Nuclear Energy, yes or no

[MobiusPizza]

Feel free to express your opinion, I will express mine here.

First, I will link to this famous chart for the Fukushima incident:
http://xkcd.com/radiation/

I think nuclear energy had been given a lot of bad press, almost too much in comparison to its actual danger by sensational media reports. There aren't many alternative to low carbon power generation. Wind and solar can only really be secondary sources, as they are not 24/7 reliable, and are currently very expensive. Nuclear plants are very cheap per kwh of electricity, emits no CO2, no particulates, does not cause smog, acid rain, etc.

The mining of coal, fossil fuel, let alone burning, is so much more damaging to the enviornment. To power a 100W lightbulb for a year, one will have emitted: (source: http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/question481.htm)

Sulfur Dioxide (Main cause of acid rain) 5 pounds
Nitrogen Oxides (Causes smog and acid rain) 5.1 pounds
Carbon Dioxide 1852 pounds (This is 407,000 Litres!)

Most incidents we hear about, including the recent Fukushima reactors, was of old designs. The Fukushima reactor was comissioned around 1960s. New reactor designs are sub-critical which means they are incapable of melting down, as the reaction needs to be constantly fueled to fission. This is opposed to old reactors where you have to actively shut it down to cease fission. Examples of such meltdown-proof designs include pebble-bed reactors and Thorium fuel reactor designs. Designs base on convection cooling also means active cooling systems are not required. So the coolant failure of Fukushima nuclear plant won't happen.

Many people worries about radioactivity. But what they don't know is Coal fired power plants emits far more radiation to the atmosphere than nuclear plants, which has almost zero radiation emission unless there is a leak.


The result: estimated radiation doses ingested by people living near the coal plants were equal to or higher than doses for people living around the nuclear facilities. At one extreme, the scientists estimated fly ash radiation in individuals' bones at around 18 millirems (thousandths of a rem, a unit for measuring doses of ionizing radiation) a year. Doses for the two nuclear plants, by contrast, ranged from between three and six millirems for the same period. And when all food was grown in the area, radiation doses were 50 to 200 percent higher around the coal plants. Source: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

People often overestimate amount of high level waste generated by clean nuclear reactors. A typical large nuclear reactor produces 25–30 tons of spent fuel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_nuclear_fuel) per year. If the fuel were reprocessed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing) and vitrified (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Vitrification), the waste volume would be only about three cubic meters per year, that would fit into a bath tub.

UK is geologically stable. We don't have earthquakes, tsunami nor volcanoes. Given even Fukushima plant being designed for magnutide 9 earthquake, it coped quite well. Only the tsunami really damaged it.

Quoting Dailytech:

Every year miners lose their lives to cancer and accidents in coal mines in order to provide America's primary source of electrical power. And every decade there has been a major coal mining accident (http://www.dailytech.com/The+High+Cost+in+Life+of+Americas+Coal+Addiction+N uclear+Hatred/article18100.htm) that led to numerous deaths. Yes, uranium mining is also dangerous, but people tend to forget how dangerous fossil fuels are, far more often than they forget the dangers associated with nuclear energyAn added note from me is 1 gram of Uranium has the same energy potential as burning a tonne of coal, very roughly speaking.


Fukushima has led to three direct worker injuries due to radiation exposure. These workers were inside the plant. Thus far there have been no reported deaths from the accident.

In contrast Chernobyl reportedly resulted in 64 direct deaths, including 31 direct deaths of workers (to put this in comparison, the Deepwater Horizon explosion killed 11 people). Hundreds of workers were hospitalized.The most feared nuclear disaster of Chernobyl, has resulted casualties in range of hundreds. In contrast, the failure of the Banqiao Dam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_dam) in southern China killed 26,000 people. Yes, secondary exposure to Chernobyl radiation may have resulted in radiation sickness, but very minor cases are found. One thing about radiation dose is, the body is remarkable at repairing radiation damage as long as the damage is discontinuous and spread out over time, much like the natural background radiation from cosmic wave and earth itself. This is how people who take chest Ct scans once or twice every year suffer no ill effects.

