Jump to content
GaryC

Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

81 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Filed: Timeline
Posted (edited)

If we become too dependent on solar energy, I can imagine future American Presidents going to war against countries that get lots of sun ;)

ETA: holy shiite.... those would be the same countries we go to war with right now!!! Imagine the Sahara desert being the most prime real estate in the world.

Edited by VJ Troll

Man is made by his belief. As he believes, so he is.

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
Lowering CO2 emissions is confusing to some, I'm sure. Perhaps we should be focused instead on reducing the burning of fossil fuels...would that be easier? :unsure:

More nuclear power and renewable resources. Amen brother.

Nuclear power in this country will always run into the NIMBY crowd. Not that I blame them, I wouldn't want one in my backyard (town, county) either.

People are educated about nuclear power to the tabloid level. Considering not a single person has been killed or injured in the US from commercial nuclear power the fear is unfounded.

I am all for alternative energy. Build 20 or 30 new nuke power plants. That would help a lot. Then pour money into rechargeable electric cars recharged by those nuclear plants. We should also dam up some more rivers and go hydropower. That would take a big chuck out of our fossil fuel use and help satisfy the man-made GW nuts at the same time. Win-win.

So the question to you Steven, how far are you prepared to go? Would you agree with nuclear and hydro power to spare us from the dreaded CO2 monster?

While hydro power is clean (no emissions), it can destroy river ecosystems. But then we have pretty much done that with locks/damns and industrial dumping.

Solar and wind power are the best options, since they take advantage energy closest to the sun. But they do have issues with reliability and would need another source of power to make up the difference when there is no sun or wind.

But what would make a big difference is when builders learn to design homes and buildings in an environmentally friendly fashion, taking advantages of solar heating and lighting, and geothermal heating and cooling.

You see, that's just it. We can't conserve our way out of the energy problem. We have to find new energy. Solar and wind will never replace oil. It just takes up to much real estate to make it work. Nuclear is something we already know how to do. We know it works and we can make it safe. Fusion is the promise of tomorrow. If we could master that then our energy needs will always be met. Solar and wind are at best a stop-gap measure and IMO only wastes time and money better spent on a permanent solution.

All energy comes directly or indirectly from the sun. The most efficient energy source is solar. But the current conversion rates are pretty low, like 10-20%, although that is improving. 50%+ efficiency is on the horizon. Wind energy is created by the heating and cooling of different air masses.

But the problem with nuclear energy is that the supply of uranium is finite. If we increase our consumption of uranium, we will be out of it pretty quickly.

http://www.fraw.org.uk/mobbsey/papers/oies_article.html This report has resources limited to 50 years at the current level of consumption.

keTiiDCjGVo

Posted
Lowering CO2 emissions is confusing to some, I'm sure. Perhaps we should be focused instead on reducing the burning of fossil fuels...would that be easier? :unsure:

More nuclear power and renewable resources. Amen brother.

Nuclear power in this country will always run into the NIMBY crowd. Not that I blame them, I wouldn't want one in my backyard (town, county) either.

People are educated about nuclear power to the tabloid level. Considering not a single person has been killed or injured in the US from commercial nuclear power the fear is unfounded.

I am all for alternative energy. Build 20 or 30 new nuke power plants. That would help a lot. Then pour money into rechargeable electric cars recharged by those nuclear plants. We should also dam up some more rivers and go hydropower. That would take a big chuck out of our fossil fuel use and help satisfy the man-made GW nuts at the same time. Win-win.

So the question to you Steven, how far are you prepared to go? Would you agree with nuclear and hydro power to spare us from the dreaded CO2 monster?

While hydro power is clean (no emissions), it can destroy river ecosystems. But then we have pretty much done that with locks/damns and industrial dumping.

Solar and wind power are the best options, since they take advantage energy closest to the sun. But they do have issues with reliability and would need another source of power to make up the difference when there is no sun or wind.

But what would make a big difference is when builders learn to design homes and buildings in an environmentally friendly fashion, taking advantages of solar heating and lighting, and geothermal heating and cooling.

You see, that's just it. We can't conserve our way out of the energy problem. We have to find new energy. Solar and wind will never replace oil. It just takes up to much real estate to make it work. Nuclear is something we already know how to do. We know it works and we can make it safe. Fusion is the promise of tomorrow. If we could master that then our energy needs will always be met. Solar and wind are at best a stop-gap measure and IMO only wastes time and money better spent on a permanent solution.

All energy comes directly or indirectly from the sun. The most efficient energy source is solar. But the current conversion rates are pretty low, like 10-20%, although that is improving. 50%+ efficiency is on the horizon. Wind energy is created by the heating and cooling of different air masses.

But the problem with nuclear energy is that the supply of uranium is finite. If we increase our consumption of uranium, we will be out of it pretty quickly.

http://www.fraw.org.uk/mobbsey/papers/oies_article.html This report has resources limited to 50 years at the current level of consumption.

No, breeder reactors don't use up a lot of nuclear fuel. In fact they make more fuel than they use. Some sodium reactors don't need refueling in the lifetime of the reactor.

