Nuclear Energy - Good or Bad?

[leicsmac]

I see your point but unfortunately that means 20 years of methane pollution (one of the most potent greenhouse gases), trashing some of the countryside and possibly poisoning the water supply

 

 

Think you've mentioned this before. Is there any evidence for it?

 

Afraid not, it's just a conspiracy theory.

 

I normally don't tend to have much time for such theories as a whole, but this one I believe perfectly plausible. It just makes good profit sense, which is what these companies live by.

[OzFox]

Afraid not, it's just a conspiracy theory.

 

I normally don't tend to have much time for such theories as a whole, but this one I believe perfectly plausible. It just makes good profit sense, which is what these companies live by.

 

Would be interesting if true. And yeah, not that surprising either

[Merging Cultures]

I don't see any problem using shale gas and nuclear while renewable technology is advanced. In the real world we are in a situation where we need to be taking immediate action t secure our medium term needs. Things like solar and wind power are still expensive and inefficient. It makes no sense to go all in on them now when we can get by with an abundance of cheap shale gas for a couple of decades and then revisit renewables when the technology has moved on. If we are going to go for renewables then tidal is a better bet than solar in the UK. We have quite a bit of tidal potential and the technology is already there.

 

I am not sure we are or should be in such a rush for 'cheap shale gas'. I don't think prices will be cheaper, or at least they wont be hugely different. They would charge about the current gas price to maximise profit. There would be little incentive for them to charge less. 

 

Plus, I would expect that the gas producers would have to invest heavily in environmental protection, and would probably have to provision significant sums of money just in case there is a problem. Therefore, the abundance and relatively cheap extraction methods would likely be offset and prices would not be much lower.

[MooseBreath]

No fracking won't reduce prices much here. Partly because it will cost so much to meet the environmental regulations they will place on it in the uk. Partly because we're part of a global gas market and our contribution wont affect supply that much.

But it will keep prices from the astronomical increases we'd face if we went full on for renewables in their current form.

[Merging Cultures]

No fracking won't reduce prices much here. Partly because it will cost so much to meet the environmental regulations they will place on it in the uk. Partly because we're part of a global gas market and our contribution wont affect supply that much.

But it will keep prices from the astronomical increases we'd face if we went full on for renewables in their current form.

 

I am not promoting going full on for renewables, but continue to invest in them alongside our current energy infrastructure. It will take time to make a dent in the current energy market, but it needs to be done. Until that time, if fracking isn't going to reduce prices and while the economic impact is not known then we should wait.

[MooseBreath]

We can't wait though, that's the problem. We won't be able to satisfy medium term energy demand unless we increase our capacity in the near future. Fracking provides the perfect medium term fix.

[leicsmac]

We can't wait though, that's the problem. We won't be able to satisfy medium term energy demand unless we increase our capacity in the near future. Fracking provides the perfect medium term fix.

 

Are the big energy companies so incompetent and lacking in forethought to not have seen this coming and have suitable tech ready? I would have thought they'd be all over it.

 

Fracking won't just be a medium term fix IMO, not if we become reliant upon it and it is shown to have reserves that will last for a long time.

[MooseBreath]

Are the big energy companies so incompetent and lacking in forethought to not have seen this coming and have suitable tech ready? I would have thought they'd be all over it.

Fracking won't just be a medium term fix IMO, not if we become reliant upon it and it is shown to have reserves that will last for a long time.

The big energy companies have been comitting to nuclear and fracking etc but can't just go and build power stations and drill wells wherever they want. They need government support.

[leicsmac]

The big energy companies have been comitting to nuclear and fracking etc but can't just go and build power stations and drill wells wherever they want. They need government support.

 

True enough.

 

A compromise whereby fracking is given the green light as long as both fusion research and renewable research has as much of the profit from fracking as possible poured into it with a view to those two sources forming the bulk of the energy demand within 20/30 years sounds best (fusion CAN come onstream in that amount of time if the right amount of research is poured into it). A long term investment that will benefit everyone.

