RECENT TOPICS » View all
Nuclear crisis : what is the exact situation ?
Index » 喫茶店 (Koohii Lounge)
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next »
IceCream wrote:
Solar power has been around for 40 years or so now, but it hasn't reached the efficiency it would have done if money had been invested in it.
You keep saying this, but it sounds like empty speculation to me. Do you have anything to back up your claim that solar power would be leaps and bounds more efficient if people would just pour money into it?
well, why don't you google "solar power efficiency" and see how technology is being advanced now that more money IS going into solar power?
I'm not saying that it would be more efficient because i'm an expert engineer, i'm saying it would be more efficient because there is no absolutely limiting factor on the efficiency of solar cells (well, there is, but we're a long way off reaching it). New technologies keep being developed to make things more efficient all the time.
The suggestion that solar power is somehow a hopeless case involves more speculation imo, given the models of how far we CAN progress with efficiency in other sectors when they're heavily invested in, computer chips being one of them. What if someone had said back in the 70's, "nah, this thing's as big as a room, we'll never get it more efficient than that".
I'll look for that NG article, and see if it's online though...
here it is: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/ … son-text/1
it's the full article, so continues for 9 pages, but definately worth a read...
NG wrote:
Right now the panels are expensive, and they provide an efficiency of only about 10 to 20 percent, compared with the 24 percent of parabolic troughs. History more than physics is to blame. After the solar bust in the mid-1980s, many of the best engineers migrated to the computing industry, which uses the same raw material—silicon and other semiconductors. Following what is called Moore's law, microprocessors doubled in capability every couple of years, while solar languished. Now some of the engineering talent is moving back to solar.
Last edited by IceCream (2011 August 23, 9:50 am)
IceCream wrote:
The suggestion that solar power is somehow a hopeless case involves more speculation imo, given the models of how far we CAN progress with efficiency in other sectors when they're heavily invested in, computer chips being one of them. What if someone had said back in the 70's, "nah, this thing's as big as a room, we'll never get it more efficient than that".
Presumedly the computer industry had more money for research and innovation because people/businesses were buying more computers because of the value having a computer brings to their lives. I don't see how giving away money unconditionally is possibly good for innovation. Where is the conspiracy holding back solar power?
bodhisamaya wrote:
...Investments need to be made into cleaner energy, but the potential to make nuclear safer is there too.
Fear is part of the reason why the Fukushima accident happened. New plants should have already replaced the ones we have now, but requesting the funds is dicey politically...
Yes, and unfortunately the incident has caused a renew vigor to people's fear and hatred of nuclear energy, which will feed back into the cycle.
It will be interesting to see how many people at least start getting more informed about nuclear power via some other fuel like thorium- which produces more power, is more abundant, is insanely safer, etc but doesn't produce weapons grade material byproducts (which you may or may not consider a plus).
nadiatims wrote:
IceCream wrote:
The suggestion that solar power is somehow a hopeless case involves more speculation imo, given the models of how far we CAN progress with efficiency in other sectors when they're heavily invested in, computer chips being one of them. What if someone had said back in the 70's, "nah, this thing's as big as a room, we'll never get it more efficient than that".
Presumedly the computer industry had more money for research and innovation because people/businesses were buying more computers because of the value having a computer brings to their lives. I don't see how giving away money unconditionally is possibly good for innovation. Where is the conspiracy holding back solar power?
well, i've already said this a couple of times now, but people don't invest in something if there is something they can invest in that can bring them more profit... i.e. oil.
Who's giving away money unconditionally? We know the benefits of solar power... they're just not mainly monetary ones. It's exactly that kind of attitude that's messed up the world to the extent it is.
That national geographic article also explains the history of investment in solar power. It's been really patchy, with investment only at times of oil crisis.
NG wrote:
The optimists say that with steady, incremental improvements—no huge breakthroughs are required—and with substantial government support, solar power could become as economical and efficient as fossil fuels. The pessimists say they've heard all this before—30 years ago, during the presidency of Jimmy Carter. That too was a period of national crisis, triggered by the Arab oil embargo of 1973. Addressing the nation in his cardigan sweater, President Carter called for a new national energy policy with solar energy playing a large part. In 1979 the Islamic revolution in Iran sent oil prices soaring again. American drivers lined up for gasoline, their radios blaring songs like "Bomb Iran," by Vince Vance and the Valiants (sung to the tune of the Beach Boys' "Barbara Ann"). Carter, true to his word, put solar water heaters on the White House roof.