Intesting statistics:

Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh of energy generated)

Coal (world average) 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal (China) 278
Coal (USA) 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)
source: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

So in short, modern nuclear reactor designs can produce nearly limtless power, at competitive price to coal, emit no air pollusion, no greenhouse gases, no risk of meltdown, produce little waste, and is vital to energy future until fusion bears fruit.

I also agrees nuclear waste is a problem. But I believe it is the necessary evil until we have invented fusion, which should be the next 70 years, then we don't need fission anymore.

[Murf]

I'm for, but there's no way anything other than Oil and Gas is going to become mainstream until the Oil barons decide it is so.

They hold all the cards and can choose whatever happens, money makes the world spin and they've got more money than God.

[Sarky]

Very interesting information, +rep.

Personally, I agree with nuclear electricity generation as modern day reactors have extremely high safety levels, I mean look at the actual plant in Japan. It had auto shutdown in an earthquake, backup cooling systems, the lot. It was extremely unfortunate that it went off but IMO it is a safe source of fuel. Chenboyl was caused by effectively 'overclocking' the reactor - pushing it beyond its limits. Hence the explosion.

As for future electricity generators, I'm leaning towards hydro, Wind, solar and biomass. Biomass solves a two in one solution with disposing of waste as well as electricity generation, however it is polluting. Its more viable than coal, oil and gas.

Hydro is available anywhere...look at the Three Gorges Dam for what can be done with it...

Wind has potential, but more efficient designs are needed IMO. It takes about 24 years I(AFAIK) for a single wind turbine to 'repay' itself alone in the carbon required to make it so although its not brilliant, its a good start.

Solar is available in the majority of the world, solar cells should drop in price as soon as China decides to jump on the bandwagon with renewables. Its especially useful in countries in Africa, powering small fridges to store HIV injections, for example.

Never knew that about coal releasing radiation, however it does make sense. Countries like India and China really do need to sway away from coal....

[MobiusPizza]

I'm for, but there's no way anything other than Oil and Gas is going to become mainstream until the Oil barons decide it is so.

They hold all the cards and can choose whatever happens, money makes the world spin and they've got more money than God.

I was focused more in terms of electricity generation actually. In that case oil isn't that much used as it's expensive. Even gas fired power plants are quite expensive.

I sure hope to see some of those 1950s nuclear powered cars lol.

[Snakedoc]

I think that once they do finally crack fusion then it will be mainstream. I certainly hope we see this within the next thirty years or so or the damage we have done to the environment may well be irreversible before we die out as a species.

[Sarky]

I think that once they do finally crack fusion then it will be mainstream. I certainly hope we see this within the next thirty years or so or the damage we have done to the environment may well be irreversible before we die out as a species.
Agreed. Fusion is future if it can be efficiently done and researched, but it'll take time. At one point, China was building two coal power stations a week.

In the Stern report, that if the global economy contributed 1%, the majority of the global energy issues could be ressolved, however if it is left, by 2050 it would cost 10% of the global economy. Sounds small, but considering when the US economy alone is worth nearly $15 trillion, its a tremendous figure.

I'm a geography student, I'm meant to know these things lol.

[Tainted]

Watch that video Bammy posted a few days back on oil reserves, population growth and existential growth, then tell me your opinion doesn't change on oil and population growth.

There was also a documentary on the Discovery Channel a few nights back on an underground storage repository in Finland which was built to house spent nuclear fuel rods. Both of those would change a few minds I would imagine, if people here got round to watching them.

Here's a link to the latter - http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/finlands-nuclear-waste-solution

[benzeman]

Fission - no, because it is far, far, far too dangerous. However, I am all for the research and development of fusion, as it is far safer.

