What we need is something orbiting the sun catching energy and some way to transfer it back. If we could tie it in to some sort of spherical storage system that encloses the planet we could use it to deflect off incoming asteroids that are due to hit. Just an idea.
Certainly in the UK most currently operating nuclear power stations only have one active reactor. Dungeness did have two operating simultaneously, at least when I visited it, but right now there's eight power stations with just one reactor, just one with more - Heysham in Lancashire, which has two reactors. Also, in this country, our nuclear power reactors output only 1250 MW. 4 * 1250 = 5000. So yes, broadly speaking it's right to say 4 nuclear power stations... in this country. You say that nuclear is by far one of the cleanest sources of power. I imagine you've got a very short list of sources there or you're forgetting the nuclear waste that's buried underground because there's no way to clean it up. What other sources of power produce waste that's so toxic it has to be buried up to 1000m into the ground so we can pretend it doesn't exist?
Drawing from my previous post: that method of storage prevents it from contaminating anything. If kept in a storage solution which allows no release of harmful levels of radiation (bearing in mind that radiation is quite common, albiet in wildly different levels depending on the source) does it matter whether the contents are nuclear waste or the obscene levels of trash humans already produce and happily thrown into the earth?
Not buried as such. What can't be reprocessed is stored in specialist underground facilities where it can be monitored. Burying blind or dumping at sea isn't an option as it could contaminate its surroundings or be accidentally uncovered by people at some point in the future.
Excellent Horizon documentary on why we need fusion power. Watch from 2 minutes (or 4.20 for a slightly shorter version) where they do the math to show what we would need to do to give up fossil fuels by 2035.
That's pretty much my point. The waste is stored in specialist facilities underground where it has to be monitored for the rest of eternity. I'd hardly call that a clean type of power, especially compared to hydro-electric, where any ecological impact has already happened and there's a constant supply of clean electricity with no waste, or tidal power, wind power, solar, etc. Nuclear is not clean. It may be less immediately damaging than burning fossil fuels but it can never be called clean unless there were some way of making the spent fuel rods so harmless that you could happily use them in every-day life.
+ another for more fusion please (KSTAR, JET, ITER etc leading to viable power generation damnit, and quickly!) While we are getting there lets: Diversify our sources of power Build many C capture plants Stop building crappy fission plants (go CANDU, LMFBR, Traveling/Standing Wave etc) Store all radioactive stuff in France
You sure about that? When the sun runs out of hydrogen it's going to turn into a red giant. Sure it doesn't explode, but it does get very hot and much bigger. While a fusion reaction on Earth doesn't have anywhere near the gravity of a star, won't it too get hotter and larger?
No. Conditions for fusion involve low density/'amounts' of plasma in the ring (lets limit this to tokamaks) at any one time. This equates to a small amount of energy in the ring at any one time (see the uber simple ideal gas law). The energy generation potential is really just coming from the temp differential. Any disruption of the reaction conditions (conditions going low or high) would kill the reaction. Its not like fission at all, think of it like tuning into a radio station. If you are a little bit out you dont get to hear the music.
At the moment, not sure if there's a viable alternative to nuclear is there? There's certainly no worry of oil running out in our lifetime, even if it does become a bit more expensive. I'm not saying there is no alternative, I just can't think of one at the moment.
Thorium nuclear power stations are an alternative to the current ones. Cheaper, cleaner and safer. We have thorium in the UK as well so we wouldn't need to go elsewhere to buy it. Seems a win situation all round for the time being while other forms are developed.
A few workers and some equipment. It's no different from a frozen foods warehouse, really. Compare that to several tons of concrete, which had to be mined from the earth, being placed directly in the path of a river and causing it to flood tens to hundreds of square miles of land upstream. Which, by the way, is not fault proof and depending on the location may cause large amounts of death and further environmental chaos if it fails. Or solar/wind which, by their nature, occupy massive amounts of land and produce relatively little power. So little, in fact, that being a primary source for just a large country would require tens of thousands of square miles of land. And of course tidal power, that's a fun one. Great idea, really. Draws from a huge reserve of energy which would take millions of years to even put a dent in! But let's just ignore any repercussions from putting large amounts of concrete right off shore with intent to interrupt the tides. Does anyone see a common theme? They all write off an area of land for the greater good. What makes any of those different from building a warehouse in the desert? Oh yeah, one of them has spooky radiation so it's bad, even though it has no effect on the surrounding area except in the case of an accident (see hydroelectric if you want to talk accidents).