Posted (edited)
Lowering CO2 emissions is confusing to some, I'm sure. Perhaps we should be focused instead on reducing the burning of fossil fuels...would that be easier? :unsure:

More nuclear power and renewable resources. Amen brother.

Nuclear power in this country will always run into the NIMBY crowd. Not that I blame them, I wouldn't want one in my backyard (town, county) either.

People are educated about nuclear power to the tabloid level. Considering not a single person has been killed or injured in the US from commercial nuclear power the fear is unfounded.

I am all for alternative energy. Build 20 or 30 new nuke power plants. That would help a lot. Then pour money into rechargeable electric cars recharged by those nuclear plants. We should also dam up some more rivers and go hydropower. That would take a big chuck out of our fossil fuel use and help satisfy the man-made GW nuts at the same time. Win-win.

So the question to you Steven, how far are you prepared to go? Would you agree with nuclear and hydro power to spare us from the dreaded CO2 monster?

While hydro power is clean (no emissions), it can destroy river ecosystems. But then we have pretty much done that with locks/damns and industrial dumping.

Solar and wind power are the best options, since they take advantage energy closest to the sun. But they do have issues with reliability and would need another source of power to make up the difference when there is no sun or wind.

But what would make a big difference is when builders learn to design homes and buildings in an environmentally friendly fashion, taking advantages of solar heating and lighting, and geothermal heating and cooling.

You see, that's just it. We can't conserve our way out of the energy problem. We have to find new energy. Solar and wind will never replace oil. It just takes up to much real estate to make it work. Nuclear is something we already know how to do. We know it works and we can make it safe. Fusion is the promise of tomorrow. If we could master that then our energy needs will always be met. Solar and wind are at best a stop-gap measure and IMO only wastes time and money better spent on a permanent solution.

All energy comes directly or indirectly from the sun. The most efficient energy source is solar. But the current conversion rates are pretty low, like 10-20%, although that is improving. 50%+ efficiency is on the horizon. Wind energy is created by the heating and cooling of different air masses.

But the problem with nuclear energy is that the supply of uranium is finite. If we increase our consumption of uranium, we will be out of it pretty quickly.

http://www.fraw.org.uk/mobbsey/papers/oies_article.html This report has resources limited to 50 years at the current level of consumption.

No, breeder reactors don't use up a lot of nuclear fuel. In fact they make more fuel than they use. Some sodium reactors don't need refueling in the lifetime of the reactor.

You can more efficiently use uranium, but if you add more reactors, that doesn't make the fuel last any longer. Like Oil, its finite. The only energy source with have thats effectively infinite (well wont run out for maybe another 5.5 billion years) is solar and sources directly derived from it, wind.

You cant create more fuel than you have to start with. Energy is not created or destroyed, its only converted from one form to another. First law of thermodynamics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics Although your welcome to try to disprove it.

Edited by Dan + Gemvita

keTiiDCjGVo

Posted

No, breeder reactors don't use up a lot of nuclear fuel. In fact they make more fuel than they use. Some sodium reactors don't need refueling in the lifetime of the reactor.

You can more efficiently use uranium, but if you add more reactors, that doesn't make the fuel last any longer. Like Oil, its finite. The only energy source with have thats effectively infinite (well wont run out for maybe another 5.5 billion years) is solar and sources directly derived from it, wind.

You cant create more fuel than you have to start with. Energy is not created or destroyed, its only converted from one form to another. First law of thermodynamics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics Although your welcome to try to disprove it.

I'll give it a shot. Try this for starters.

Fast Breeder Reactors

Under appropriate operating conditions, the neutrons given off by fission reactions can "breed" more fuel from otherwise non-fissionable isotopes. The most common breeding reaction is that of plutonium-239 from non-fissionable uranium-238. The term "fast breeder" refers to the types of configurations which can actually produce more fissionable fuel than they use, such as the LMFBR. This scenario is possible because the non-fissionable uranium-238 is 140 times more abundant than the fissionable U-235 and can be efficiently converted into Pu-239 by the neutrons from a fission chain reaction.

France has made the largest implementation of breeder reactors with its large Super-Phenix reactor and an intermediate scale reactor (BN-600) on the Caspian Sea for electric power and desalinization.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...ene/fasbre.html

Posted

No, breeder reactors don't use up a lot of nuclear fuel. In fact they make more fuel than they use. Some sodium reactors don't need refueling in the lifetime of the reactor.

You can more efficiently use uranium, but if you add more reactors, that doesn't make the fuel last any longer. Like Oil, its finite. The only energy source with have thats effectively infinite (well wont run out for maybe another 5.5 billion years) is solar and sources directly derived from it, wind.

You cant create more fuel than you have to start with. Energy is not created or destroyed, its only converted from one form to another. First law of thermodynamics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics Although your welcome to try to disprove it.

I'll give it a shot. Try this for starters.

