This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Do we need nuclear energy?
Based on the talk involving Stewart Brand and Mark Jacobson I'm trying to get a debate started in which we can explore many aspects of using nuclear reactors as an energy source today and in the years to come.
As the talk above shows there are enough arguments for both sides, my hope is that ultimately - although I am quite skeptical about it - a certain consensus can be reached.
I will not directly divulge my own stand on this topic and wait for a couple of posts to get the debate started.
I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this matter, have fun discussing!
Topics:
alternative energy energy nuclear weapons
rolf nesse
E G 10+
Jordan Miller 20+
Nicholas Heller 20+
1) nuclear power generation is currently the major carbon-free energy source.
2) 50 years old, with an excellent safety record, as in 1 death/year worldwide
3) Efficient. France quadrupled its energy production with 78% nuclear.
4) Tested and proven designs. E.G. the Integral Fast Reactor (http://www.skirsch.com/politics/globalwarming/ifr.htm), which may reduce the half-life of the waste from 100,000 years to 400 years. Spent fuel is all we need for our energies for several centuries.
The antinuclear mov't claims that some fuel could be diverted into making bombs. However, since the collapse of the USSR, the cat may already be out of the bag for making bombs, so avoiding additional reactors may not gain us much. Antinuclear activists may invoke Chernobyl like a Tourette's tic, but they keep overblowing the death toll: only 56 confirmed deaths. They may also mention Three Mile Island, without telling you that nobody died in that accident, or were there any injuries. Why the lack of casualties? Because that reactor had a containment lid that trapped those gasses.
Nuclear is certainly cleaner than another so-called alternative: coal. If you still feel safe with these huge smokestacks spewing carbon dioxide, methane, and sulfuric acid; then it’s time for another reality check. Coal-fired power plants are the major sources of radioactive materials released to the environment. Thorium and uranium may only be a tiny fraction of the coal but we burn a lot of coal. These trace amounts add up to far more than the entire U.S. consumption of nuclear fuels for electricity. Coal accounts for half of the energy output in the United States anyway, so what is it that makes coal an alternative energy? On top of that, we’re now getting air pollution from coal plants in China. That’s right, the Chinese are passing gas our way.
Serious about weaning ourselves off that foreign oil teat? Go nuclear.
Petr Frish 100+
" Today, the technology might not be good enough to make efficient use of solar energy, but, I strongly believe that eventually the technology will improve and we will be able to harvest solar energy in an efficient manner. "
I think that we need to be more specific or more abstract here. Does 'solar' mean surface (as opposed to space)
deployed photovoltaic panels? There is an absolute limit, of about 1kW/m² of what can be harvested at the surface. That can supply a significant share of our needs, in projects such as http://www.desertec.org/,
but not more then the absolute limit. Technology can improve efficiency of collection, for example genetic engineering can may biofuels cost effective (viz http://goo.gl/4GqTe ), but land requirement will compete with other needs. Neverthless, we can add
4) Use of photovoltaic cells in deserts harvesting of biofuels.
It seesm we have concensus here. O propose following is resolved:
To ask 'do we need nuclear energy' is like asking 'do we need pizza or doughnuts?' Some people want pizza,
some do not. There is no reason to ban pizza, and there is no reason to ban nuclear energy. Some people would like to prohibit nuclear energy, based on emotional arguments (nuclear bombs are bad) and not understanding that problem of so called 'waste' disappears with new generation of reactors (gen 4 breeders). The issue is issue of economy, safety and convenience. Government should avoid to make arbitrary decisions, such as 'banning nuclear' or subsidizing one mode (such as EU directive 20-20-20 subsidizing solar panels). Government should however support basic research and demonstration plants of new technologies.
Is there any dissent to such a conclusion?
Harald Jezek 50+
Personally I'm not a big fan of bio fuel. It sounds good, but if you get to bottom of it, it's not so great after all. There is still pollution coming from bio fuel and, in order to cover a significant demand of our needs we would need huge areas of mono cultures producing the crops needed for the bio fuel.
I think we never will get to only one single energy source. It most likely will always be a mix of different technologies.
At this point of time, I'm ok with nuclear energy, however, I think society shouldn't rest on it's collective laurels but strive for better, more efficient, safer and cleaner technologies. Maybe nuclear energy will become obsolete or maybe not. In any case, eventually we will run out of nuclear fuel.
Petr Frish 100+
The Solar constant is amount of energy reaching Earth at the top of atmosphere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_constant
It is 1.366 kW/m² (day and night = 24/7). One quarter of that may reach surface (on a sunny day).
We cannot harvest more than that, be it biofuel, photovolatic atd atd.
We are really debating only next 20 to 50 years. In the lonG run FUSION will supply all needed energy, and breakthrough in that may come soon. Rational strategy, on climate, on clean energy, is to have Manhattan 2 as explained e.g. here:
http://goo.gl/taoLn
Careful with googling this. MaNY PEOPLE ARE USING THAT TERM FOR MANY DIFFERENT THINGS.