[Finners]

Hopefully its only a stop gap. Hopefully

they are building a nuclear fusion reactor in france, costing £6.6bn. there is no way they are spending that much and they dont know its going to work lol

http://www.iter.org/

*EDIT*

i have no idea how accurate this site is, but it has each countries oil reserves, if you click on the country it says there oil consumption per a day. there are plenty of reserves. I'm impressed at how much oil we have in the UK actually

http://www.globalfirepower.com/proven-oil-reserves-by-country.asp

[alex24]

I'll keep this short, as I could talk about it all day.

We NEED nuclear fission reactors to meet our present energy demands without excessively elevating atmospheric CO2 and pollutants. There is nothing else that can do that in the next 50 years or so. After that, the reactors will be shot anyway.

To meet our long term needs, solar power is needed. It will have to develop and become more efficient in coming years, but it's the best way and is the only method that has the potential to meet the worlds rapidly growing energy demands and population. This is because the sun provides so much energy.

[Mokey]

I remember seeing something a little while ago that estimated it takes 17000kg of coal to produce the same amount of energy that can be taken from 1kg of nuclear fuel.

If nothing else, imo, we need fission until we either have a decent amount of sustainable plants running or fusion power is developed.

[Finners]

why do we need fission over fusion? i know one is joining atoms instead of splitting them.

does fission produce a lot more power than fusion?

[Murf]

why do we need fission over fusion? i know one is joining atoms instead of splitting them.

does fission produce a lot more power than fusion?


In case of fusion reactions, fusion reactors cannot sustain a chain reaction so they can never melt down like fission reactors. Fusion reaction produces very less or, if the right atoms are chosen, no radioactive waste. In case of nuclear fission large radioactive waste is produced and disposal of radioactive waste is a complicated problem. For nuclear power, fusion is the better choice.

Read more: Nuclear Fission vs Nuclear Fusion - Difference and Comparison | Diffen http://www.diffen.com/difference/Nuclear_Fission_vs_Nuclear_Fusion#ixzz1LzLMNM6H

:) Seems reasonably legit, but sourced from Wikipedia.

[Reako]

I found Zeitgeist very interesting and as it goes on it mentions alot about solar panel and things and well i found it very interesting.

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

I think theres only 1 way to go and thats we work for resources, i believe if we go with natural energy it will be a struggle but we will get there in the end.

Life is too easy for some of us and impossible for others, it should be peaceful and equal and we need to work together :thumb:

I know it goes a little of topic sorry about that but i love these conversations :D

[Finners]

So fusion is good and safer than fission, and we already have a fusion reactor... Hooray the world is saved and we can stop killing each other.................

[Mokey]

So fusion is good and safer than fission, and we already have a fusion reactor... Hooray the world is saved and we can stop killing each other.................

I didn't think we had fusion reactors though. Atm I think the only "man made" fusion reactions are those that take place in thermonuclear detonations and is almost impossible to harness the massive sudden energy release.

[Snakedoc]

If only we could harness the whole of the sun's output just for one second. We would be pretty much sorted for power for several thousand years. I do suspect in the future (if we get there) that something of this nature may be attempted. Not to harness the whole output but to have solar generators in orbit which will be able to send to power down. Ideally we need to be a civilisation which gets all it's power from the Sun.

[Toonshorty]

Hopefully its only a stop gap. Hopefully

they are building a nuclear fusion reactor in france, costing £6.6bn. there is no way they are spending that much and they dont know its going to work lol

http://www.iter.org/

*EDIT*

i have no idea how accurate this site is, but it has each countries oil reserves, if you click on the country it says there oil consumption per a day. there are plenty of reserves. I'm impressed at how much oil we have in the UK actually

http://www.globalfirepower.com/proven-oil-reserves-by-country.asp

If you watched that video on exponential growth then it's not that simple.

If we have a 7% GROWTH in oil usage every year then every 10 years we use double what we used 10 years ago.

So if in 2011 we used 10 Billion Gallons, at 7% growth we would have used 20Bn by 2021.

So really, the reserves will deplete faster and faster until towards the last few years where it suddenly just seems to disappear completely.