Fast Breeder Reactors

Under appropriate operating conditions, the neutrons given off by fission reactions can "breed" more fuel from otherwise non-fissionable isotopes. The most common breeding reaction is that of plutonium-239 from non-fissionable uranium-238. The term "fast breeder" refers to the types of configurations which can actually produce more fissionable fuel than they use, such as the LMFBR. This scenario is possible because the non-fissionable uranium-238 is 140 times more abundant than the fissionable U-235 and can be efficiently converted into Pu-239 by the neutrons from a fission chain reaction.

France has made the largest implementation of breeder reactors with its large Super-Phenix reactor and an intermediate scale reactor (BN-600) on the Caspian Sea for electric power and desalinization.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...ene/fasbre.html

Uranium-238 is not fissile by itself, meaning it cant sustain a nuclear chain reaction. But, Uranium-238 can be converted to plutonium-239 which is then used create a nuclear reaction. Which will produce energy and covert more of the Uranium-238 to plutonium-239. This cannot be sustained indefinably, the reactor will run out of Uranium-238. And then it will burn up the rest of the plutonium-239.

So yes in a sense it produces more fissile (P-239) material than it starts with but it will eventually run out of fissionable material (U-238). But U-238 is much more abundant then U-235 with is used in current reactors.

But then this type of reactor, has only been prototyped, and most of the prototypes have been closed down due to high costs or other issues. The only reactor still running right now is in Russia, all the others have been closed down.

Considering the first FBR was in operation back in 1951, I wouldn't count on this technology being the an energy savior for quite some time. Just like fusion power.

keTiiDCjGVo

Posted (edited)

No, breeder reactors don't use up a lot of nuclear fuel. In fact they make more fuel than they use. Some sodium reactors don't need refueling in the lifetime of the reactor.

You can more efficiently use uranium, but if you add more reactors, that doesn't make the fuel last any longer. Like Oil, its finite. The only energy source with have thats effectively infinite (well wont run out for maybe another 5.5 billion years) is solar and sources directly derived from it, wind.

You cant create more fuel than you have to start with. Energy is not created or destroyed, its only converted from one form to another. First law of thermodynamics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics Although your welcome to try to disprove it.

I'll give it a shot. Try this for starters.

Fast Breeder Reactors

Under appropriate operating conditions, the neutrons given off by fission reactions can "breed" more fuel from otherwise non-fissionable isotopes. The most common breeding reaction is that of plutonium-239 from non-fissionable uranium-238. The term "fast breeder" refers to the types of configurations which can actually produce more fissionable fuel than they use, such as the LMFBR. This scenario is possible because the non-fissionable uranium-238 is 140 times more abundant than the fissionable U-235 and can be efficiently converted into Pu-239 by the neutrons from a fission chain reaction.

France has made the largest implementation of breeder reactors with its large Super-Phenix reactor and an intermediate scale reactor (BN-600) on the Caspian Sea for electric power and desalinization.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...ene/fasbre.html

Uranium-238 is not fissile by itself, meaning it cant sustain a nuclear chain reaction. But, Uranium-238 can be converted to plutonium-239 which is then used create a nuclear reaction. Which will produce energy and covert more of the Uranium-238 to plutonium-239. This cannot be sustained indefinably, the reactor will run out of Uranium-238. And then it will burn up the rest of the plutonium-239.

So yes in a sense it produces more fissile (P-239) material than it starts with but it will eventually run out of fissionable material (U-238). But U-238 is much more abundant then U-235 with is used in current reactors.

But then this type of reactor, has only been prototyped, and most of the prototypes have been closed down due to high costs or other issues. The only reactor still running right now is in Russia, all the others have been closed down.

Considering the first FBR was in operation back in 1951, I wouldn't count on this technology being the an energy savior for quite some time. Just like fusion power.

Sorry man, your wrong. Breeder reactors very doable. They make reactor fuel. Here is more if you care to see.

The Super-Phenix

The Super-Phenix was the first large-scale breeder reactor. It was put into service in France in 1984.

The reactor core consists of thousands of stainless steel tubes containing a mixture of uranium and plutonium oxides, about 15-20% fissionable plutonium-239. Surrounding the core is a region called the breeder blanket consisting of tubes filled only with uranium oxide. The entire assembly is about 3x5 meters and is supported in a reactor vessel in molten sodium. The energy from the nuclear fission heats the sodium to about 500°C and it transfers that energy to a second sodium loop which in turn heats water to produce steam for electricity production.

Such a reactor can produce about 20% more fuel than it consumes by the breeding reaction. Enough excess fuel is produced over about 20 years to fuel another such reactor. Optimum breeding allows about 75% of the energy of the natural uranium to be used compared to 1% in the standard light water reactor.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...ene/fasbre.html

We could run our entire grid on nuclear alone for centuries. There is no problem getting the fuel for the reactors.

Edited by GaryC
Posted (edited)

No, breeder reactors don't use up a lot of nuclear fuel. In fact they make more fuel than they use. Some sodium reactors don't need refueling in the lifetime of the reactor.

You can more efficiently use uranium, but if you add more reactors, that doesn't make the fuel last any longer. Like Oil, its finite. The only energy source with have thats effectively infinite (well wont run out for maybe another 5.5 billion years) is solar and sources directly derived from it, wind.