[ADK]

Nuclear is pointless. It takes almost 20 years to build a nuclear power station, by which time our energy needs could be completely different. It isn't really "clean" as it produces waste and contaminates the reactor site for 50-100 years after production has ended. It's not reliable in an emergency since it takes a long time to switch a nuclear power station back on and all the energy production is focused in a small area. All this might be forgiven if it was extremely cheap, but it isn't. And as renewables costs plummet, it could soon be more expensive than those too.

 

Fracking won't reduce our energy bills as any gas fracked will be sold on the global market. It will allow the economy to grow as the government will earn large amounts of income from selling licences and fracking businesses will provide jobs. I am not against fracking but don't want us to rush into it just so the current government can fund some election bribes. That is probably what will happen anyway but the prudent thing would be to let other countries take the risk first.

[leicsmac]

Nuclear is pointless. It takes almost 20 years to build a nuclear power station, by which time our energy needs could be completely different. It isn't really "clean" as it produces waste and contaminates the reactor site for 50-100 years after production has ended. It's not reliable in an emergency since it takes a long time to switch a nuclear power station back on and all the energy production is focused in a small area. All this might be forgiven if it was extremely cheap, but it isn't. And as renewables costs plummet, it could soon be more expensive than those too.

 

Fracking won't reduce our energy bills as any gas fracked will be sold on the global market. It will allow the economy to grow as the government will earn large amounts of income from selling licences and fracking businesses will provide jobs. I am not against fracking but don't want us to rush into it just so the current government can fund some election bribes. That is probably what will happen anyway but the prudent thing would be to let other countries take the risk first.

 

Nuclear fission is exactly what you've said here.

 

Nuclear fusion, however, is far from pointless. Indeed, barring revolutionary new renewable tech it might be the only way to meet demand a few decades down the line.

[Merging Cultures]

The big energy companies have been comitting to nuclear and fracking etc but can't just go and build power stations and drill wells wherever they want. They need government support.

True enough.

A compromise whereby fracking is given the green light as long as both fusion research and renewable research has as much of the profit from fracking as possible poured into it with a view to those two sources forming the bulk of the energy demand within 20/30 years sounds best (fusion CAN come onstream in that amount of time if the right amount of research is poured into it). A long term investment that will benefit everyone.

And one the environmental impact is fully understood. We all have to admit that the effect of fracking is quite uncertain.

Also, why can't we meet our medium term energy needs? Is our industrial growth going to be so huge? Are we not going to start realising efficiency gains?

Medium term to me is 20/30 years. At which point I expect renewables will be significantly cheaper.

[Merging Cultures]

Nuclear is pointless. It takes almost 20 years to build a nuclear power station, by which time our energy needs could be completely different. It isn't really "clean" as it produces waste and contaminates the reactor site for 50-100 years after production has ended. It's not reliable in an emergency since it takes a long time to switch a nuclear power station back on and all the energy production is focused in a small area. All this might be forgiven if it was extremely cheap, but it isn't. And as renewables costs plummet, it could soon be more expensive than those too.

Fracking won't reduce our energy bills as any gas fracked will be sold on the global market. It will allow the economy to grow as the government will earn large amounts of income from selling licences and fracking businesses will provide jobs. I am not against fracking but don't want us to rush into it just so the current government can fund some election bribes. That is probably what will happen anyway but the prudent thing would be to let other countries take the risk first.

Nuclear fission is exactly what you've said here.

Nuclear fusion, however, is far from pointless. Indeed, barring revolutionary new renewable tech it might be the only way to meet demand a few decades down the line.

Please explain the difference.

[Captain...]

Nuclear fission is exactly what you've said here.

 

Nuclear fusion, however, is far from pointless. Indeed, barring revolutionary new renewable tech it might be the only way to meet demand a few decades down the line.

 

But how close are we to nuclear fusion being a reality? I'm all for funding research into it, but it still seems we have a way to go yet.