Sabin Muntean 30+
One other technology that I'd like to mention is space based solar power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power). Like fusion it will take some time before we can deal with all the problems involved such as safely emitting and receiving the energy via laser or microwaves, the launch costs that would be involved, and so on. However the advantages of this type of power are quite obvious - being able to get clean solar energy the whole year anywhere on the planet.
Coming back to nuclear energy, one thing I cannot quite understand is the reaction of many environmentalists regarding this topic. Of course we need to deal with nuclear waste, but at least the reactors help us save tons of CO2 every year. Isn't this then the lesser evil?
I often miss viable energy plans from Green parties around Europe, who simply seem to concentrate on demonizing nuclear, but in my eyes fail to offer alternatives.
Then again perhaps I'm looking at things from the wrong perspective...
Harald Jezek 50+
Petr Frish 100+
Then, some debate on possible strategies would have a chance to come to some agreements.
Event then, the final strategy, will depend on technological breakthroughs, which are inherently uncertain and unpredictable.
So. let.s enumerate options. Revett Eldred says : The only things left are so-called 'clean' coal and nuclear and
we don't know how to dispose of the spent material,
But, there is more:
1) SPS aka Space parasol described here :
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10408897-54.html?tag=mncol
has advantage of providing geoengineering option (shade) we may need, in addition to clean energy
2) Gen 4 reactors - solve two problems: what to do with spend fuel, and limited amount of U and Th
hint : They burn the 'waste', which is really potential fuel. A bit like coke from coal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor
3) Fusion energy. Guesses are that it may be ready in 50 years, and some say, it is sliding, so it is always
50 years. But, unexpected breaktrough, advence in RTS (room temperature superconductors) make radically
shorten the schedule see: www.iter.org/
Is there more? Anyone?
Revett Eldred 10+
We need fuel and always will. I don't see how nuclear power generation can be avoided.
Robert Schueler
I walked across america in 1986 with a group called the great peace march ...with a group mission of global nuclear disarmament. From the nine months of prayer, contemplation and meditation on the 'subjects.' ....twenty-five years later....i am still on the first step of understanding THE NUCLEOUS ENERGY within and how to master it.....of even dance with it.
I believe we did a great job of creating nuclear everything....created a lot of jobs, killed a lot of people, keep things moving that maybe shouldn't have been moving. A great intellectual exercise, hopefully sooner than later our multiple intelligences( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences ) will integrate to intuitively create more amazing natural based clean energy for everyone. Till than, mastering the art of Mi Kaah is my way of experiencing the future magic of utopia.
Thomas van Waeyenberge
Fred van Zwieten 20+
Let me first mention the new "traveling wave nuclear reactor" design from TerraPower. I'm not a MS fanboy, but Bill has invested in the right thing (again). These new reactors work on nuclear waste. I'm not sure what their waste product is and what the safety risks are, but it sure sounds promising. See here: gigaom.com/cleantech/terrapower-how-the-travelling-wave-nuclear-reactor-works. There is also a TED talk about it from Bill. Is this would work out, it's a game changer.
Second, China want to build "greener" reactors based on "thorium", a much more available product than uranium. They also want to make so called "molten salt" reactors, what seem to be the same sort of design as TerraPower's.
Don't get me wrong, i'm all for green energy. But the brutal facts seem to be the global warming if happening at a pace that rules out the development of enough really green sources of energy like wind, solar and tidal. So, nuclear has to be an intermediate solution. Development of these reactors take to much time, i agree. But a lot of this is red tape.
Harald Jezek 50+
As you, Sabin, mentioned in your opening statement, there are pros as well as cons to this question.
I like to take an pragmatic approach here.
I think as of today nuclear technology is a fairly efficient way to produce energy and over the years it also became a reasonable safe technology as well.
On the other hand, nuclear fuel as fossil fuel doesn't last for ever, which means that eventually we will have to find alternative energy sources.
Also, although I'm in favor of nuclear energy today, I also believe that it is not the end of our wisdom. We need to keep searching for better, more efficient energy sources. My personal favorite is here solar energy. Today, the technology might not be good enough to make efficient use of solar energy, but, I strongly believe that eventually the technology will improve and we will be able to harvest solar energy in an efficient manner. Solar energy seems promising to me because of it's virtually limitless supply and it's safety.
Will nuclear energy become obsolete ? Probably not any time soon, but hopefully, in the long term, it can be replaced with better solutions.
Mark Meijer 100+
By that I mean, clearly we can't simply switch to other sources of power and use that to keep going the way we're going. We as a species are facing a complex set of problems of which many, if not all, are deeply interconnected.
So imagine for argument's sake that we had infinite power right now, no limits, for all eternity. We could do whatever we wanted with it. What would we do? Where would we want to take it? Are we on that path now? Why not? Says who?
Sorry if I raised more questions than I answered... ;)