You cant create more fuel than you have to start with. Energy is not created or destroyed, its only converted from one form to another. First law of thermodynamics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics Although your welcome to try to disprove it.

I'll give it a shot. Try this for starters.

Fast Breeder Reactors

Under appropriate operating conditions, the neutrons given off by fission reactions can "breed" more fuel from otherwise non-fissionable isotopes. The most common breeding reaction is that of plutonium-239 from non-fissionable uranium-238. The term "fast breeder" refers to the types of configurations which can actually produce more fissionable fuel than they use, such as the LMFBR. This scenario is possible because the non-fissionable uranium-238 is 140 times more abundant than the fissionable U-235 and can be efficiently converted into Pu-239 by the neutrons from a fission chain reaction.

France has made the largest implementation of breeder reactors with its large Super-Phenix reactor and an intermediate scale reactor (BN-600) on the Caspian Sea for electric power and desalinization.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...ene/fasbre.html

Uranium-238 is not fissile by itself, meaning it cant sustain a nuclear chain reaction. But, Uranium-238 can be converted to plutonium-239 which is then used create a nuclear reaction. Which will produce energy and covert more of the Uranium-238 to plutonium-239. This cannot be sustained indefinably, the reactor will run out of Uranium-238. And then it will burn up the rest of the plutonium-239.

So yes in a sense it produces more fissile (P-239) material than it starts with but it will eventually run out of fissionable material (U-238). But U-238 is much more abundant then U-235 with is used in current reactors.

But then this type of reactor, has only been prototyped, and most of the prototypes have been closed down due to high costs or other issues. The only reactor still running right now is in Russia, all the others have been closed down.

Considering the first FBR was in operation back in 1951, I wouldn't count on this technology being the an energy savior for quite some time. Just like fusion power.

Sorry man, your wrong. Breeder reactors very doable. They make reactor fuel. Here is more if you care to see.

The Super-Phenix

The Super-Phenix was the first large-scale breeder reactor. It was put into service in France in 1984.

The reactor core consists of thousands of stainless steel tubes containing a mixture of uranium and plutonium oxides, about 15-20% fissionable plutonium-239. Surrounding the core is a region called the breeder blanket consisting of tubes filled only with uranium oxide. The entire assembly is about 3x5 meters and is supported in a reactor vessel in molten sodium. The energy from the nuclear fission heats the sodium to about 500°C and it transfers that energy to a second sodium loop which in turn heats water to produce steam for electricity production.

Such a reactor can produce about 20% more fuel than it consumes by the breeding reaction. Enough excess fuel is produced over about 20 years to fuel another such reactor. Optimum breeding allows about 75% of the energy of the natural uranium to be used compared to 1% in the standard light water reactor.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...ene/fasbre.html

We could run our entire grid on nuclear alone for centuries. There is no problem getting the fuel for the reactors.

Only until U-238 runs out. The reaction doesnt create more U-238, instead it coverts that to P-239 at a ratio of 1 to 1.2. We could use the the excess fuel to provide the plutonium element in a new reactor after 10 years or so, but we would still need to provide the U-238 source as it is consumed in the process. You still require fuel and you still have waste, just less than standard reactors.

A breeder reactor is not an indefinably self-sustaining reaction. It will sustain itself as long as there is material to covert to P-239.

Perpetual energy does not exist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_energy

Edited by Dan + Gemvita

keTiiDCjGVo

Posted

To address your contention that we will run out of Uranium sometime soon here is a excerpt from The Journal of Physics.

3 Present nuclear technology, potential and limits

At present 6% (0.6 Gtoe) of the 10Gtoe world’s primary energy consumption comes from

nuclear fission reactors. If NE represents 25% of the total primary energy in 2050, the nuclear power

generating capacity has to be multiplied by a factor 8 in the next 50 years.

Present reactors are mainly based on the use of 235 Uranium which is the only fissile nucleus present

in nature (0.7% of natural uranium). The annual uranium ore consumption is around 180 tons per

Gwe-year. The world reserves which are estimated to 16 million tons represent around 300 years of

nuclear energy generation at the present rate. Obviously they cannot ensure sustainable energy

generation if NE is to contribute significantly to the world’s energy needs.

But they go even further because they recognize that using Uranium the way we do now creates waste and requires a sustained processing capability. They address this problem with Breeder Reactors. This is the conclusion of their article.

Conclusion

After examining the world energy context dominated by the fossil fuel limitation coupled to very

severe constraints on GGE to avoid potentially catastrophic climate changes, we estimated the world

energy demand by 2050 to be at least 20 Gtoe compared to the 10 Gtoe in 2000. Since increasing the

use of fossil energy becomes quite hazardous for human life, we are arithmetically condemned to find

annually 10 more Gtoe by 2050 from either new renewable energies or nuclear energy generation.