[Finners]

I didn't think we had fusion reactors though. Atm I think the only "man made" fusion reactions are those that take place in thermonuclear detonations and is almost impossible to harness the massive sudden energy release.

i'm the previous page i put a link up to a fusion reactor they are building, when i say they i mean we. the whole world is pretty much in on it.

they have built smaller test fusion reactors, theres one in this country

http://www.jet.efda.org/

*EDIT*

inside a fusion reactor lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gPg5sKBhPo&feature=related

[Toonshorty]

I didn't think we had fusion reactors though. Atm I think the only "man made" fusion reactions are those that take place in thermonuclear detonations and is almost impossible to harness the massive sudden energy release.

There are fusion reactors in the UK.

They work great the only slight flaw with it is that they use more power to actually perform the reaction than they can extract from it.

So really at the minute a fusion reaction is more endothermic in terms of actual relative export.

[Finners]

On the ITER site, it says they are aiming for a 10x gain in power

http://www.iter.org/factsfigures

[Mokey]

When I said we didn't have any I meant ones that actually work and do their job. :rolleyes:

[iGoD ReLeNtLeS]

Well it seems to be the only realistic option compared to what else is available at this time, so i say yes its needed.

[lucas4]

i think nuclear power would be a good short term replacement to fossil fuels, but we need to be investing more money into clean, renewable energy sources!

if we mess up the environment and atmosphere and world's energy supply by using dirty, polluting, non-renewable energy sources once, we r absolute fools to do it again!

nuclear fuels may last a long time, but they said the same about coal 100's of years ago, and look what it has come to now!

[lucas4]

If they could somehow turn the biproduct into some sort of smoothy then I'm all for it!

i wouldnt wanna drink radioactive smoothy!

this re-iterates the point of needing an energy source that has clean waste products and doesnt harm the atmosphere!

IIRC the only fuel that can be burnt and has natural and harmless waste products is hydrogen. its combustion produces energy and water.

nuclear power is "an easy way out" for energy companies who dont want to dip into their profits to invest in an energy production method that is costly ATM, but will show its benefits in years to come!

[lucas4]

Still need an energy efficient way of obtaining hydrogen though as it bonds to other stuff strongly so we have to burn lots of coal in wrestling it off molecules an that.

Bond breaking radioactive smoothy...?

ah, but with nuclear fusion, we can use an isotope of hydrogen which iirc is named dueterium. it is also plentiful in the oceans, so easy to obtain :)!

i think i mis-understood the original question tbh.

i am against nuclear fission
but im for nuclear fusion and other renewable energy sources

that smoothy would have to be pretty radioactive to break the hydrogen bonds :lol:

[I3R0K3N7FEET]

I think that once they do finally crack fusion then it will be mainstream. I certainly hope we see this within the next thirty years or so or the damage we have done to the environment may well be irreversible before we die out as a species.

we entered a state of irreversible around 7 years ago

[MobiusPizza]

So fusion is good and safer than fission, and we already have a fusion reactor... Hooray the world is saved and we can stop killing each other.................

erm no. No fusion reactor exists. The ones we are building, including the ITER is only experimental. It will use more energy than it will produce. But it's necessary as a prototype to advance the technology.

Commercial fusion reactor probably won't see the day for at least 50 years. It's because world government had been spending so little money on it. After 20 years fusion was proposed we only recently see the ITER project on green light.

[lucas4]

there was an interesting programme on nat geo that i watched a few months back about future energy sources.
the people on the show were very excited about methane hydrates iirc. not sure if it was called that though.

i dont think we will run out of energy as such, but the energy sources will obviously have to change, and our way of life may have to follow

[MobiusPizza]

Yeah to be honest rather than hunting for the Higgs boson for the moment the physics community should concentrate effort on ITER. The world has far more stuff to worry about lol, energy security, food shortage, population explosion...

