Making a Choice of Energy
When you flip that light switch, you expect the lights to go on. If you show up at work, and the power is off, your boss sends you home without pay. When your mother goes to the hospital, all those life-saving machines work on electricity. Electricity is vital.
The question is really, if not nuclear, then what? A decision has to be made and someone has to answer for it. If you rule out nuclear, then the responsibility is on you to propose some replacement.
But be careful! If you can criticize nuclear, I can criticize your proposals. Gas, oil, coal, solar, wind, conservation, geothermal, etc all have problems when one gets down to the nitty-gritty of making real electricity to serve real customers.
When you come down from the clouds and get serious about making real juice, I think any serious person will see that nuclear is the best option in our imperfect world. It\'s not perfect but no option is.
Re: Making a Choice of Energy
No I cant agree with you there.
There are undoubtedly other forms of CLEAN and RENEWABLE fuel, more cach needs to be pumped into research. I for one am not satisfied with the options currently available. Nuclear is non-renewable aswell dont forget. Properly handled, yes it can be a suitable source of power, but I\'m sure there are better ways.
Cold fusion anyone? Yes I know a fairy tale, but thats the kind of tilt people should be looking into.
Re: Making a Choice of Energy
\"Undoubtedly\"?????? Sorry, the more I read about \"alternative energy\" the MORE I doubt.
The strongest case FOR nuclear comes from the physics of energy. If it\'s energy you want, it\'s gotta go through physics - if physics don\'t know it, then it probably doesn\'t exist. Of course, physics might have to change if you discover something new, but current physics can\'t tell you how to get there.
You have completed avoid my main point - we as a society can\'t just dream or hope - it has to be REAL. Politicians have promised us alternatives for decades. Why? Because 1) they won\'t have to deliver during their term in office and 2) that promise allows them to avoid the hard decisions. Politicians are happy to throw your money down a rat hole if it makes you happy.
As to nuclear being \"non-renewable\" - there is plenty of uranium - it\'s more plentiful in the Earth\'s crust than lead. For all intents and purposes, nuclear is unlimited. In fact, uranium is a force of nature. What causes earthquakes and volcanos? - Uranium. The Earth emits to the sky 104% of the solar energy falling upon it. The difference comes from the radioactive decay of uranium.
Our current plants are crude - I know that all too well. We should be pouring money into design better nuclear plants and processes - THAT would be money well spent.
Re: Making a Choice of Energy
Ok a fair compromise is to further develop currrent plants, and yes I do see your points and think they are entirely valid. We will always need power, and we will always need solutions in the here and now. Thats what is currently happening, people burning fuels and so forth. Nuclear is leagues better, cleaner, and if delt with properly, safer. But you cant escape that point that a lot of current policy regarding fuels IS only thinking about the now.
You could NEVER convince me that further R & D wont reap any rewards, the idea in itself is just plain stupid. Your point about the physics of the problem is only partially valid, you also avoided my point. Physics has HUGE possibilities yet to be explored (or that may have been, but are being held tightly under wraps), even current physics. My example of cold fusion isnt completely rediculous, but things like that need time and research. You\'re right that various governments need a kick up the arse regarding their policies, but how can you seriously say that other solutions are not worth the time or money?
Ok my point about uranium being a fintie resourse was a bit of a dud. But even with these unlimited supplies, what do you do when the waste piles up? I nuclear is the long term solution, how do increasing populations and extra space needed for waste disposal exist in harmony?
Re: Making a Choice of Energy
Why must it be cold fussion? There have been experiments for years regarding fussion and magnetic containment. There have also been tremendous advances made in anti-matter. There is speculation about tapping the energy intrinsic to matter itself. There is much to explore!
Despite the opinions espoused earlier, global warming, the ozone hole or man\'s fault in any of these are not proven. The research has been very biased and the media information has been over-sensationalized. Why is it that no attention whatsoever is given to the climatic data showing that the ice caps have increased in thickness in some areas? (AP-Wire story about six months ago) How about the evidence that the globe should be heading towards another ice age? (geologic/archeological surveys and climatic data reports) There is no discussion about the increased growth of trees in Europe which consume increased amounts of carbon dioxide or the potential for equalibrium. (Studies done in Norway and Germany) I only scanned most of the precious pages but saw little discussion of the scientific evidence related to those issues.
I do not work for big industry, I own a small business. This panic mongering in the media reminds me of the old government made, big industry sponsered movie \"Reefer Madness\'. Despoiling our land is always a dumb idea, but jumping to conclussions because the media or some special interest group promotes it is just as dumb.
I\'ll get off my soap box now.
Further R&D - and parting words
Break apart \"R&D\" - \"R\" is for research, \"D\" is for development.
More money for physics research is great but I don\'t see a lot of physics ideas out there worth pouring more money on for a potential of an energy supply impact. Maybe for pure science - yes, of course - but if you\'re looking for a payback, keep looking. \"Cold fusion\" might be an exception but there the engineering got ahead of the physicists - one of those surprises I mentioned. If you have any other ideas, let us know.
Development is another story. Spending more money on windmill blades or solar cell fabrication is a waste, in my opinion. The physics of energy just doesn\'t justify it since these are low energy concentration sources trying to make high concentration electricity - just pushing energy uphill at a horribly low efficiency.
That\'s why nuclear has such potential - it is so much more concentrated than any other source of energy known to science - 10E7 or 10E8 times -200,000,000 electron volts for fission vs 3 electron volts for burning carbon. Right now, we\'re just boiling water with it - it\'s embaressingly primitive!
Like asking the bank robber why he robbed banks - \"Because that\'s where the money is.\" We need to look to the nucleus because that\'s where the energy is.
BTW - Oscar Wilde defined a \"fanatic\" as \"someone who will neither chage his mind nor the subject.\" With that thought I\'ll not post any more on this subject since I\'m sounding like a bit of a fanatic to myself. You can PM me if you want to discuss more.