Author |
Topic: Nuclear Energy (Read 3731 times) |
|
mikedagr8
Uberpuzzler
A rich man is one who is content; not wealthy.
Gender: 
Posts: 1105
|
 |
Nuclear Energy
« on: Sep 11th, 2007, 4:18am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
We had an hour long discussion after hearing a biased article for the termination of nuclear power stations and reactors. What are everyone's feelings about the topic - " Is nuclear power and it's technologies good, or bad?"
|
|
 IP Logged |
"It's not that I'm correct, it's that you're just not correct, and so; I am right." - M.P.E.
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #1 on: Sep 11th, 2007, 4:42am » |
Quote Modify
|
hmm.. Well, considering the sun is a large nuclear reactor, I'm somewhat opposed to terminating all nuclear reactors.
Nuclear power can be good. Especially if it's far enough away. But we should also consider the difference between fission and fusion; and different types of fission reactors (which is typically what people are against when they say they're against nuclear energy).
Nuclear power is relatively clean, although there is the issue of what to do with spent fuel rods, and it provides an alternative to other exhaustible energy sources. I don't think people's abject fear of nuclear energy is justified; there are dangers, but sufficient safety measures have been thought up, and even completely different types of reactors. It's been decades since Chernobyl, and technology hasn't stood still.
To outright dismiss it is silly. Heck, even nuclear magnetic resonance imaging had to drop the nuclear from the name because of people's irrational fear for the "nuclear".
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
mikedagr8
Uberpuzzler
A rich man is one who is content; not wealthy.
Gender:
Posts: 1105
|
|
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #2 on: Sep 11th, 2007, 4:50am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Sep 11th, 2007, 4:42am, towr wrote:hmm.. Well, considering the sun is a large nuclear reactor, I'm somewhat opposed to terminating all nuclear reactors.
Nuclear power can be good. Especially if it's far enough away. But we should also consider the difference between fission and fusion; and different types of fission reactors (which is typically what people are against when they say they're against nuclear energy).
Nuclear power is relatively clean, although there is the issue of what to do with spent fuel rods, and it provides an alternative to other exhaustible energy sources. I don't think people's abject fear of nuclear energy is justified; there are dangers, but sufficient safety measures have been thought up, and even completely different types of reactors. It's been decades since Chernobyl, and technology hasn't stood still.
To outright dismiss it is silly. Heck, even nuclear magnetic resonance imaging had to drop the nuclear from the name because of people's irrational fear for the "nuclear". |
|
Very good points, I meant on earth obviously, without the sun, well I don't want to know the details. I am confused how you can say that nuclear power is relatively clean, what about all the byproducts? FBR's are very good, I have no problem with them, they are brilliant, no doubt. Fusion, if we are able to utilise it in the form of a reactor, it would be incredible, but we are nowhere near achieving that.
What do you mean can be good, you didn't exactly say what is bad about it.
|
| « Last Edit: Sep 12th, 2007, 1:59am by mikedagr8 » |
IP Logged |
"It's not that I'm correct, it's that you're just not correct, and so; I am right." - M.P.E.
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #3 on: Sep 11th, 2007, 5:10am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Sep 11th, 2007, 4:50am, mikedagr8 wrote:| I am confused how you can say that nuclear power is relatively clean, what about all the by products? |
|
The byproducts don't go out the chimneys as with say coal power plants, which pollute the surroundings with sulfur, soot etc; as well as pump the atmosphere full of CO2 causing global warming (but then, the soot causes cooling). With nuclear power byproduct are contained, you can store them or (partially) reuse them. Neither of those can be done as well with fossil fuel burning plants.
Quote:| Fusion, if we are able to utilise it in the form of a reactor, it would be incredible, but we are nowhere near achieving that. |
|
I wouldn't say nowhere near. We're a lot closer than a few decades ago. Let's wait and see how well ITER does first.
Quote:| What do you mean can be good, you didn't exactly say what is bad about it. |
|
Well, Chernobyl was pretty bad about it. It helps when the operators don't try to experiment with the reactor and subsequently lose control. And nuclear bombs aren't all that nice either; another example of nuclear technology.
If it's managed properly and applied well, I think it's worth it.
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
mikedagr8
Uberpuzzler
A rich man is one who is content; not wealthy.
Gender:
Posts: 1105
|
|
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #4 on: Sep 11th, 2007, 5:24am » |
Quote Modify
|
Quote:| The byproducts don't go out the chimneys as with say coal power plants, which pollute the surroundings with sulfur, soot etc; as well as pump the atmosphere full of CO2 causing global warming (but then, the soot causes cooling). With nuclear power byproduct are contained, you can store them or (partially) reuse them. Neither of those can be done as well with fossil fuel burning plants. |
|
But if the storage facilities become faulty, than the overall effect is much more damaging than fossil fuels. Which byproducts are reusable? I haven't been told any, and it wasn't mentioned in our booklet.
