Comments on: We Need More Growth of Nuclear Power

By: Ben

Ben — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 16:22:46 +0000

I’m not sure waiting for tenuous breakthroughs in fusion is the best strategy. I think a combination of renewables and nuclear are the way to go for the forseeable future. I also think the problems of nuclear waste storage have largely been solved and that it’s mostly a political problem, not technological or scientific, which is unfortunate.

By: shawn

shawn — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:31:58 +0000

Just to put what i’ve researched over the years is probably the best choice we can make is using renewable energies and a mix of nuclear until we can fully utilize fusion energy. The great thing with fusion we have 1,000′s of year worth of hydrogen on earth in the form of water and the by products do not remain radioactive for thousands of years and we would primarily produce helium as a waste product. I’m only 16 but thats what I can see as the best future. Also for continuing to use oil if we can become good at using enzymes to break down cellulose we could that to produce our liquid alcohol fuels to take the place of hydrocarbons for heavy transport vehicles and possibly for aviation. Also this cellulose could be from waste paper, sawdust, or really any other waste source.

By: Nuclear Energy and the Question of Uranium Supply | Philosophical Geek

Nuclear Energy and the Question of Uranium Supply | Philosophical Geek — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 13:39:30 +0000

[...] the replies to my article about nuclear power, there were statements about the supply of uranium the world can provide and that in the end, [...]

By: Ben

Ben — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 13:35:26 +0000

Peter, Fair points, but newer types of nuclear reactors require far fewer resources.

I definitely agree with you that recycling all resources needs to become a fundamental practice of society. Unfortunately, I think our technology needs to improve this drastically to make it easier and cheaper.

By: Peter

Peter — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 19:28:53 +0000

Harsha has it right, there isn’t enough U235 in the world to make this work. Just like there isnt enough anything to make the current level of consumption provide all billion of us with the life style that us luck billion have. The maths is simple we would need six earths.

It is also debateable whether you ever get any energy out of a nuclear power station. By the time you add up the energy required to build the station thousands of tonnes of steel, concrete etc and the energy to process the fuel before and after plus the energy to decommission and match that against the energy produced to end users it is doubtful there is any positive gain. Add that to the fact they are supposed to have very low carbon footprints, a tonne of concrete produces at least a tonne of C02, it is hard to see why this is a good idea. Except of course to politicians who want ot be seen as doing something.

Reduce, reuse, repair and recycle and of these Reduce is the most important. In order of priority. Nuclear is not even in the starting blocks.

By: Ben

Ben — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 19:16:34 +0000

Harsha, I had not heard that there were only 10-20 years worth of uranium, but I will research that some more.

The immediate thing that comes to mind, though, is that there have been predictions about crude oil running out in the same time frame for many, many years, and none of those have come true–there are many more reserves and we keep getting better at finding them and taking advantage of. (though, of course, some of this is because the price has gone up, making it more worthwhile to tap previously unprofitable reserves)

I also believe in human ingenuity–we can find more uranium; we can use it more efficiently. If demand were to increase for uranium, more sources might suddenly become available and plentiful.

It’s not a perfect solution, of course, and any non-renewable resource will have an ultimate limit, but I think all things considered, nuclear is still the way to go for the forseeable future. Research will continue with fusion, solar and other renewables will continue to be improved.

The waste problem is real, and I will address that in an upcoming entry, but in short I think we need to decide what are priorities are: pollution everywhere or a localized dump for toxic materials?

By: Harsha

Harsha — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 03:25:39 +0000

Interesting post, Ben.

Just watched a documentary called “A Crude Awakening” from 2006 about the oil crisis. They interviewed the head of the dept. of Physics at CalTech & asked him about his opinion on nuclear energy being able to completely replace energy produced currently via oil / coal / other fossil fuels & he was of the opinion that nuclear energy was at best a stop-gap solution. He said “To replace the approximately 1 terawatt of energy currently consumed daily, we would have to build about 10,000 of the biggest nuclear reactors & even if these reactors start working at full capacity, we would run through all the available Uranium -235 in about 10-20 years, not to mention the problem of dealing with the radioactive waste generated in this process”.

Just my $0.02. You’ve obviously done your research, what is your opinion on this? By going nuclear, are we choosing an untapped fossil fuel (U-235) which might run out in a couple of decades, over one that’s almost depleted (oil)?