.:`=-~rANdOm~`-=:. Game Servers (Read Only) > Discussion

On nuclear energy

(1/2) > >>

Xrain:
Personally I am all for nuclear energy.

All forms of energy production have a cost associated with them. There is no "perfect" way to produce energy. To me the cost/benefit ratio for nuclear plants is significantly better than almost all other forms of energy production.

Getting rid of nuclear reactors completely is a terrible idea, since for the most part they are replaced with wonderful things like coal power (Germany). Coal power mind you also releases noticeable amounts of radiation from the thorium and uranium contained in the fly ash that is generated.

One of the biggest concerns with nuclear power of course is a nuclear accident. Ironically one of the biggest reasons for the current risk of nuclear accidents, is because people are afraid of nuclear power plants and have done their best to restrict their usage.

 Yes, I understand that this statement sounds strange and you might be questioning my sanity. The reason I say this is because it is nearly impossible to build new nuclear power-plants anywhere other than china. So instead of being able to take advantage of up to 60 years of technological innovation. We are stuck stringing along old nuclear power plants that were built 5-10 years after the technology was first developed.

This is similar to modern commercial airlines on aircraft built in the 1930's... (like this plane http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_ANT-20 which 2 of 2 crashed)

So because nuclear power development is so difficult to do in both research terms and replacing old power plants, it makes the whole thing more dangerous than it could have been otherwise.

To put nuclear safety in perspective since the start of nuclear power there have been 33 nuclear power-plant accidents since 1952 (year of the first one). These range from a small leak in a coolant pipe, to a workers getting exposed, to Chernobyl. That's ~450 nuclear plants most have been running since the 1960's and only 33 accidents (in the world) have ever happened. I know of no other endeavor by man that has this level of safety and there is even plenty of technology that has been developed that increases this even more.

Flying aircraft is the safest mode of travel available to us. The chances of a fatal accident occurring is about 1 in 4 million. The safety net we use at my work for being hit by a piece of debris if a rocket exploded on the launch pad is 1 in 1 million. Despite this level of safety there were 32 commercial airline accidents just in 2011. Yes there are more aircraft than nuclear powerplants, but not many commercial airliners have been in continuous operation since the 60's either.

For example if we still had a strong nuclear development program perhaps we could have thorium based nuclear power-plants in operation by now. Such benefits include: Radioactive waste produced is safe in ~300 years, It can run on the waste of other older nuclear reactors, It produces much less radiative waste, the whole list is quite long. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor

300 years sound like a lot? well that plastic bottle you threw away can take up to 3000 years to break down. If your landfill uses balers to compress the trash it can take 100 years+ just for newspaper to break down.

Cake Faice:
Going off topic here about landfills, I've always liked the idea of researching machinery and transportation to move massive amounts of trash from landfills to a rocket plant, invest in high storage capacity rockets and just send the rockets out to space toward the sun. Of course I'm pretty sure there is a million flaws with this plan but if it were possible, it would be a neat way of getting rid of our trash besides burning it if landfills get too full.

But as for nuclear energy, apart from solar and wind and all other clean forms of efficient energy, I'm 100% for it, but at the same time I think we shouldn't heavily depend on it because like Xrain brought up, if an accident happens, it's not going to be a big no deal accident...it's going to be very huge and might turn the country into a deserted waste land if another Chernobyl occurs. That or invest in a lot more electronic automated systems and very alert staff in case if something is out of place.

blαh2355:
I agree with you. I have always liked nuclear energy for its cleanliness, power, and long-term benefits. The problem with the safety is that workers/company should understand that they're dealing with nuclear power and can't be too careless. Extreme caution and precaution must be used while following procedures. It's true that it will leave nuclear waste but I think it's better to leave something in the ground for a while that will eventually decay rather than polluting air.

Xrain:

--- Quote from: Cake Faice on November 03, 2013, 12:54:04 PM ---Going off topic here about landfills, I've always liked the idea of researching machinery and transportation to move massive amounts of trash from landfills to a rocket plant, invest in high storage capacity rockets and just send the rockets out to space toward the sun. Of course I'm pretty sure there is a million flaws with this plan but if it were possible, it would be a neat way of getting rid of our trash besides burning it if landfills get too full.

But as for nuclear energy, apart from solar and wind and all other clean forms of efficient energy, I'm 100% for it, but at the same time I think we shouldn't heavily depend on it because like Xrain brought up, if an accident happens, it's not going to be a big no deal accident...it's going to be very huge and might turn the country into a deserted waste land if another Chernobyl occurs. That or invest in a lot more electronic automated systems and very alert staff in case if something is out of place.

--- End quote ---

Well the current going rate for using a rocket to send things into space is about $20,000 a pound to LEO, and about $100,000 a pound to get it in earth escape. So I think shooting our trash to space is a non-starter for many many reasons. Haven't you ever watched Futurama?

Not to mention now you will just be filling space with ultra high speed death projectiles. So I think there are better ways to spend our money than trying to fly trash into space.

My favorite is called Plasma Gassification. Basically what it does is use a giant electrode to make a plasma beam into the trash that is at about 20,000 degrees. At this temperature you are not oxidizing the trash, you are breaking the molecular bonds. So instead of getting carbon dioxide and such things out of it, you get hydrogen and carbon monoxide, base metals, and silicates. All of which can be directly reused, and the hydrogen and carbon monoxide can be burned directly in diesel engines to provide power for the plant itself.

The best thing about it is it works on anything, concrete, chemical weapons, medical waste, asbestos. So after you do your initial run for recycling materials you put all the stuff that isn't easy to deal with and do the ultimate recycling process on it.

I actually proposed this technology to my city console in high school to replace our landfill. But at the time the cost was a bit too high and the technology was too new for people to want to risk it.


I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say about nuclear power. I was trying to say it was extremely safe, and the risk of a nuclear accident is not very high at all and that we should BUILD MORE NUCLEAR PLANTS. Especially to replace all of the aging ones that we currently rely on.

Cake Faice:

--- Quote from: Xrain on November 03, 2013, 05:28:58 PM ---I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say about nuclear power. I was trying to say it was extremely safe, and the risk of a nuclear accident is not very high at all and that we should BUILD MORE NUCLEAR PLANTS. Especially to replace all of the aging ones that we currently rely on.

--- End quote ---
Huh? I understood, just in what ever odds there will be an accident, hopefully for the US if we start mass using them, there will be new regulations on plants and procedures to minimize damage.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version