Obviously, new renewable energies have a limited potential which is not well quantified. So

considering that NE should produce at least 5 Gtoe in 2050 appears to be a conservative estimate if we

really want it to contribute significantly to the world energy demand in 2050. Behind this choice is the

ethical assessment that recognizes the right of the populations of developed and developing countries

to have access to a comfortable life. And this is conditioned by a free or equal and not too expensive

access to energy. Nuclear energy generation is certainly able to provide such an amount of energy in a

sustainable way with the use of breeder reactors. We saw also that 2 kinds of breeder reactors have to

be considered for which some challenges are common and some are different.

The road to reach such an ambitious goal is difficult, but it is our conviction that nuclear waste

management options have to be cleared up by a rapid choice concerning breeder reactors, since they

are able to close the fuel cycle of present technology reactors and allow sustainable energy generation.

Delaying this choice for economic or political reasons is quite hazardous since NE could appear

unable to reduce their waste production and unable to guarantee any sustainability. The consequence

would probably be that NE generation at a significant level at the right time would be made very

difficult. As a result, an energy shortage would be likely, GGE reduction could appear too difficult,

and then we would have all the ingredients for a very dangerous situation with possible generalized

conflicts.

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1742-6596/41...onf6_41_003.pdf

These are the experts talking here. They say that nuclear power is sustainable and could meet our energy needs. The breeder reactors have the added advantage of producing more fuel and not toxic waste like other reactors. It is the long term solution to our problems.

Posted
To address your contention that we will run out of Uranium sometime soon here is a excerpt from The Journal of Physics.

3 Present nuclear technology, potential and limits

At present 6% (0.6 Gtoe) of the 10Gtoe world’s primary energy consumption comes from

nuclear fission reactors. If NE represents 25% of the total primary energy in 2050, the nuclear power

generating capacity has to be multiplied by a factor 8 in the next 50 years.

Present reactors are mainly based on the use of 235 Uranium which is the only fissile nucleus present

in nature (0.7% of natural uranium). The annual uranium ore consumption is around 180 tons per

Gwe-year. The world reserves which are estimated to 16 million tons represent around 300 years of

nuclear energy generation at the present rate. Obviously they cannot ensure sustainable energy

generation if NE is to contribute significantly to the world’s energy needs.

But they go even further because they recognize that using Uranium the way we do now creates waste and requires a sustained processing capability. They address this problem with Breeder Reactors. This is the conclusion of their article.

Conclusion

After examining the world energy context dominated by the fossil fuel limitation coupled to very

severe constraints on GGE to avoid potentially catastrophic climate changes, we estimated the world

energy demand by 2050 to be at least 20 Gtoe compared to the 10 Gtoe in 2000. Since increasing the

use of fossil energy becomes quite hazardous for human life, we are arithmetically condemned to find

annually 10 more Gtoe by 2050 from either new renewable energies or nuclear energy generation.

Obviously, new renewable energies have a limited potential which is not well quantified. So

considering that NE should produce at least 5 Gtoe in 2050 appears to be a conservative estimate if we

really want it to contribute significantly to the world energy demand in 2050. Behind this choice is the

ethical assessment that recognizes the right of the populations of developed and developing countries

to have access to a comfortable life. And this is conditioned by a free or equal and not too expensive

access to energy. Nuclear energy generation is certainly able to provide such an amount of energy in a

sustainable way with the use of breeder reactors. We saw also that 2 kinds of breeder reactors have to

be considered for which some challenges are common and some are different.

The road to reach such an ambitious goal is difficult, but it is our conviction that nuclear waste

management options have to be cleared up by a rapid choice concerning breeder reactors, since they

are able to close the fuel cycle of present technology reactors and allow sustainable energy generation.

Delaying this choice for economic or political reasons is quite hazardous since NE could appear

unable to reduce their waste production and unable to guarantee any sustainability. The consequence

would probably be that NE generation at a significant level at the right time would be made very

difficult. As a result, an energy shortage would be likely, GGE reduction could appear too difficult,

and then we would have all the ingredients for a very dangerous situation with possible generalized

conflicts.

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1742-6596/41...onf6_41_003.pdf

These are the experts talking here. They say that nuclear power is sustainable and could meet our energy needs. The breeder reactors have the added advantage of producing more fuel and not toxic waste like other reactors. It is the long term solution to our problems.

Breeder reactors still produce waste. Your hanging on to a myth of perpetual energy that doesn't exist. Breeder Reactors require fuel and produce waste. The only real difference is, if you can actually get it done cost effectively, is that its more efficient. Its able to get more energy out of uranium. Its not a car that never has to be refueled. You will still need to provide the reactor with U-238 or it will eventually use up all the fissile material it has.

keTiiDCjGVo

Posted
To address your contention that we will run out of Uranium sometime soon here is a excerpt from The Journal of Physics.

3 Present nuclear technology, potential and limits

At present 6% (0.6 Gtoe) of the 10Gtoe world’s primary energy consumption comes from

nuclear fission reactors. If NE represents 25% of the total primary energy in 2050, the nuclear power

generating capacity has to be multiplied by a factor 8 in the next 50 years.

