So, do you still think that nuclear power plants are a good idea? (page 3)

Sapphy

Yes, just not built on fault lines. I would be more than happy to live near a nuclear power plant.

ProdigalSon, did you even read BTS post before responding? Of course there is technology to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. It's not hard at all. What BTS pointed out is that the net energy produced is negative. It takes more energy in water electrolysis than the energy you get by burning the hydrogen you make. So water as a source of hydrogen is a non-starter for energy production.

VampireDCLXV

Whenever you get hydrogen from water, it's not really "fuel" per se. When it's no longer truly fuel, hydrogen then is only a means to store and transport energy and a very problematic one at best. The only time hydrogen will ever be fuel is when we can figure out how to get nuclear power from it...

V665 V665

darthfader

Three words for you: Pebble Bed Reactor - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

Or how about three more words: Thorium Nuclear Reactor - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium#Thorium_as_a_nuclear_fuel

Both of these solutions are much safer.

The challenge is the cost of building an entirely new reactor from the ground up. Coal and Natural Gas energy are still to cheap to allow the construction of newer reactors.

We will poision ourselves with the airborne toxins from coal plants far worse than from nuclear reactors.

darthfader

Oh and electrolysis of water is much more efficient if done at high temperature and pressure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-temperature_electrolysis

Razziel

You are right about the nuclear technologies you listed DF. But it doesn't matter how much we improve the efficiency of electrolysis, it will still always produce negative net energy, limiting it to the realm of batteries as several other posters mentioned. That doesn't mean it can't be used in cogeneration systems to take advantage of the heat produced by conventional power sources to increase thermal efficiency. I've never done an energy or exergy analysis to see if this would offer any advantages over the usual regenerative and combined cycle power plants. I doubt it would. Efficiency in modern power plants is pretty much maxed out in everything already and only limited by material limitations, which are steadily being overcome by the use of exotic alloys.

WTWizard

I think they need to advance the technology. And, since nuclear fusion is able to release more energy than fission, I think they should stop dawdling about it and get going on developing it. They have had since the 1970s to do this, and they are dogging it the way they are dogging a cure for cancer. Every time someone tries and gets close, they get silenced by the Establishment. And we are still without nuclear fusion.

Had nuclear fusion been widespread, the disaster would not have been. It would be simply rolling blackouts, not a release of radiation into the atmosphere. Nuclear fusion plants, when they blow, only release hydrogen (deuterium, which is not radioactive) into the atmosphere. This creates a small fire hazard, about on the par with gas-fired plants. The amount of radiation that is created is tiny or none, and you would be limited to shortages instead of widespread contamination.

Even beyond nuclear fusion, we should be looking at totally inexhaustable energy. There is an infinite supply of it--holding mankind hostage to the Establishment. Tap that, and you have no more energy crisis. You could put a "power plant" in place of each and every electric meter (no more blackouts, even related to storms). You could put one in every car (no more $10 a gallon gas, or $1 nonillion a gallon--which may soon be the case. And no more running out of gas.) You could make Christmas lights with a power plant in each plug, allowing infinite stringing them (the plugs only secure the strands to each other) and putting them in the middle of nowhere. And, no pollution--you take a finite number from infinity, you are left with infinity.

Satanus

No, and i haven't for a few yrs, now. 'Course, there might not be a choice. Hopefully fusion will be workable, soon.

S

Wasanelder Once

There are safer ways to boil water.

the-illuminator81

Nuclear energy is a must, but we should close off older plants and replace them with newer, safer plants where there is passive security, so that in the event that all systems fail, the reactor shuts off automatically, and even in the event of a meltdown, there is no danger.

I still think that compared to other power generation technologies, nuclear energy is a lot safer.

So, do you still think that nuclear power plants are a good idea?

Share this