Oil Producing countries of the World Tremble!

[Frog march]

Biofuels: The energy balance is a big problem - it is tricky getting more energy out than put in. It takes up a lot of land area that competes with regular agriculture, and isn't all that clean

I have read that you can convert cars to run on a cookingfat/petrol mix, and Shell is doing a lot of research into biofuel. I suppose the fossil fuel companies know that the game is up and are trying to find other options.....
In this way I suppose it is good to look at nuclear because it puts some pressure on companys like Shell to do the reseach..

I heard an estimate of 5years from a UK politician for when solar would become ecconomical, but you HAVE to start somewhere with this.
Solar cells will for a longtime keep increasing in their efficiency.

[mopc]

An ideal world would be a vast supply of fission later supplanted by forthcoming fusion;

wind energy where possible and where those huge propellers don't ruin tha landscape

solar energy to diminish the need for earth-made power when it's sunny.


But solar and wind are not and never will be a permanent reliable source of energy because it's not always sunny and it's not always windy - and if you store that energyin batteries, its expansive and batteries are not environmentally friendly because of those metals (at least that's what I know).

The world could be 90% nuclear and 10% wind/solar, maybe 80%-20%.

[mopc]

Well that last comment was puerile.

Just think of a helium nucleus blasting out of a radon atom at 10% the speed of light next time you inhale.

60% of your radiation dosage comes from radon. That's a fact of life, nuclear power or not.

Well, how much radiation do we get normally and where does it come from? Does fossil fuel burning generate radiation? What other non-nuke energy production process generates radiation?

[Frog march]

How about covering the Sahara Desert with solar cells, surely enough energy falls on that, and most of the time, to supply most of europe and africa. And america has its desserts.

You don't need batteries to store energy, you can use reservours.
When there is plenty of energy you pump water up into a reservour and then when its cloudy or nighttime you let it out through turbines..

They do this already.

[Glom]

I've heard AAGW alarmists of all people making recommendations like that. It's funny really. The change in albedo of an area that big could bring about some noticeable climate changes.

But you have to consider what it would take to cover an area that big. Highly dangerous chemicals are used to make PV cells. I'm not saying it's bad, but turning the Sahara desert in a power station is hardly free energy. Fission and fusion can do the job in a far more compact way. Compact is good for the environment and easier to use.

Besides, do you really think GP would cooperate? Bait 'n' switch is their game. They advocate these alternatives, but they turn on them when they actually get implemented.

[mopc]

How about covering the Sahara Desert with solar cells, surely enough energy falls on that, and most of the time, to supply most of europe and africa. And america has its desserts.

Not more than 50% of the time! And it would be very expensive. Think about the distance; the transmission lines would be very expensive too.

You don't need batteries to store energy, you can use reservours.
When there is plenty of energy you pump water up into a reservour and then when its cloudy or nighttime you let it out through turbines..

They do this already.

Interesting, I didn't know

[Glom]

What other non-nuke energy production process generates radiation?

Coal power stations throw out around twice as much activity in the form of uranium and thorium, which would yield more energy if burnt than the coal itself.

[Van Rijn]

How about covering the Sahara Desert with solar cells, surely enough energy falls on that, and most of the time, to supply most of europe and africa. And america has its desserts.

Not more than 50% of the time! And it would be very expensive. Think about the distance; the transmission lines would be very expensive too.

Exactly, and there are efficiency losses when transmitting power over long distances. It makes more sense to keep the PV panels close to where they are being used, but many places just aren't that well suited for solar power. But, as you said, the key issue is that it is expensive. It costs several times as much as conventional power production today.

You don't need batteries to store energy, you can use reservours.
When there is plenty of energy you pump water up into a reservour and then when its cloudy or nighttime you let it out through turbines..

They do this already.

Interesting, I didn't know

Yes, it is done, but it isn't all that efficient and there are only so many places this can be done. You want storage as efficient as possible because you need more expensive panels to make up the efficiency loss. If solar were to supply all our electricity, you would need truly vast power storage capacity, and that would be an expense IN ADDITION to the cost of the PV panels and electrical distribution.

I am hoping that PV will eventually make up a significant portion of the supply, but it isn't "the" answer to the energy supply problem.

[Edited to add]

Found this site on power storage -

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/disted/ph162/l8.html

Regarding hydro power storage -

Hydropower is 80% efficient (uphill or downhill). So to pump uphill and the get energy downhill, efficiency is 0.8x0.8 = 64%

That's an additional 36% you need to make up. Ouch.

[mopc]

What other non-nuke energy production process generates radiation?

Coal power stations throw out around twice as much activity in the form of uranium and thorium, which would yield more energy if burnt than the coal itself.

So coal power stations are twice as radioactive than fission stations, in normal operation conditions?

[Glom]

Yes, although as I said before twice nothing is still nothing.