Present reactors are mainly based on the use of 235 Uranium which is the only fissile nucleus present

in nature (0.7% of natural uranium). The annual uranium ore consumption is around 180 tons per

Gwe-year. The world reserves which are estimated to 16 million tons represent around 300 years of

nuclear energy generation at the present rate. Obviously they cannot ensure sustainable energy

generation if NE is to contribute significantly to the world’s energy needs.

But they go even further because they recognize that using Uranium the way we do now creates waste and requires a sustained processing capability. They address this problem with Breeder Reactors. This is the conclusion of their article.

Conclusion

After examining the world energy context dominated by the fossil fuel limitation coupled to very

severe constraints on GGE to avoid potentially catastrophic climate changes, we estimated the world

energy demand by 2050 to be at least 20 Gtoe compared to the 10 Gtoe in 2000. Since increasing the

use of fossil energy becomes quite hazardous for human life, we are arithmetically condemned to find

annually 10 more Gtoe by 2050 from either new renewable energies or nuclear energy generation.

Obviously, new renewable energies have a limited potential which is not well quantified. So

considering that NE should produce at least 5 Gtoe in 2050 appears to be a conservative estimate if we

really want it to contribute significantly to the world energy demand in 2050. Behind this choice is the

ethical assessment that recognizes the right of the populations of developed and developing countries

to have access to a comfortable life. And this is conditioned by a free or equal and not too expensive

access to energy. Nuclear energy generation is certainly able to provide such an amount of energy in a

sustainable way with the use of breeder reactors. We saw also that 2 kinds of breeder reactors have to

be considered for which some challenges are common and some are different.

The road to reach such an ambitious goal is difficult, but it is our conviction that nuclear waste

management options have to be cleared up by a rapid choice concerning breeder reactors, since they

are able to close the fuel cycle of present technology reactors and allow sustainable energy generation.

Delaying this choice for economic or political reasons is quite hazardous since NE could appear

unable to reduce their waste production and unable to guarantee any sustainability. The consequence

would probably be that NE generation at a significant level at the right time would be made very

difficult. As a result, an energy shortage would be likely, GGE reduction could appear too difficult,

and then we would have all the ingredients for a very dangerous situation with possible generalized

conflicts.

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1742-6596/41...onf6_41_003.pdf

These are the experts talking here. They say that nuclear power is sustainable and could meet our energy needs. The breeder reactors have the added advantage of producing more fuel and not toxic waste like other reactors. It is the long term solution to our problems.

Breeder reactors still produce waste. Your hanging on to a myth of perpetual energy that doesn't exist. Breeder Reactors require fuel and produce waste. The only real difference is, if you can actually get it done cost effectively, is that its more efficient. Its able to get more energy out of uranium. Its not a car that never has to be refueled. You will still need to provide the reactor with U-238 or it will eventually use up all the fissile material it has.

The "waste" from a breeder reactor is more fuel. It is a closed cycle. Don't take my word for it, read about it yourself. Without giving you a physics lesson I guess you will not understand. Look it up. It's a sustainable energy source. Unless of course you are claiming greater knowledge than the physicists that wrote this article.

Posted

Here is a good resource for you to read. It was done by the DOE as a report to congress.

Here is an excerpt.

Objective 3. Enhance energy security by extracting energy recoverable in spent fuel and

depleted uranium, ensuring that uranium resources do not become a limiting resource for

nuclear power.

The third objective is to achieve energy security by guaranteeing a long-term stable fuel supply

for nuclear energy. Currently, more than 99 percent of the potential energy in mined uranium

ends up in waste streams. Converting this waste liability into an energy asset would provide

enough fuel to meet all current domestic electricity needs for 1,000 years. However, current

commercial reactors are not capable of performing the conversions necessary to enable the full

use of recycled material. Instead, Generation IV fast spectrum reactors will be needed.

Here is more about the sustained fuel cycle.

Sustained Recycle is the final evolution of the fuel cycle. This approach uses the same

technologies as Transitional Recycle, but relies on a much higher percentage of fast reactors

acting as breeders to create more fissile material than they consume. The fast reactors will burn

transuranics as their primary fuel while also transmuting natural or recycled uranium to produce

more fuel. Through transmutation, Sustained Recycle will be capable of fully using the energy

potential of uranium6. By directly using natural, depleted, and recycled uranium, Sustained

Recycle would also eliminate the need for uranium enrichment, thus enhancing nonproliferation

efforts.

http://www.gnep.energy.gov/pdfs/afciCongre...portMay2005.pdf

So unless you have an advanced degree in nuclear physics and are prepared to challenge the views of the ones that are doing this today then you should admit that nuclear power is the best choice for our long term energy needs.

Posted
To address your contention that we will run out of Uranium sometime soon here is a excerpt from The Journal of Physics.

3 Present nuclear technology, potential and limits

At present 6% (0.6 Gtoe) of the 10Gtoe world’s primary energy consumption comes from

nuclear fission reactors. If NE represents 25% of the total primary energy in 2050, the nuclear power

generating capacity has to be multiplied by a factor 8 in the next 50 years.