.....
The momentum didn't last. As the economy adjusted to the Iranian oil shock, fuel prices fell. With the sense of urgency reduced, along with the research dollars, solar remained a minor factor in the energy equation. The SEGS plants were still being built when President Ronald Reagan took the solar water heaters off the White House roof. The first solar revolution fizzled.
... like i said, it's worth reading the article.
overture2112 wrote:
bodhisamaya wrote:
...Investments need to be made into cleaner energy, but the potential to make nuclear safer is there too.
Fear is part of the reason why the Fukushima accident happened. New plants should have already replaced the ones we have now, but requesting the funds is dicey politically...Yes, and unfortunately the incident has caused a renew vigor to people's fear and hatred of nuclear energy, which will feed back into the cycle.
It will be interesting to see how many people at least start getting more informed about nuclear power via some other fuel like thorium- which produces more power, is more abundant, is insanely safer, etc but doesn't produce weapons grade material byproducts (which you may or may not consider a plus).
I'll probably look the Thorium thing up on my own later but I just wanted to post this while I remember it...
I've never heard of the US or other countries suggesting that Iran use thorium for their nuclear plants instead of uranium. If thorium is as ideal as it sounds from your post, it seems like a very simple solution to the whole conflict. Other countries don't want Iran to use nuclear power because it means Iran might produce nuclear weapons, Iran itself only wants the energy (well, that's what they claim most of the time anyway). I don't know if thorium is rare in the areas near Iran though, of course. Have there been any talks of this that I've missed?
Surreal wrote:
I've never heard of the US or other countries suggesting that Iran use thorium for their nuclear plants instead of uranium. If thorium is as ideal as it sounds from your post, it seems like a very simple solution to the whole conflict. Other countries don't want Iran to use nuclear power because it means Iran might produce nuclear weapons, Iran itself only wants the energy (well, that's what they claim most of the time anyway). I don't know if thorium is rare in the areas near Iran though, of course. Have there been any talks of this that I've missed?
You're correct and some people have indeed suggested just letting them use a fuel that doesn't have weapons grade byproducts. Of course, Iran / North Korea will use the excuse that nobody else really uses thorium yet or something.
India and China are planning on using it, one of the reasons being it's not super dangerous if corrupt workers / angry mobs try to raid one. Others have even suggested putting very small thorium reactors buried underground below suburbs to power them for a decade and then be replaced like batteries.
As for rarity (via cited wikipedia):
* "Thorium is found in small amounts in most rocks and soils; it is three times more abundant than tin in the Earth's crust and is about as common as lead."
* "Thorium is several times more abundant in Earth's crust than all isotopes of uranium combined and thorium-232 is several hundred times more abundant than uranium-235"
* There's enough in the US to power us at current rates for 1000 years.
useful link
Last edited by overture2112 (2011 August 24, 10:18 am)
i'm still voting for Solar, though maybe Thorium scores -15.
it's hard to find balanced reviews of the Thorium idea, so here's a negative one to balance the positive one above:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 … ar-uranium
Last edited by IceCream (2011 August 24, 2:30 pm)
overture: Thanks, I read through the article. One thing I didn't like about it was how they made out Sorensen to be this hero who retrieved a long last treasure, wikipedia's page on thorium links to a 1997 article which talks of Radkowsky in Tel Aviv having gotten research going on thorium-fueled nuclear power in 1992.http://tinyurl.com/3g4ppqx Also, I get the feeling it's a bit too optimistic and it seems to be downplaying the criticism. Edit: Oh and Ken Ricci's comment about the history of nuclear power development in the US was really interesting, you should check it if you haven't seen it (starts with "It's not really a conspiracy if you look at")
icecream: Like some people pointed out in the comments section, the writer of the Ecologist(through Guardian) article you linked makes some mistakes and he doesn't seem to have a very good grasp of the subject matter. Something interesting I found in one of the comments was this link to a discussion of the radioactive materials released from coal burning, I didn't know this was an issue at all until now http://answers.google.com/answers/threa … 80347.html
Of course, there is what seems like well thought-out criticism around too. However, I can't tell if it's mostly a matter of overly conservative researchers resisting the ambitious advances made by bright newthinkers or naïve hotshots rushing into something that more reserved "think-aheaders" are trying to steer them away from. In either case, although it has been very interesting looking up info on the issue and radioactivity in general, I've realized that learning enough to have an educated understanding of what's really happening would take too lmore time than I want to invest. I guess I'll keep my ears open for any news of failure/success re:thorium plants in the coming years.
