Is nuclear power a good thing?

also i reckon small turbines in the drainpipes is a good idea.. cosidering the amount of rain we have... there r endless limits to the amount of energy that can be produced from simple things... remember anything that moves has energy and that can be converted into electricity.. yay for motion.



also.. i dont think that wind farms look all that ugly.. ok i wouldn't want them evrywhere but they look like big giants standing on the hill tops swinging their arms.
so tumbs down for nuclear.. there is always a better way.

 

Someone offered to connect a generator to my ight hand once

Seriously though, anyone who has been to Turkey (and other med countries) would have noticed how they have solar heated water tanks on their roofs .. the downside is that they only have hot water for a limited amount of time during the day, but I'm sure with a little modification this system could be well improved

 

Pinching solar panels? Insurance premiums rising? Taxation... your argument is pretty lame here Matthew. We constantly change and evolve our way of life and the market keeps up with us.... and who knows what the government will or won't tax? If we dont come up with a workable renewable energy strategy we wont have to worry about taxation at all

The infrasructure that is around at the moment?... Electricity generators etc could quite easily be closed down if needs be. I presume you are refering to the network? Well, the network for electricity would still be needed to distribute the energy Matthew. We would still need sub stations to step down the volts, whether those volts were produced by a windmill or a generator.

Yes it could be part of a global solution, along with other renewable energies.

 

I'm with Meng, nuclear fission is nasty, but cold fusion is the future, lots of energy and no nasty products unfortunatly the government would rather spend money fighting over oil than developing new methods of energy production. Stupid goverments.

 

biofuel?... hmm to me its not much better than other fuel... its still destroying something to create energy.

By harnessing nature (wind / sun / water) we are creating energy without causing destruction of a resource, even if that resource is recycled.

 

Ok it was a little..not as bad as putting turbines in drainpipes though..

I was just thinking that it may happen...people pinch lead of churches ??.

It would have to be goverment policy i suspect ?? the cost would be cheaper....rather than people buying the equipment. It would be fine in most places .. but we all don't live in nice semis were this would be easy to implement...what about high rise flats ???

After a while would it not end up like the thousands of useless mini dishes perched on the sides of houses ???

I am only throwing hurdles in the way because .... i am a git like that

 

There's not enough land in the UK to bio-fuel, like wise the US and it does not produce the energy people think it does. In Australia ethanol doesn't make more energy, its just a way to keep cane growers in op since the global sugar market took a hammering. Bio-fuels such as rape seed oil will be niche at best. The hemp thing is equally over rated.

Bottom line, people's living standards will be lowered as oil prices go up.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/fr...all_action.html

 

Fair enough...

Ok i don't think its a completly mad idea..and i am sorry for being a little objectionable...

I looked around and i see that people are trying..i do realise this.

http://www.bpsolar.com/index.cfm?page=1&BreadCrumb=yes
http://www.uwsp.edu/cnr/wcee/keep/HSSupplement/renewables/renew_world.htm

I just think that most people in this country would not apreciate the efforts made..if they suddenly have to think were the electricity is comeing from .

I think that Nuclear energy should not be dismised but were aplicable and demad willing (by the people for the people ... ) a referendum should be given.

 

hey u leave turbines in drainpipes alone.. it works.. i did it at school.. i got a light bulb to work.. yay for me

 

If i could run my TV/video/DVD/fridge etc on it ...i am sold...

 

In the case of solar, it's a seasonal source of power. It also has problems with covering up vast tracts of land, often arable land and installation in far flung deserts means major loss in electrical resistance. The cost of it is monumental. Wind also has problems because wind is generally intermittent, not to mention it zones the use of the land to life stock at best. Far too decibel noisy to live under/near. Again expensive to impliment. Tidal, it can only be done where there's coast line to be hand. The deep interiors of many nations will never use it. All of these alternatives need crude oil to build, construct and install and once oil gets too expensive then alternative energy plants will become economically impossible to construct.

In summary, such alternatives will lend at best to the few nations that are blessed with these natural renewable resources, have kept their populations low, have a culture of lower energy use and have invested/planed well in advance. The US, like too many nations, do not conform to that and so they're ever reliant on oil. Factor in India and China putting demands on oil and the situation gets dire. In 2003 alone, China increased her crude oil imports by 70%. Oil peak will happen. The supply will fall to the increasing demand and that means oil will go up in price -- it already is.

Renewable energy will only be found as a niche solution in nations too over populated and reliant on oil. Only the people in such nations who have privately invested/installed such devices on their own homes/communities in a rural self-sustaining set up will enjoy them. The majority with a state welfare attitude and others with faith in corporations will suffer. Neither side will save ya arse.

Fusion, like NASA, needs a massive GDP to develop and run. It's not something regular people can build. Now given fusion is thirty years off from a proto-type, then at best it will come too late to sustain what we see today. Now if there are the funds to develop it as an energy staple in the 2040's, most people will never benefit from it since the crash would have been. Besides, the elite will ensure that it is theirs and guard it jealousy, since it was their held wealth that built it. If such comes to pass, then they'll have the power to dictate who gets the energy, thus they can hold whole populations to ransom in an iron fist of control. Very much a tool of totalitarians, no utopia.