[MobiusPizza]

there was an interesting programme on nat geo that i watched a few months back about future energy sources.
the people on the show were very excited about methane hydrates iirc. not sure if it was called that though.

i dont think we will run out of energy as such, but the energy sources will obviously have to change, and our way of life may have to follow

Yeah basically methane hydrates is just significant deposits of methane locked in crystals. Potentially vast source of another fossil fuel. Then again it comes with all the disadvantages of fossil fuel, mainly enviornmental damage by mining and release of greenhouse gases.

[lucas4]

Yeah basically methane hydrates is just significant deposits of methane locked in crystals. Potentially vast source of another fossil fuel. Then again it comes with all the disadvantages of fossil fuel, mainly enviornmental damage by mining and release of greenhouse gases.

yeah that rings a few bells actually.

they were really excited tho, because they were saying something like it burnt 'forever' or tiny amounts just 'didnt go out' or at least thats what i made of it :p!

again tho, like other fossil fuels comes the extraction problem which was abnormally awkward for this fuel.

renewable energy sources are the future IMO.

every house built within the last 5 years in certain areas in countries like turkey for example have solar panels on their roofs. its not much, but its a step in the right direction.
now if there was a law in this country where u had to do something like that, but maybe use a wind turbine instead, it would be another massive step in the right direction, and then we could avoid being forced into using nuclear fission as an energy supplier

[I3R0K3N7FEET]

personally i feel that there is no need to be using any form of fuel to create electricity.

[zaz]

Fossil fules are finite and the next best immediate solution is Nuclear, followed by massive longterm investment in hydro/solar production.

Fusion is on the cards of course but noone can predict when that breakthrough will happen, Nuclear just has a bad rep is all, but people forget/dont know the damage fossil fuels cause, the US being the prime culprit as the worlds largest consumer of coal afaik.

[Murf]

US being the prime culprit as the worlds largest consumer

Stopped there, they're the largest consumer of everything and until they "grow up" as a society they're going to be stuck feeding on everything that comes from the Government making money from fossil fuels.

The main problem is that society look at radiation and scream "OH NOES, we're going to MUTATE" and don't even consider that in some parts of the county radiation is normally at a higher level than you'd get from living near a Nuclear Station.

Then you try and tell people about the radiation from the sun (a massive nuclear reaction) but they still go outside and lie down in it all day. Knowledge and money are the two key issues to people heading towards a much more sustainable and reliable/consistent fuel source.

Added after 2 minutes:


personally i feel that there is no need to be using any form of fuel to create electricity.

Are you trolling or trying to suggest a non-fuel like solar or wind?

[I3R0K3N7FEET]

Are you trolling or trying to suggest a non-fuel like solar or wind?

I dont troll... at least unintentionally.


nuclear IS the only short term solution in consideration to how we are enslaved to the current economic system.

was i suggesting non fuel based sources of energy?

no i wasnt. wind and solar have their uses but are never going to be that efficient. i do not believe we will ever reach a point where it is feasable to permanantly rely on solar or wind power.

[Broadsword1976]

I think the plants will always be needed and constantly improved..after all at some point in the future Oil, Gas and Coal will run out, they have to - it's a finite resource.

I'd like to see more government incentives geared at allowing us at the household level to more cheaply access renewable/alternative energy sources...I have Solar Panels (PV) and have been mightily impressed by them (1000Kwh+ produced June last year to Febuary this year, for which we get 50% @ something like 33p Per Kwh on the Feed in Tariff) and a £270 saving on last years 'lecy bill - but they weren't cheap to install and all government schemes to help with Microgeneration of electricity seem to have died off.

I'd love to compliment the solar energy with a wind turbine too but unfortunately getting it up (ooer) is next to impossible with it being so expensive initially and of course NIMBYs claiming they're ugly/noisy.

As technology costs fall and if the authorities throw more support into alternative energy schemes then I could foresee a future in which we could all be generating 30-50% of our home electricity needs cleanly, safely and forever.

[Murf]

I dont troll... at least unintentionally.


nuclear IS the only short term solution in consideration to how we are enslaved to the current economic system.

was i suggesting non fuel based sources of energy?

no i wasnt. wind and solar have their uses but are never going to be that efficient. i do not believe we will ever reach a point where it is feasable to permanantly rely on solar or wind power.