Present reactors are mainly based on the use of 235 Uranium which is the only fissile nucleus present

in nature (0.7% of natural uranium). The annual uranium ore consumption is around 180 tons per

Gwe-year. The world reserves which are estimated to 16 million tons represent around 300 years of

nuclear energy generation at the present rate. Obviously they cannot ensure sustainable energy

generation if NE is to contribute significantly to the world’s energy needs.

But they go even further because they recognize that using Uranium the way we do now creates waste and requires a sustained processing capability. They address this problem with Breeder Reactors. This is the conclusion of their article.

Conclusion

After examining the world energy context dominated by the fossil fuel limitation coupled to very

severe constraints on GGE to avoid potentially catastrophic climate changes, we estimated the world

energy demand by 2050 to be at least 20 Gtoe compared to the 10 Gtoe in 2000. Since increasing the

use of fossil energy becomes quite hazardous for human life, we are arithmetically condemned to find

annually 10 more Gtoe by 2050 from either new renewable energies or nuclear energy generation.

Obviously, new renewable energies have a limited potential which is not well quantified. So

considering that NE should produce at least 5 Gtoe in 2050 appears to be a conservative estimate if we

really want it to contribute significantly to the world energy demand in 2050. Behind this choice is the

ethical assessment that recognizes the right of the populations of developed and developing countries

to have access to a comfortable life. And this is conditioned by a free or equal and not too expensive

access to energy. Nuclear energy generation is certainly able to provide such an amount of energy in a

sustainable way with the use of breeder reactors. We saw also that 2 kinds of breeder reactors have to

be considered for which some challenges are common and some are different.

The road to reach such an ambitious goal is difficult, but it is our conviction that nuclear waste

management options have to be cleared up by a rapid choice concerning breeder reactors, since they

are able to close the fuel cycle of present technology reactors and allow sustainable energy generation.

Delaying this choice for economic or political reasons is quite hazardous since NE could appear

unable to reduce their waste production and unable to guarantee any sustainability. The consequence

would probably be that NE generation at a significant level at the right time would be made very

difficult. As a result, an energy shortage would be likely, GGE reduction could appear too difficult,

and then we would have all the ingredients for a very dangerous situation with possible generalized

conflicts.

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1742-6596/41...onf6_41_003.pdf

These are the experts talking here. They say that nuclear power is sustainable and could meet our energy needs. The breeder reactors have the added advantage of producing more fuel and not toxic waste like other reactors. It is the long term solution to our problems.

Breeder reactors still produce waste. Your hanging on to a myth of perpetual energy that doesn't exist. Breeder Reactors require fuel and produce waste. The only real difference is, if you can actually get it done cost effectively, is that its more efficient. Its able to get more energy out of uranium. Its not a car that never has to be refueled. You will still need to provide the reactor with U-238 or it will eventually use up all the fissile material it has.

The "waste" from a breeder reactor is more fuel. It is a closed cycle. Don't take my word for it, read about it yourself. Without giving you a physics lesson I guess you will not understand. Look it up. It's a sustainable energy source. Unless of course you are claiming greater knowledge than the physicists that wrote this article.

First law of thermodynamics, Energy is not created or destroyed, but converted from one from to another.

In this case, energy stored in Uranium, is converted to plutonium, by gaining a neutron from a nuclear reaction of the Plutonium already in the reactor. When the plutonium is part of a nuclear reaction, it coverts to a lower order element (holding less energy), and releases energy. It then also creates more plutonium. but releasing a neutron to convert another Uranium atom.

Let me make this simple. Take 10 plutonium atoms, and 40 uranium atoms. Assuming all material reactions, 10 Plutonium atoms will have a nuclear reaction, which will convert all of it to U 235 + 4 free neutrons. Some of these neutrons will produce heat. The rest will covert some of the 40 uranium atoms to plutonium. At the ratio of 1.2 those 10 Plutonium atoms will create covert 12 uranium atoms into into plutonium. So now we have 10 U-235, 12 P-239 and 38 U-238 Atoms. This reaction will continue again until all the U-238 atoms are converted and then all the p-239 is burned up. What you will have left with is alot of energy released, and waste material which will likely be a combination of several metals, some unreacted source material, and the rest decay materials after the plutonium reaction.

If you stop the rector after all the U-238 is used up, but before all the P-239 is burned up. After reprocessing (which the US doesn't do, for issues with security), you will have about the same amount of P-239 that you started with. But you wont have any U-238 except for the extra bit that wasn't reacted. So you can take the the left over fuel (P-239), but you will need to add U-238 to start the reactor again.

So no, this is not entirely a closed system. You have to continue to add U-238, and you will be able to regain very little of that back in reprocessing. However U-238 is much more common than U-235, which is used in other reactors.

keTiiDCjGVo

Posted
Here is a good resource for you to read. It was done by the DOE as a report to congress.

Here is an excerpt.

Objective 3. Enhance energy security by extracting energy recoverable in spent fuel and

depleted uranium, ensuring that uranium resources do not become a limiting resource for

nuclear power.