 

Nah throwing hurdles in the way gets the mind thinking deeper about the issues

 

Yeah ermmm thats what i was thinking ..... no seriously i was thinking that..everything is nice on paper and where everyone is 'up for it'. I have just heard so many people that do not give a hoot ... i think its a good thing what ever your point of view...as long as your talking about it...thats important , i think.

 

Seasonal?... sun is usually available for around 12hours a day

Solar is a good idea for direct power... i.e. no distance to travel, on the roof of the home or business requiring the energy.

All electricity suffers losses over distance... thats why it is stepped up to travel these distances and stepped down again at a local level.

Exactly why using a complement of various alternatives is key here.

________

The background to the issues was interesting... but there will become a point where renewable energy will be the only option either because of lack of other resources or unignorable environmental factors.

Forward planning dictates we must address these issues in advance of disaster.

 

Well I did say in my ^above post...

Only the people in such nations who have privately invested/installed such devices on their own homes/communities in a rural self-sustaining set up will enjoy them.

I will also say that one can already sell solar generated power into the existant grid where I am. Of course, you have to have the capital to put the solar onto your roof and I've thought it through, I won't do that to the property I own since I have other plans after selling this house.

In what you're putting forward, which is more a socialist utopia with "entire cities could power themselves with just their rooftops".

You're assuming or should I say forgetting that all people must...

1.) own their own houses to apply the capital investment.

2.) have paid off the mortgage so they can afford this capital investment.

3.) view it as a capital investment (which may be dicey as suburbia with far smaller than rural blocks can never be self sufficient because it is reliant on the automobile).

4.) have the the resources available to allow all people to buy this capital investment.

5.) have a society with a thriving middle class and sadly that's been blown away.

6.) be in houses located where there's the seasonal sun duration. Australia has plentiful sun even in winter. I don't see this as an option for the folks in the north of the US or the UK.

You have to be realistic, many people can not afford to buy their own home since the real estate bubble blew over the UK to the US and to Australia, which has locked a significant chunk of generation X out, with little hope to generation Y. The baby boomers have ended up with the main wealth of the middle class.

End of story, only the people with the money can make their freedom happen. The poor will be left literally in the dark and the cold and as the cost of living goes up with the price of crude, the poor will increase in number, making entire cities with solar panels on their roof tops an impo$$ibility.

Just how are you going to fund this? Ah that's right, strip the billionaire plurocrats. That will not happen. You're on your own to do the best you can for yourself. That's the $um of it.

 

This has nothing to do with being a socialist or wanting utopia??? What are you on about?

It is to do with providing renewable energy so we dont use all our resourses up and add to the ever increasing environmental problems we are causing.

No where have I said "entire cities could power themselves with just their rooftops". As I mentioned before... I work within the utilities industry (Gas Water Electric and Telecoms) so am well aware of our possibilities and restrictions within the limits of the industry as it stands.

I am involved in a group that is campaigning for Developers to install solar panels as standard on new housing. The government could give out grants / subsidise the conversion of existing properties on a sliding scale basis linked to income.

Apart from installation and repair / maintenance, the day to day running costs would be none existant... As sunshine is free.

Over a period of time solar would become a much cheaper alternative for "the poor" than the current system

 

OK, it's catch-up time....

This makes me laugh. How can you possibly describe a thermonuclear reaction as 'safe'? By this definition, guns and bombs are 'safe'.

Fusion and fission are two very different beasts though. It may be entirely possible to develop a safe, clean cold fusion reactor, but this is still effectively in the realm of science fiction. Fusion isn't something that I'm opposed to though, simply because dangerous fissile materials are not required.

This is, of course, entirely true. But it's still missing the point. What Chernobyl demonstrates is that even with nuclear energy, people make mistakes. The question is not really "how likely is there to be a nuclear accident", but rather "can we afford to take the risk". Say there's a 0.0000001% chance of there being a nuclear accident in the UK. If that accident comes to pass, how much comfort will you get from saying "well hey, the chances were slim"?

Claire..... I do think that the idea of a society powered by renewable energy can fairly be described as a utopian ideal. Not that utopian ideals are a bad thing though, in my opinion. The question then is whether such a utopian idea is achievable. Certainly, valid points have been raised addressing the problems with this. Construction of large scale natural energy alternatives still require a high investment of fossil fuels - which are running out. Really, the problem isn't just limited to energy generation, but must be considered in the wider context of our oil dependency. If we can't implement an alternative to oil, we're screwed. With or without nuclear power, alternative energy, or anything else.

 

But you could argue that guns for use in sports are not intended to kill. Industrial explosives are certainly not designed to kill. Are they 'safe'? Nuclear reactors may not be designed to kill, but in the same way that guns are designed to fire a high speed projectile, and explosives are designed to.... well, explode!.... nuclear reactors are designed to create a thermonuclear fusion reaction. None of these examples are 'safe'.

Well yes. But this doesn't also carry the threat of wholesale nuclear destruction, does it? It's not a question of whether risk is acceptable, it's a question of whether the consequences of a risk are acceptable.

Again though, the risks associated with nuclear power are uniquely catastrophic.

 

Nuclear fusion is the answer to our dreams!!

Only, as yet, it is impossible on the Earth. Hmm.

But still, one they figure out how to do it...
Readily available fuel, no radiactive waste, no toxins....

 

didnt someone sometime burn all those tyres and convert the smoke to something safer for the environment, or was my biology teacher lieing?