I don't mean to offend. I wasn't aggressively accusing you of trolling, you just made a statement but without any alternative to back up.

I've always seen nuclear as a form of fuel, uranium goes in, creates heat etc and wasted uranium and other radioactive isotopes come out. In my head it's fuel or non fuel, with Coal, Oil, Gas and Nuclear being fuel and Renewable being non-fuel.

[I3R0K3N7FEET]

nuclear IS fuel based. fission and fusion. the latter requires much less quantity though for similar output.

i never answered your unasked question.

also i dont get offended. ever..

even if i said i am. it is merely a lie in a situation where i feel i should be offended when im not.. long story...

;D

[Murf]

personally i feel that there is no need to be using any form of fuel to create electricity.



nuclear IS the only short term solution in consideration to how we are enslaved to the current economic system.

was i suggesting non fuel based sources of energy?

no i wasnt. wind and solar have their uses but are never going to be that efficient. i do not believe we will ever reach a point where it is feasable to permanantly rely on solar or wind power.

So what about the long term? If we can't ever rely on Solar or Wind, and there's no need to use any form of fuel, we're stuck without a power source, unless we discover some new way to make power from nothing.

[I3R0K3N7FEET]

So what about the long term? If we can't ever rely on Solar or Wind, and there's no need to use any form of fuel, we're stuck without a power source, unless we discover some new way to make power from nothing.

was that question rhetorical? or to me?

its not really a new solution either.

im just playing hard to get atm ;D

[Allsopp]

Fusion is the way to go. The main problem is that they cannot sustain a fusion reaction for more than a brief moment due to the mass amount of energy that is released once they figure away to harness the power and divert it from the reaction fast enough to allow the reaction to continue the whole issue on power will be sorted. The real question is when will the true power of Fusion be obtainable

[andyn]

i have no idea how accurate this site is, but it has each countries oil reserves, if you click on the country it says there oil consumption per a day. there are plenty of reserves. I'm impressed at how much oil we have in the UK actually

http://www.globalfirepower.com/proven-oil-reserves-by-country.asp

Interesting that according to those figures the gap between the UK's oil production and consumption is much smaller than I would have expected. I wonder how accurate those figures are?

[Mr Banana]

I think yes, so there have been a few disasters, they are bound to happen with old tech, as long as we keep the plants maintained and upgrade them as time goes on I don't see why not.

[Nifty]

Good point about coal releasing more radiation than nuclear. I believe there is a stong argument for Nuclear being one of the safest sources of power we have.

My only issue with nuclear is that I have heard stories about mines which are badly managed and unsafe for the workers. With nuclear companies trying to sell it as clean and safe they should really be making sure that translates across the whole nuclear supply chain.

[Sarky]

i have no idea how accurate this site is, but it has each countries oil reserves, if you click on the country it says there oil consumption per a day. there are plenty of reserves. I'm impressed at how much oil we have in the UK actually

http://www.globalfirepower.com/proven-oil-reserves-by-country.asp
Data up to 2007 :(

[alex24]

we entered a state of irreversible around 7 years ago

How do you know that!? The scientific community still doesn't know, so I'd be interested in hearing the evidence..! Are you referring to CO2 or other pollutants or what? We don't really know how the earth responds to CO2 in detail yet, or how quickly the feedback mechanisms will operate at elevated levels, nor do we know what the effect of rapidly reducing CO2 (in a similar way to how we've increased it) would be. It's actually extremely complicated but I think it's probably a bit OT as well so I won't go any further.

I'm looking for some numbers I had on world energy demands and solar power, if I find them again I'll post it up and you'll have no choice but to agree that it has to be the future or flame me to hell! :D

[Sarky]

we entered a state of irreversible around 7 years ago
That's not true, I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that. The irreversible state AFAIK is not known properly, but estimates that if we continue how we are going, by 2050 we will be in the irreversible state for definate. If not earlier.