Now something else...
IceCream wrote:
i think part of what makes failures of nuclear energy so scary IS it's unknownness. No-one is entirely sure what to expect. It's plausible to believe that the costs of accidents to do with oil or coal do have a higher cost in terms of lives lost, but they don't come close to nuclear in terms of psychological impact.
The fact that nuclear accidents affect children the most (who haven't chosen it, it's not work related injury), the fact that areas are uninhabitable afterwards for such long periods, the farms that end up with radioactive food well outside the exclusion zone, and the genetic mutations all leave a deep impression. Even if you're totally rational, doesn't it leave you with a large feeling of unease?
I'm reading through the article you linked in the DU thread http://www.ehjournal.net/content/4/1/17 (it's very good btw) and a part of it made me think of ^post:
"A 1996 study of human anencephaly vis a vis parental and in utero ambient exposure to lead, mercury and vanadium is exemplary. Levels of these three substances were measured in the brain, kidney, liver, and lung of 20 anencephalic and 20 control fetuses, all of which were conceived in an area of Venezuela where these heavy metals were (are?) being constantly released into the environment by "a petroleum empire [that] has grown indiscriminately". In sum, the researchers stated that " [m]ercury and Pb were significantly increased (p less than 0.001) in kidney and liver of anencephalic fetuses. Vanadium was detected exclusively at brain level, being significantly higher in controls (p less than 0.05).... In conclusion, Hg and Pb are toxic elements present in the Eastern coast's environment that should be seriously considered for cause/effect studies when the etiology of anencephaly in this region is considered..." [35]. "
And then the mental chain continued on to http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/fe … 81347.html
This isn't really a counterargument to what you said or anything, I just thought it's interesting (or, well, mostly horrifying) how fossil fuel accidents have caused very similar problems to what has happened after nuclear meltdowns. I wonder if there have been any problems with radioactivity after oil spills, and especially oil wildfire accidents? (http://www.epa.gov/radtown/drilling-waste.html)
Last edited by Surreal (2011 August 24, 4:54 pm)
yeah, i also read an article about the exact same thing today!!! i didn't know either, although of course i'd rather see the back of coal and oil before nuclear even before that...
It's interesting, i was thinking along the same kinds of lines as you, but in another direction... i was wondering whether genetic mutations due to radioactivity isn't misrepresented... and the increased levels of genetic mutations after chernobyl could be associated with various heavy / toxic metals that found their way into the food chain afterwards, regardless of radioactivity levels of them. (i've also watched some documentaries with stranger health effects attributed to Chernobyl that could easily fall in line with metal toxicity symptoms too)
If it was possible that that could also be the case, are the Japanese government definately testing the right things in food and water then?
Well, i don't know, but both lines of thought are interesting to find out a bit more about i think...
Last edited by IceCream (2011 August 24, 5:51 pm)
a little more on this:
http://www.llrc.org/fukushima/subtopic/fukuepauran.pdf
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/3291 (summary)
so, high amounts of aerosolized uranium were detected...
(see this thread: http://forum.koohii.com/viewtopic.php?p … 87#p154787 for a discussion of the dangers of aerosolized uranium.)
Last edited by IceCream (2011 August 25, 3:27 pm)
Surreal wrote:
overture: Thanks, I read through the article. One thing I didn't like about it was how they made out Sorensen to be this hero who retrieved a long last treasure
Yea, that also bothered me a tad but it was the only one I could quickly find that was somewhere between executive summary for morons and tl;dr inducing explanations.
hmm, this is more of an edit to my post above, but it's been a while now, so...
It's kinda interesting... the man who wrote about levels of aerosolized uranium in the air after Fukushima is also the same man who did one of the most recent study in Iraq on cancer levels and birth ratios / survival rates: http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/7/7/2828/pdf
although the report wasn't funded by a university, and was done through means of a survey... i'm not sure how statistically significant the results are. And this guy may have a bias against nuclear stuff.
Obviously this guy is making the same link as me and Surreal were exploring though.