First off, Sloth sums it up pretty well and I agree with the thoughts expressed. Where to begin... Solar: In a word E-Waste, while the operation of the panels themselves is a relatively clean affair, the manufacturing and disposal is NOT. Mercury, chromium, other heavy metals, various plastics, etc. Now you are probably thinking about how plastics are everywhere, and heavy metals are found in nuclear power (and a myriad of other things as well). You would be correct, but considering the quantity of materials used to build enough solar farms to replace even a single nuclear power plant, you are talking about many magnitudes more for the usage of solar vs nuclear. Then you have to look at the disposal of such facilities. The expected lifetime of a solar panel is 20-40 years. That is a lot of material to be replacing, even more so when you consider how many solar farms you would need to just offset the power supply of nuclear or coal, let alone replace. Again I bring up the plastics issue because plastics waste has the potential to be around even after the radioactive waste from a reactor has decayed to a safe level. So shouldn't we be doing what we can to minimize the waste? Wind: Enormous land usage and materials usage. Chances are most people have seen parts of a wind turbine being transported somewhere. They are HUGE. Even by your calculations sp4nky it would take 165 of the most powerful wind turbines in current existence constantly running at 100% of their capacity to offset the power output of a single reactor/plant (165 * 7.58MW = 1250.7MW). Even with current proposals for 10 MW turbines you are still looking at 125 massive turbines that would need to be replaced every 20-30 years. These installations are NOT small. As I pointed out earlier the Rsocoe Wind Farm (currently the largest) is massive; this one installation occupies a land mass greater than Rutland, and has the capacity to generate just over 781 MW. The amount of power generation being dependent on consistent winds, which is not the case. While winds can be dominant in a region, they are hardly a resource you can count on 100% of the time. Now that is not to say that you can't build a big enough wind farm, China is in the process of building a 20,000 MW system of wind farms. Though I can only begin to imagine the enormity of such a project, or the amount of resources consumed in such an endeavor. To give you an idea of materials usage consider this: Multiply those figures by 833 and you get a rough idea of how much would go into a wind farm that could theoretically match a single 1250 MW reactor IF they ran at 100% capacity 100% of the time (not even remotely realistic). Hydroelectric: Probably one of the most efficient usages of power (aside from nuclear) in terms of materials usage and consumption. Hydro offers an extremely long effective lifespan and has the potential to generate enormous amounts of power. The Three Gorges Dam in China has an installed capacity of 18,200 MW. Granted that is an ENORMOUS project, to put things into perspective: The Hoover Dam has an installed capacity of 2080 MW, while the Sir Adam Beck Hydroelectric Power Stations and Robert Moses Niagara Hydroelectric Power Station each have an installed capacity of 1926 MW and 2525 MW. In terms of the conventional notion of pollution, hydro joins the ranks of wind and solar power for being recognized as relatively emission free. However from an environmental standpoint hydroelectric is often considered as one of the most destructive. Water temperatures are thrown off killing off lots of flora and fauna downstream of a dam. Silt buildup can cause major changes in the geological structure of the area, while also depriving downstream regions of needed nutrients. Upstream you get permanent flooding and inundation of water, destroying ecosystems and potentially destabilizing terrain. Some of the more.... unusual theories propose that the added mass can even trigger seismic events. I dunno what to think about it myself but I do recognize that the effects of hydro power are far reaching and complex, both helpful and harmful in many different ways. Then there is the potential for catastrophic failure. With nuclear power you have a chance to evacuate and remove yourself from the vicinity. Hydro failures (with regards to dams) are generally rapid and the literal wave of destruction obliterates vast swaths of land. You can contain even a failed reactor. You can not erect a barrier fast enough to stop a man made tsunami. Coal: It would take pages and pages for me to vent my frustration with Coal power and its problems. I will just leave you with the little detail of how estimated usage of coal last year was 7 BILLION TONS (short tones that is). In 2009 the US used over 936 million tons of coal for power generation. Even at its trace levels of material, there is more radioactive material released from coal burning each year than any nuclear disaster. Other Fossil Fuels: We know the issues and the problems, pollution abounds accompanied by the loss of life from extracting, processing, and transporting the materials. What other methods of power generation would you like to discuss sp4nky? EDIT: Nuclear Yes nuclear has its risks, improper handling can lead to death but so can any other form of power. People die from falls in the wind industry, or meet an untimely end in the power nacelle (I'll let you figure out the gruesome details). Dams fail and people drown. People fall of their roof installing solar panels. Hundreds die in the coal industry on a yearly basis. People die in the construction and maintenance of any power generation method. The big difference is you have to build a lot less to generate the same amount of power with regards to nuclear power. It simply provides less opportunity for someone to die. The problem of waste is largely our own fault. Japan has hundreds of nuclear power plants, yet you don't hear them complaining about having to deal with copious amounts of waste. We are in our current situation as a result of our own stupidity/paranoia.
Fusion would be good to see, though with the world still in a economic recession, funding for R&D is not going to be there, for at least a good 5-10 years.
Not entirely correct. Your describing the tidal barrier type of power generation but a lot of the systems being trialled off UK waters float on the surface or are like wind turbines underwater. The same arguments apply as to the ones you put forward for wind generation. Does the total cost of materials put in equal an appropriate return.
And past a certain number of underwater turbines will you start seeing similar effects as a tidal barrier type anyway? I'd assume large farms would still impact wildlife, but perhaps be more friendly to the sensitive cycle of sand. I'll have to check them out more, thanks for pointing them out!
New scientist special editorial on Nuclear power: http://www.newscientist.com/special/rescuing-nuclear-power