[alex24]

I think yes, so there have been a few disasters, they are bound to happen with old tech, as long as we keep the plants maintained and upgrade them as time goes on I don't see why not.

I don't think it's done like that really. Maintenance, yes, but upgrades, not really any fundamental ones. Once a reactor is started, you don't generally want to be messing around with it any more than you need to as it remains highly irradiated even without fuel. In fact, disposal of even the concrete that surrounds a nuclear reactor can be a big headache, as it's irradiated and must be transported safely and buried somewhere. I think a nuclear reactors life is around 30 years, and they do extend this as much as possible, but I don't think it'd be more than 50 years. That gives us half a century to invest in and perfect solar power generation. If nuclear fusion comes along and trumps it, great, but I can't see it being as viable in the long term. I think the future is solar power production on a personal or community level in places that can support it, then feeding to the grid the extra electricity for those who need it.

An interesting problem that comes along with solar power is storage. Efficient storage is actually probably more difficult than harnessing the solar power in the first place, but it is being researched and worked on as we speak. Of course, you're generating little power overnight, so you need some way to store electricity, ideally without lots of inefficient conversions to chemical energy. Something pure.


by 2050 we will be in the irreversible state for definate. If not earlier.

What's the evidence for that? I don't think anyone knows that for definite. Science barely knows anything for definite! :D

[Sarky]

What's the evidence for that? I don't think anyone knows that for definite. Science barely knows anything for definite! :D
Just what I've been taught, lol. I honestly don't remember where it was from but it was some form of publication that between 2050-2100, based on predicitons of global growth, that the effects become perminant. I think this was the worst case scenario.

[alex24]

Just what I've been taught, lol. I honestly don't remember where it was from but it was some form of publication that between 2050-2100, based on predicitons of global growth, that the effects become perminant. I think this was the worst case scenario.

Well that publication was either a best-estimate kid of thing or just wrong, as if you delve into the scientific literature (if you have access to it) and analyse how much we know about the mechanisms of these changes, you'll see that we really don't know much for certain. Estimates are based on fairly crude models (compared to the complexity of the earth system) and don't all agree on much, other than the point that increasing atmospheric CO2 leads to increased greenhouse effect.

[Faz432]

Both, we should be looking at developing renewable energy while at the same time trying to achieve the holy grail of cold fusion.

[beefwellington]

I agree with lots of what's been said here. I think there are three things that should be done:

1) The countries that consume vast amounts of energy (EU, USA, developed areas of China & India etc) should be looking at nuclear fission, a new generation of plants built soon would IIRC last for around 40-50 years

2) The whole international community should invest heavily in nuclear fusion hopefully to be ready to take over when the above fission plants expire

3) Solar power should be used a lot more - if we started manufacturing the panels in large enough numbers to make the prices drop significantly we could all have solar power to cut bills etc, and particularly in the less developed world. If they could be made cheap enough they'd be a great investment for poorer communities because you only need to buy them once: no fuel costs, no moving parts to repair, and so on. Even more so given that Africa and India etc are generally pretty sunny!

[Allsopp]

Solar power is more than likely being restricted by the power companys tho as if we all had it and our bills drop how will the big power houses in power make all the money they currently make.

The only way new energy methods will be accepted and used to there potential is if some company figures out a way to make it more profitable for themselfs

[Pat123]

Solar power is more than likely being restricted by the power companys tho as if we all had it and our bills drop how will the big power houses in power make all the money they currently make.

The only way new energy methods will be accepted and used to there potential is if some company figures out a way to make it more profitable for themselfs

I am inclined to agree here, i believe (i have no literature to back myself up, just an opinion) that the big power companies that have invested billions in current power production methods are holding the new tech back, as releasing it would be stupid from a business point of view. They may have not actually built the tech, but i believe they have the idea's they just won't put the funding into it until they absolutely have to. I don't think we will see any real change in the way we produce the main bulk of electrical power until at least 2025 when stocks really start to get low.