[Van Rijn]

So coal power stations are twice as radioactive than fission stations, in normal operation conditions?

More than that, Uranium and Thorium aren't the whole picture. Nor does that count all the other nasties that aren't radioactive. This link will tell you more than you ever wanted to know about coal radioactivity:

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/...t/colmain.html

[mopc]

Yes, although as I said before twice nothing is still nothing.

So a nuclear power plant operating normally, doesnt release any radiation?

[Maksutov]

holy canoli Glom! thanks!!!!

I'll put aside my War and Peace and go for a really long text... your post!

Thanks

You'd think that with such an important topic, he'd supply some detail to support his arguments!

BTW, Glom, here's an illustration that was on some air filters I bought for my house's HVAC system. When I saw this, I returned them to the store, and fired off a nastygram to the manufacturer.

[Morrolan]

and we actually thing that Greenpeace would allow us to plow under all the forests left in the world to produce oilseeds for biofuels? (cos we sure as hell can't remove existing farmland given that we'd starve)

or let countries 'cover up' entire deserts with solar cells? that's nature too, you know! think about the endangered Gila monster or the horned viper! won't work.

in Europe environmental activists have successfully blocked the construction of more wind parks due to the horizon pollution and noise pollution and migrating birds may fly into them.... =D>

i'm begining to suspect their real aim is make us go back to candles and horse and carts and to ultimately get rid of humans altogether. :roll:

[edit typo]

[Maksutov]

[edit]

i'm begining to suspect their real aim is make us go back to candles and horse and carts and to ultimately get rid of humans altogether. :roll:

[edit typo]

Hey! Someone else "gets it"!!!

8)

Too bad we can't get Lrrr (from Omicron Persei 8 ) over here to chow down on a few of 'em.

[mopc]

I understand that the common populace doenst understand that 'nucular' energy is much safer than any other... but the German government? Why did Germany decide to phase out all of their nuclear power plants? What are they gonna replace it with? Wind? COAL for chrissake?!

How much is Germany investing in fusion by the way? My god it must be tough a country where the Green Party is the third largest!!!!

[Manchurian Taikonaut]

Yes there are dangers in using Wind power for workers, Coal, and Tidal energy, but the difference is when things go wrong in one of these places the workers can die. However when things go wrong in a Nuke plant not only do workers die but there is a chance you may see a scorched earth, where thousands of people from miles around can die of radiation induced cancers, and leaving a large exclusion zone around the area of accident. Glom can sometimes seem a bit of a nuke fanatic, but he has much rational logical debate but other nuke-fans are sometimes not so rational and try to hide dangers that people fear. Church Rock in the USA had uranium leaks causing local water to become 6,500 times as radioactive as safety standards allow. Trying to tell a nuke fanatic the dangers of nuclear power may be like try to convice a religious zealot reading adam and eve is point less, or wasting time trying to argue with a fundamentalist Arab that bowing to Mecca won't do his spine any good. We have to look at things logically and with objective thought, nuclear power may be a fantastic solution to the World's Energy problems. Nuclear power might help us move forward and solve many energy needs but there are real dangers.

Vega115 has also posted some info telling us of Chernobyl: winds in the region carried it to Byelorussia, the Baltic republics, and the boundaries of the USSR. (G. Medvedev 7 Take into account that the Hiroshima Bomb only detonated about 4.5 tons of material, and Chernobyl spewed nearly 50 tons. That is equivalent to ten Hiroshima Bombs (minus the firestorm and mushroom cloud), plus about 70 tons of fuel and 700 tons of radioactive graphite, which settled in the area of the reactor, or was spewed into the atmosphere as evaporated fuel. (G. Medvedev 79) Once the engineers in the control room realized what happened, all of the consequences started to set in. Beskeptical visited Nagasaki and I can toldl us it is extremely emotional, you can image the devastation and trama a Nuke accident may have in light of our recent deaths on Earth, and Nuclear Energy has only been here a short time and already caused much trouble. Nuclear power might become the fantastic Energy source we need, but we also need much higher safety standards if we are to us nuke Energy to supply the nations.

They say that much of Nevada, Utah and Arizona now have very high-levels of radioactive contamination, and in'58 nuclear criticality accident occured from a solution in a plutonium recovery operation at Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory in New Mexico with the operator dying later of acute radiation sickness. A US government study found the fallout from nuclear tests carried out by the US in Nevada has caused the death of an estimated 14,910 Americans, other studies estimates that 81,200 people who lived around Atomic test sites have contracted or will contract cancer as a result of American nuclear tests. Female workers at places like at the Radium Dial Company's factory were to suddenly see their teeth falling out and their jaws dropping out of their heads, radium was appliedto watches and clocks with small paint brushes and these women developed jaw and other mouth cancers. There was also much trouble at Windscale, Mayfield or Sellafield - it seems these guys may go through frequent name changes to avoid corporate responsibilty, one of the worst cases where a fire destroyed the core of the reactor and released large quantaties of radioactive fumes into the UK and around Europe. In the USA the National Cancer Institute admitted that fallout from the 1950's atomic bomb tests blanketed the nation at levels far inexcess of what the government has admitted to, and in one of its reports t it said there could be between 10,000 and 75,000 cases of thyroid cancer among those exposed due to Iodine 131. As Donnie B said -