Please explain the difference.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/09/25/nuclear-fusion-progress_n_3987430.html

[leicsmac]

Please explain the difference.

 

The link that CPF has put in explains a lot, but the idea behind nuclear fusion is basically extracting energy from fusing nuclei together, rather than splitting them apart ala nuclear fission (fusion of hydrogen into helium is what powers the Sun and all other Main Sequence stars). The benefit of this is that such reactions can be much better controlled, produce no radioactivity from errant particles left over from reactions, and as such produce no radioactive waste. So clean and safe.

 

The drawback is that to begin a fusion reaction you need a large input of energy to start the engine, as it were, and to keep the reaction going for long. And this is where we're falling down right now - at the moment we can't get enough energy out of our testing fusion reactions to make back the energy we put into them. However we are getting pretty close.

 

But how close are we to nuclear fusion being a reality? I'm all for funding research into it, but it still seems we have a way to go yet.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/09/25/nuclear-fusion-progress_n_3987430.html

 

Given a blank cheque, man landed on the moon less than 10 years after the first one was in space (unless you're Zing ).

 

I think given the motivation, enough researchers and money for infrastructure and resources, we could have viable commercial fusion reactors in 20/30 years. Unfortunately it would take a big investment, and the thinking is too long-term for most governments to consider.

 

I maintain though, that researching it is going to become a matter of necessity. Fusion can provide energy outputs with a strength and efficiency all other energy sources we have now can only dream about. And if humanity is going to keep advancing technologically, we're going to need that energy.

[Merging Cultures]

The link that CPF has put in explains a lot, but the idea behind nuclear fusion is basically extracting energy from fusing nuclei together, rather than splitting them apart ala nuclear fission (fusion of hydrogen into helium is what powers the Sun and all other Main Sequence stars). The benefit of this is that such reactions can be much better controlled, produce no radioactivity from errant particles left over from reactions, and as such produce no radioactive waste. So clean and safe.

 

Cheers!

 

Basically Dr. Octavius stuff then. Personally, I don't have a problem with fission. I think it has been well researched and we can manage it.

 

Fracking is potentially safer than fission, but I don't think we are there yet.

[Captain...]

The link that CPF has put in explains a lot, but the idea behind nuclear fusion is basically extracting energy from fusing nuclei together, rather than splitting them apart ala nuclear fission (fusion of hydrogen into helium is what powers the Sun and all other Main Sequence stars). The benefit of this is that such reactions can be much better controlled, produce no radioactivity from errant particles left over from reactions, and as such produce no radioactive waste. So clean and safe.

 

The drawback is that to begin a fusion reaction you need a large input of energy to start the engine, as it were, and to keep the reaction going for long. And this is where we're falling down right now - at the moment we can't get enough energy out of our testing fusion reactions to make back the energy we put into them. However we are getting pretty close.

 

 

Given a blank cheque, man landed on the moon less than 10 years after the first one was in space (unless you're Zing ).

 

I think given the motivation, enough researchers and money for infrastructure and resources, we could have viable commercial fusion reactors in 20/30 years. Unfortunately it would take a big investment, and the thinking is too long-term for most governments to consider.

 

I maintain though, that researching it is going to become a matter of necessity. Fusion can provide energy outputs with a strength and efficiency all other energy sources we have now can only dream about. And if humanity is going to keep advancing technologically, we're going to need that energy.

 

What are the main drawbacks, if something like that containing that much energy goes off, anyone who is into their sci-fi knows a fictional nuclear fusion reactor explosion would be catastrophic, what are the safety implications?

[ADK]

It's obvious really, gas power stations now and renewables in the future.

[leicsmac]

What are the main drawbacks, if something like that containing that much energy goes off, anyone who is into their sci-fi knows a fictional nuclear fusion reactor explosion would be catastrophic, what are the safety implications?