Quote:| I wouldn't say nowhere near. We're a lot closer than a few decades ago. Let's wait and see how well ITER does first. |
|
True, maybe I over exaggerated on this instance, but I still think, that they are not as close as we hope, the force and heat required is tremendous, and so the implications if something goes wrong, well, it'd be a lot worse than anything that happened at Chernobyl.
Quote:Well, Chernobyl was pretty bad about it. It helps when the operators don't try to experiment with the reactor and subsequently lose control. And nuclear bombs aren't all that nice either; another example of nuclear technology.
If it's managed properly and applied well, I think it's worth it. |
|
Yes, turning off all safety measures and devices probably wasn't the smartest thing to do when running a diagnostic. As for nuclear bombs, those are used for fusion, so they can be nice when used correctly.
Overall I think that nuclear technology is for the better, but as society grows, more people need to be aware of how we utilise and produce electricity if we ever want to limit/stop global warming. The next question I ask "Is nuclear energy the worse of two evils when comparing to fossil fuels? And will it be still a viable option if/when we run out of fossil fuels?"
|
|
IP Logged |
"It's not that I'm correct, it's that you're just not correct, and so; I am right." - M.P.E.
|
|
|
Barukh
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 2276
|
|
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #5 on: Sep 11th, 2007, 6:43am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Sep 11th, 2007, 5:24am, mikedagr8 wrote:
But if the storage facilities become faulty, than the overall effect is much more damaging than fossil fuels. |
|
That's true. But does that mean we should not use it?
Imagine what happens if we have a fault on (eventually built?) thermo-nuclear reactor?
Or, a more classical case: trains vs planes.
Quote:| Which byproducts are reusable? I haven't been told any, and it wasn't mentioned in our booklet. |
|
Good question... I haven't heard of any, either... (Well, I don't mean building a bomb).
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #6 on: Sep 11th, 2007, 8:22am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Sep 11th, 2007, 5:24am, mikedagr8 wrote:| But if the storage facilities become faulty, than the overall effect is much more damaging than fossil fuels. |
|
That depends where the storage facility is located (e.g. if it's in an old salt mine everything will still be very much contained). The real problem you have to look out for is that it contaminates water, or otherwise can move into the environment.
If you just spill a drum of radioactive material on the floor, you can still clean it up, you'll just have to do some digging to get all the affected soil out as well.
Now for the fossil fuel side of things, what happens when a oil pipe going under a sea burst; or if an oil tanker crashes into the rocks because its captain is drunk, or if some lunatic dictator sets the oil fields on fire, etc. Each of those is hard to clean up.
Quote:| Which byproducts are reusable? I haven't been told any, and it wasn't mentioned in our booklet. |
|
I don't know the english term for the process; but nuclear waste is transported regularly to facilities to extract useful stuff from it.
A lot of the elements that are created during fission can be used as fuel again (that's the whole bases of FBRs).
Quote:| True, maybe I over exaggerated on this instance, but I still think, that they are not as close as we hope, the force and heat required is tremendous, and so the implications if something goes wrong, well, it'd be a lot worse than anything that happened at Chernobyl. |
|
Actually, that's unlikely, due to how the fusion process works. The reaction would stop the moment containment failed. Because the heat and pressure necessary wouldn't be maintained.
Unlike fission it's not a chain reaction that accelerates itself when left unchecked.
Quote:| As for nuclear bombs, those are used for fusion, so they can be nice when used correctly. |
|
?!
I'm not sure what you mean by this. They are used to ignite fusion bombs, but aren't otherwise associated with fusion reactors and such.
Quote:| The next question I ask "Is nuclear energy the worse of two evils when comparing to fossil fuels? And will it be still a viable option if/when we run out of fossil fuels?" |
|
Well, unless we switch to alternative fuels, it's a given we'll run out of fossil fuel. And we'd also run out of nuclear fuel; there's only limited amounts (I think there's 50 years' worth of uranium or something).
Fossil fuels affect the total global system even when everything works normally (but it's a small effect); nuclear energy has a much more local effect, and only when things go seriously wrong (but it's a fairly large effect). So it's hard to compare and say which is better/worse.
It'd be much better if we could extract enough energy from the sun, wind, tides, geothermal energy etc. But although in theory there's enough energy there, we have trouble using it on large scales.
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
Sameer
Uberpuzzler
Pie = pi * e
Gender:
Posts: 1261
|
|
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #7 on: Sep 11th, 2007, 8:59am » |
Quote Modify
|
Nuclear energy is good. It's how one uses it, that it becomes good or bad!!!
|
|
IP Logged |
"Obvious" is the most dangerous word in mathematics.
--Bell, Eric Temple
Proof is an idol before which the mathematician tortures himself.