I think we should be looking for better and safer ways to exploit nuclear energy, but we should never overlook or downplay its potential hazards, not even when we're touting its potential benefits.

and I think he is right.
and as I have already commented

I think Oil from the middle East is sometimes a total waste of time, some of those corrupt Arab nations give out the hand of friendship to the USA and then stab Americans in the back with the other hand. There is much corruption and the oil shock of the 70s should have taught us much about corruption, bleeding other economics with their hijack type oil dimplomacy that cost the US economy billions of dollars in the 70s and the dangers of such blockades. The Middle east seems to be a waste of time, and no matter what path or what USA does there seems to be growing anti-Amercanism. I think if the USA were to move away from depending so much on this area it would help America a lot. The region is high unstable and has cost America much, also Oil groups cost the US economy a lot and cost the USA's industry. IF Europe or the USA builds a Fusion reactor and no longer needs to depend so much on this area it will help them a lot.

Nuke Energy is a very powerful idea and could help us greatly and solve much of the world's energy problems, it is a very good energy source

However Nuclear power is young and has already been responsible for many deaths, safety is very important !! and sadly we have already been let down many times by safety records

[mopc]

Yeah but the question is: nuclear fission seems to be by far the safest of all. Coal burning releases more radiation, even with no accidents. Dams destroy nature and burst.

[Frog march]

Did you ever watch The China Syndrome?

[Glom]

Did you ever hear of Three Mile Island? It showed how that movie was pure Hollywood bunk. Jane Fonda should stick to acting.

(Well you all knew that wouldn't go unchallenged.)

[Frog march]

Did you ever hear of Three Mile Island?

Who's in that then?

[Glom]

BNFL now I believe. They bought the remaining units for a bargain.

[Van Rijn]

Did you ever watch The China Syndrome?

Bad fantasy movie, as realistic as Armageddon.

[Frog march]

Chernobyl was just symptomatic of how the rest of the USSR was run.
I heard that they had bits of coke bottles and stuff fixed onto their control panel(improvising) because they couldn't afford proper instrumentation.
The whole site was probably run on that kind of shoestring approach.

[Glom]

Indeed. I know it's easier to say this with hindsight, but it wasn't considered safe by Western standards even before the accident. For one thing, all reactors in the West have containment vessels.

[Captain Kidd]

Dang looks like I've missed a good thread. I'll have to read it tonight and throw in my ringside comments later.

[Van Rijn]

There is a detailed review of the Chernobyl accident here:

http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter7.html

Some of the points noted:

1. A reactor which is unstable against a loss of water could not be licensed in the United States.
2. A reactor which is unstable against a temperature increase could not be licensed here.
3. A large power reactor without a containment could not be licensed here.
4. In contrast to the laxity at Chernobyl, regulations are strictly enforced here. Violations like operators cheating on examinations or falling asleep on the job,failing to report promptly on minor malfunctions, or failing to carry out a required inspection have brought large fines, plus lots of bad publicity to the utility. Flagrantly violating rules of reactor operation, and disabling important safety interlocks, are essentially unthinkable in U.S. plants.

He says U.S., but this applies to Western power reactors in general. There's plenty more ...

[mopc]

There is a detailed review of the Chernobyl accident here:

http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter7.html

Some of the points noted:

1. A reactor which is unstable against a loss of water could not be licensed in the United States.
2. A reactor which is unstable against a temperature increase could not be licensed here.
3. A large power reactor without a containment could not be licensed here.
4. In contrast to the laxity at Chernobyl, regulations are strictly enforced here. Violations like operators cheating on examinations or falling asleep on the job,failing to report promptly on minor malfunctions, or failing to carry out a required inspection have brought large fines, plus lots of bad publicity to the utility. Flagrantly violating rules of reactor operation, and disabling important safety interlocks, are essentially unthinkable in U.S. plants.

So maybe we finally know where exactly is Homer Simpson's Springfield: northern Ukraine!!!!

[Frog march]

Here is the future of Nuclear power,


http://www.eurekalert.org/features/d...-net071204.php


it will start off being just for non-nuclear countries but I bet that the west will be using them in the end.

[VTBoy]

I hope this technology pans out. At current rates of consumption, we're set to just about run out of fossil fuels when this becomes a economically viable energy option.

I hope they get the issue of where to build ITER settled soon. It's good news that the EU is willing to shoulder it alone if need be, too.

One project with the 6 countries is better than 2 projects with 3 countries each.