Since Uranium isn't especially radioactive, does anyone know for sure if they are testing the levels in food and the water table / dust samples, etc? Is Uranium radioactive enough that it would come above the safe levels anyway? Are they even testing consistently for uranium levels? Because so much of the talk is about levels of radioactive Iodine and Caesium.
My worry is that even if safe levels in terms of radioactivity are found in Bqs, contamination though unsafe levels of metal toxicity may occur. If anyone knows anything, please share!!!
Last edited by IceCream (2011 August 26, 11:16 am)
(reviving old thread...)
I just watched this clip from a BBC TV program that is being broadcast tonight (March 1st 2012). It's about the lives of children in areas where radiation is a concern.
IceCream wrote:
i'm still voting for Solar, though maybe Thorium scores -15.
it's hard to find balanced reviews of the Thorium idea, so here's a negative one to balance the positive one above:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 … ar-uranium
Since it was revived, guess I'll comment too.
First things first, at it's heart all renewables are nuclear powered. I'm not being a smart ass here. The radioactive decay in the Earth and the fusion in the core of the Sun gives off enormous power and we're sticking out a cup to catch a bit of it. On top of that, methods to collect this power comes with its own cost in terms of extraction, construction, upkeep and carbon emmissions (with respect to dams). Renewables are great and noble pursuit, however, people tend to gloss over the cost aspect and completely ignore they're a natural form of nuclear power.
Second, it's just not feasible attempt to bring conservation into the equation. I'm not saying it's cool to waste, but you're not going to hold back developing third world nations. As they bring up their quality of life, they will increase their energy consumption. Either that need gets met, or there's a fight for the resources to get that need met.
I've only recently became aware of the benefits of Thorium. With that, I've become more aware about various types of nuclear power. The more I learn, the more benefits I see molten salt reactors offering all of humanity.
Right now, producing 20% of the world's energy is Uranium 235 which is as rare as platinum (.017 ppm). Out of 2000 tons of uranium ore, you get 250 tons of yellow cake uranium which is 0.7% U235 and 99.3% U238. This ore is enriched giving you 35 tons of Uranium that's 5% U235. The left over 200 tons is called depleted uranium (virtually all U238). The enriched uranium is then used as solid fuel in 150 atmosphere light water reactors of which only about 1% of the U235 is actually used.
So, the only nuclear reactor being used at the moment is using a rare element in a dangerous process (reduced to a great degree with the amount of safety measures used) and only has a 1% efficiency. This is mainly due to being a solid fuel so fission products like Xenon that stops fission build up and cannot be removed. On top of that, the plants are so far away from population centers you lose over 50% of the electricity generated during transmission. On top of that, since it's a solid fuel design, instead of burning up radioactive wastes, it gets built up in the fuel meaning a 10,000 year storage requirement
There's also billions of dollars in research using what's called fast spectrum breeders. This process hits U238 (as in depleted uranium) with neutrons, eventually becoming Plutonium. If I'm not mistaken, there's no active plant using this process. It still merits research as U238 is fairly common (about as common as tin).
Thorium (Th233) though has not had the in depth research that the other two have had. The resurgence recently seems to be thanks to the internet and Kirk Sorensen and others blowing the trumpet on it. Now, it's not a cure all as there's loads of research and testing that needs to be done. There's no commercial product because there's not been a plant built yet. The one built in the late 60's was more a proof of concept design. So, while IceCream was crying foul about Solar not developing thanks to scientists leaving it for 20+ years, imagine molten salt reactors that haven't been furthered in research for 40+years.
Still, here's why I'll back LFTRs (liquid flouride thorium reactors) and it's variants over solar and wind: We can use Thorium anywhere in the solar system (the sun and wind cannot apply to the moon). It's so common we will have plenty by the time research has perfected the next step in energy: fusion. With Thorium (and later fusion if not anti-matter), we can set up shop at least on the Moon and Mars and start terraforming Mars and Venus. That just will not happen with wind and solar. It's unfeasible with fossil fuels.
I don't even have to touch on space. This technology looks beneficial to life on Earth. Assuming it all pans out, you got a 600 degrees celsius oven you can use for electricity, manufacturing, desalination, and carbon fuel production. It can be scaled to power small towns or large ships. We're talking about something the size of a pilates ball providing 1GW/year of electricity which the US is just storing as waste. By all means, develop wind and solar, but think of those as "in additions to" and not "instead of".
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next »