For the time being i believe nuclear fission is the only viable 'alternative' to conventional fossil fuels as nothing else is as efficient at producing electricity with the same foot print. Fusion power is the holy grail and we won't see any benefits from this until the tech is MUCH further along that it is at the moment (maybe 2050-60), but when we do there won't be a better way of producing such large amount of electricity (other than strictly theoretical propositions)

[f12f12]

If only we could harness the whole of the sun's output just for one second. We would be pretty much sorted for power for several thousand years. I do suspect in the future (if we get there) that something of this nature may be attempted. Not to harness the whole output but to have solar generators in orbit which will be able to send to power down. Ideally we need to be a civilisation which gets all it's power from the Sun.


funny, the sun runs on nuclear fission. :p

no i think fusion needs a real consideration.

or even better stop using so much energy. less people = less energy needed, but that's another topic.

[Nifty]

funny, the sun runs on nuclear fission. :p

no i think fusion needs a real consideration.

or even better stop using so much energy. less people = less energy needed, but that's another topic.

Fusion is what stars do.

Fission is what our reactors do.

Snake is talking about a Dyson Sphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere) which while very nice in theory, would require vast resources and energy to build. A civilisation that could achieve such a thing would have phenomenal power though.

[f12f12]

Fusion is what stars do.

Fission is what our reactors do.

Snake is talking about a Dyson Sphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere) which while very nice in theory, would require vast resources and energy to build. A civilisation that could achieve such a thing would have phenomenal power though.

oh my bad. its been a few years.

so we now want to plug in to the sun, that's cool.

if we could develop some thing to hold enough power in a small space we could send up space craft to be charged by the sun they bring them down to be drained.

[Allsopp]

oh my bad. its been a few years.

so we now want to plug in to the sun, that's cool.

if we could develop some thing to hold enough power in a small space we could send up space craft to be charged by the sun they bring them down to be drained.


that would cost a huge amount in resources and investment.

Until power isnt run by profit based companys that do it to make money we will be drip feed the new advancements in the development of energy till the current methods run out become less profitible

[I3R0K3N7FEET]

Snake is talking about a Dyson Sphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere) which while very nice in theory, would require vast resources and energy to build. A civilisation that could achieve such a thing would have phenomenal power though.


I bet you both learned that from Star Trek.....

Anyway. my original statement still stands.

Fusion is definately the better option for long term Future energy needs over fission. Though whats to say the power companies do not already have back up plans?

[Snakedoc]

I bet you both learned that from Star Trek Voyager.....



Actually the Dyson's Sphere was in TNG and starred the late James Doohan. I was more talking about simply harnessing the full output for one second would provide enough power to last a very long time indeed.

And no, I learned it from doing physics and working out how much energy the sun outputs.

[Nifty]

I bet you both learned that from Star Trek Voyager.....

Anyway. my original statement still stands.

Fusion is definately the better option for long term Future energy needs over fission. Though whats to say the power companies do not already have back up plans?


Fusion barely works at the moment and I don't think it will be coming soon enough to plug the gap fossil fuels will leave.


I might get snaked for Off Topic but: Freelancer :)

[I3R0K3N7FEET]

Fusion barely works at the moment and I don't think it will be coming soon enough to plug the gap fossil fuels will leave.


I might get snaked for Off Topic but: Freelancer :)

i meant the next generation ;D

any form of slowdown in technological change is ALWAYS to do with economy, greed and bureaucracy.

also you mean the game ? i loved freelancer. was so gutted they scrapped the second one!

[MobiusPizza]

Good point about coal releasing more radiation than nuclear. I believe there is a stong argument for Nuclear being one of the safest sources of power we have.

My only issue with nuclear is that I have heard stories about mines which are badly managed and unsafe for the workers. With nuclear companies trying to sell it as clean and safe they should really be making sure that translates across the whole nuclear supply chain.

The same goes with any mines really, be it coal, gold, iron, copper. Mining is a dangerous business that usually resides in 3rd world countries.