Sir Arthur Eddington, quoted in Bridges to Infinity
|
|
|
ThudnBlunder
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
The dewdrop slides into the shining Sea
Gender:
Posts: 4489
|
|
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #8 on: Sep 11th, 2007, 4:20pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Sep 11th, 2007, 5:24am, mikedagr8 wrote:| As for nuclear bombs, those are used for fusion, so they can be nice when used correctly. |
|
ROTFLOLMAO!! And how can a nice uncontrolled dispersion of deadly radioactivity be used correctly? 
|
|
IP Logged |
THE MEEK SHALL INHERIT THE EARTH.....................................................................er, if that's all right with the rest of you.
|
|
|
Sameer
Uberpuzzler
Pie = pi * e
Gender:
Posts: 1261
|
|
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #9 on: Sep 11th, 2007, 4:21pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Sep 11th, 2007, 4:20pm, ThudanBlunder wrote:
ROTFLOLMAO!! And how can a nice uncontrolled dispersion of deadly radioactivity be used correctly? |
|
By making sure all the politicians, religious fanatics, troublemakers, sadists .. complete the list.. in the world are nearby? 
|
| « Last Edit: Sep 11th, 2007, 4:23pm by Sameer » |
IP Logged |
"Obvious" is the most dangerous word in mathematics.
--Bell, Eric Temple
Proof is an idol before which the mathematician tortures himself.
Sir Arthur Eddington, quoted in Bridges to Infinity
|
|
|
mikedagr8
Uberpuzzler
A rich man is one who is content; not wealthy.
Gender:
Posts: 1105
|
|
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #10 on: Sep 11th, 2007, 7:42pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Sep 11th, 2007, 4:21pm, Sameer wrote:
By making sure all the politicians, religious fanatics, troublemakers, sadists .. complete the list.. in the world are nearby? |
|
Well, I was going to say for killing aliens , but I guess you could add into that list ignorant forum posters.
No it could be used to kill the population of the world, so our resources are used up slower. It's a Catch-22 as I put it to the class - "We keep people alive longer, using up more resources, and we have an evergrowing population, all because we have technology. If we stop or limit the use of technology, people would die younger and benefit the world as a whole. The only problem is, is it ethical? Sacrifice many, for the greater good?"
First on my list of people to go, are those who use telekenisis/teleportation. They need to be vapourised so as not to escape and use their 'powers' on the rest of us.
Going back to a fusion reactor, how is that going to work? We were told by our teacher that the Russians came close, but nothing more. He said that for it to be successful the use of a nuclear bomb type chain reaction would be needed, not something which can be made in a reactor? There was nothing about a fusion reactor in our booklet.
|
| « Last Edit: Sep 22nd, 2007, 9:21pm by mikedagr8 » |
IP Logged |
"It's not that I'm correct, it's that you're just not correct, and so; I am right." - M.P.E.
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #11 on: Sep 23rd, 2007, 8:05am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Sep 11th, 2007, 7:42pm, mikedagr8 wrote:| Going back to a fusion reactor, how is that going to work? We were told by our teacher that the Russians came close, but nothing more. He said that for it to be successful the use of a nuclear bomb type chain reaction would be needed, not something which can be made in a reactor? There was nothing about a fusion reactor in our booklet. |
|
The most promising approach to fusion (currently) is to use a toroidal reaction chamber, which contains an immensely hot plasma at very high pressure. Because the plasma is charged (electrons are stripped from the atoms by the heat), you can contain the plasma using a magnetic field; which in turn allows you to keep it away from the walls which would melt due to the heat if it came in contact.
Under these conditions deuterium and tritium have sufficient energies to crash into each other occasionally and merge. When they do a neutron is ejected and some mass is converted into energy (which ends up as kinetic energy of the neutron). The neutrons are neutral, and so escape the magnetic containment and can be used to extract energy from the system.
As deuterium and tritium fuses and is spent, more fuel needs to be injected, and the waste helium presumedly has to be extracted (otherwise the mass would just accumulate in the reactor). Making the fusion-reaction a continuous process seems to real problem at the moment.
You can probably get better descriptions on ITER's website http://www.iter.org/
|
| « Last Edit: Sep 23rd, 2007, 8:07am by towr » |
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
mikedagr8
Uberpuzzler
A rich man is one who is content; not wealthy.
Gender:
Posts: 1105
|
|
Re: Nuclear Energy
« Reply #12 on: Sep 23rd, 2007, 11:56pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Thanks for that brief explanation. 
|
| « Last Edit: Sep 23rd, 2007, 11:56pm by mikedagr8 » |
IP Logged |
"It's not that I'm correct, it's that you're just not correct, and so; I am right." - M.P.E.
|
|
|
|
RIDDLES SITE
WRITE MATH!
Home 
Help 
Search 
Members 
Login 
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print