the power supply is not controlled by the government, there will be power companies opposing these plans to protect their own profits. Decentralised power has its own disadvantages, because when you scale something like a wind turbine down to the size necessary for it to fit onto a house without contravening planning laws, it becomes far less efficient than the much larger wind turbines found in open areas. |
Technological progress will eventually make it affordable; geothermal power is a good example of this. As you imply, this might be a political problem rather than a technological problem.
| RAK wrote: |
| Ingsoc Officer wrote: |
| I'm not sure about you, but I'd rather rely on ecofriendlier and locally produced energy than fossil power or nuclear power. Fossil power and nuclear power will obviously not become obsolete over night, but I see no point in increasing our dependence on them. |
In a situation where renewable energy was capable of operating on a level where it could actively replace fossil and nuclear power, of course it would be preferable not to use them. Unfortunately, as it stands, all sources of renewable energy have weaknesses which make them incapable of supplying countries on their own. The most important thing to do would be to quickly wean ourselves off fossil fuels, as not only are there the environmental consequences of continuing to use oil and coal, but also the difficulty of synthesising chemicals which we usually derive from petroleum byproducts. A mixture of all available supplies of energy will be required, and that includes the most reliable and flexible source of "alternative" energy that we have to hand. |
I think I've touched upon all these points in my post; please correct me if I'm wrong. I would just like to add that I'm not proposing that we should phase out nuclear power as quickly as possible, just that I see not point in expanding our production of nuclear power.
Then there's of course the joker in the energy deck: Fusion power... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Search
Log in
FAQ
Usergroups
Memberlist
World War V
Medals
PoliMatch
Stats