 

Meltdown of a fusion reactor is impossible because of the need for a constant stream of energy from outside to keep it going. It's not self-sustaining nor can go out of control in the same way as a fission reactor.

 

No way for free particles to start a chain reaction = no possibility of a big bang, basically.

[MooseBreath]

mental impact is fully understood. We all have to admit that the effect of fracking is quite uncertain.

Also, why can't we meet our medium term energy needs? Is our industrial growth going to be so huge? Are we not going to start realising efficiency gains?

Medium term to me is 20/30 years. At which point I expect renewables will be significantly cheaper.

The risk is not only increased usage (which could be offset to some degree by efficiency) but also existing power stations coming to the end of their lives while dithering prevents anything being built to replace them.

There's an abundance of info on this online, I would post a couple of links but my phone is on full rincewind mode at the mo.

With regards to the safety of fracking, you can be certain that the way it is approached in the uk will bare no resemblance to how it has been done in the us. There'll be so much regulation on it here that half the cost will be to satisfy regulation alone

[Merging Cultures]

The risk is not only increased usage (which could be offset to some degree by efficiency) but also existing power stations coming to the end of their lives while dithering prevents anything being built to replace them.

There's an abundance of info on this online, I would post a couple of links but my phone is on full rincewind mode at the mo.

With regards to the safety of fracking, you can be certain that the way it is approached in the uk will bare no resemblance to how it has been done in the us. There'll be so much regulation on it here that half the cost will be to satisfy regulation alone

 

Press the salt key??

 

That's true about the existing power stations coming offline. I hadn't thought about that.

 

I agree fracking wont be done like it is in the US and that is a very good thing. I must admit having seen it happen in the US, I am bias against, but you are right. The UK isn't the US (thank goodness). Perhaps the answer is give it a go in a remote area and test it? If it does cause earthquakes then move to Blackpool as someone suggested

[MC Prussian]

In the short run, yes.

In the long run - are you mad?

 

It's a fine line. Of course, I'd like to ban nuclear power in an instant. The natural consequences of nuclear waste storage are unforeseeable and delicate.

But since alternative energy solutions remain too costly and/or aren't energy-efficient enough still, the status quo will remain.

 

The continuing need for more electricity/power also poses a serious question.

 

I would therefore encourage governments, both on a national and a more local level, to guide their population in the right direction and teach people how to save energy instead.

That would be a first step as a buffer measure and it can be done very quickly and efficiently.

[leicsmac]

In the short run, yes.

In the long run - are you mad?

 

It's a fine line. Of course, I'd like to ban nuclear power in an instant. The natural consequences of nuclear waste storage are unforeseeable and delicate.

But since alternative energy solutions remain too costly and/or aren't energy-efficient enough still, the status quo will remain.

 

The continuing need for more electricity/power also poses a serious question.

 

I would therefore encourage governments, both on a national and a more local level, to guide their population in the right direction and teach people how to save energy instead.

That would be a first step as a buffer measure and it can be done very quickly and efficiently.

 

I agree with you, but again you need to differentiate between nuclear fission and fusion power.

 

When most people talk about 'nuclear power' and the trouble it causes they're talking specifically about fission. Fusion is a different beast entirely, and something we really should be working on.

[ADK]

I don't see why gas fired power stations are worse than nuclear energy. I'm also not against high energy prices for homes because it forces people to use less power, but we need to keep costs for businesses reasonable or we'll stifle our economy.

[Merging Cultures]

I don't see why gas fired power stations are worse than nuclear energy. I'm also not against high energy prices for homes because it forces people to use less power, but we need to keep costs for businesses reasonable or we'll stifle our economy.

 

It's the extraction methods and potential environmental damage. 

 

Fracking is pumping water, sand and chemicals into rock fractures to force out gas. In the US it is believed to have led to contamination of the water supply and potentially earthquakes. As has been pointed out, the UK is likely to regulated more more tightly, so it is unlikely there will be any cost benefit, but if done properly it could provide access to a cleaner burning fuel.