The third objective is to achieve energy security by guaranteeing a long-term stable fuel supply

for nuclear energy. Currently, more than 99 percent of the potential energy in mined uranium

ends up in waste streams. Converting this waste liability into an energy asset would provide

enough fuel to meet all current domestic electricity needs for 1,000 years. However, current

commercial reactors are not capable of performing the conversions necessary to enable the full

use of recycled material. Instead, Generation IV fast spectrum reactors will be needed.

Here is more about the sustained fuel cycle.

Sustained Recycle is the final evolution of the fuel cycle. This approach uses the same

technologies as Transitional Recycle, but relies on a much higher percentage of fast reactors

acting as breeders to create more fissile material than they consume. The fast reactors will burn

transuranics as their primary fuel while also transmuting natural or recycled uranium to produce

more fuel. Through transmutation, Sustained Recycle will be capable of fully using the energy

potential of uranium6. By directly using natural, depleted, and recycled uranium, Sustained

Recycle would also eliminate the need for uranium enrichment, thus enhancing nonproliferation

efforts.

http://www.gnep.energy.gov/pdfs/afciCongre...portMay2005.pdf

So unless you have an advanced degree in nuclear physics and are prepared to challenge the views of the ones that are doing this today then you should admit that nuclear power is the best choice for our long term energy needs.

How many times do I have to tell you, they create more P-239 than it uses to start the reactor. But it consumes U-238 in the process. P-239 is fissile, but U-238 is not. But by the reaction its converted to P-239. But its never converted back. And to keep the reaction going, you have to keep adding U-238.

keTiiDCjGVo

Posted
To address your contention that we will run out of Uranium sometime soon here is a excerpt from The Journal of Physics.

3 Present nuclear technology, potential and limits

At present 6% (0.6 Gtoe) of the 10Gtoe world’s primary energy consumption comes from

nuclear fission reactors. If NE represents 25% of the total primary energy in 2050, the nuclear power

generating capacity has to be multiplied by a factor 8 in the next 50 years.

Present reactors are mainly based on the use of 235 Uranium which is the only fissile nucleus present

in nature (0.7% of natural uranium). The annual uranium ore consumption is around 180 tons per

Gwe-year. The world reserves which are estimated to 16 million tons represent around 300 years of

nuclear energy generation at the present rate. Obviously they cannot ensure sustainable energy

generation if NE is to contribute significantly to the world’s energy needs.

But they go even further because they recognize that using Uranium the way we do now creates waste and requires a sustained processing capability. They address this problem with Breeder Reactors. This is the conclusion of their article.

Conclusion

After examining the world energy context dominated by the fossil fuel limitation coupled to very

severe constraints on GGE to avoid potentially catastrophic climate changes, we estimated the world

energy demand by 2050 to be at least 20 Gtoe compared to the 10 Gtoe in 2000. Since increasing the

use of fossil energy becomes quite hazardous for human life, we are arithmetically condemned to find

annually 10 more Gtoe by 2050 from either new renewable energies or nuclear energy generation.

Obviously, new renewable energies have a limited potential which is not well quantified. So

considering that NE should produce at least 5 Gtoe in 2050 appears to be a conservative estimate if we

really want it to contribute significantly to the world energy demand in 2050. Behind this choice is the

ethical assessment that recognizes the right of the populations of developed and developing countries

to have access to a comfortable life. And this is conditioned by a free or equal and not too expensive

access to energy. Nuclear energy generation is certainly able to provide such an amount of energy in a

sustainable way with the use of breeder reactors. We saw also that 2 kinds of breeder reactors have to

be considered for which some challenges are common and some are different.

The road to reach such an ambitious goal is difficult, but it is our conviction that nuclear waste

management options have to be cleared up by a rapid choice concerning breeder reactors, since they

are able to close the fuel cycle of present technology reactors and allow sustainable energy generation.

Delaying this choice for economic or political reasons is quite hazardous since NE could appear

unable to reduce their waste production and unable to guarantee any sustainability. The consequence

would probably be that NE generation at a significant level at the right time would be made very

difficult. As a result, an energy shortage would be likely, GGE reduction could appear too difficult,

and then we would have all the ingredients for a very dangerous situation with possible generalized

conflicts.

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1742-6596/41...onf6_41_003.pdf

These are the experts talking here. They say that nuclear power is sustainable and could meet our energy needs. The breeder reactors have the added advantage of producing more fuel and not toxic waste like other reactors. It is the long term solution to our problems.

Breeder reactors still produce waste. Your hanging on to a myth of perpetual energy that doesn't exist. Breeder Reactors require fuel and produce waste. The only real difference is, if you can actually get it done cost effectively, is that its more efficient. Its able to get more energy out of uranium. Its not a car that never has to be refueled. You will still need to provide the reactor with U-238 or it will eventually use up all the fissile material it has.

The "waste" from a breeder reactor is more fuel. It is a closed cycle. Don't take my word for it, read about it yourself. Without giving you a physics lesson I guess you will not understand. Look it up. It's a sustainable energy source. Unless of course you are claiming greater knowledge than the physicists that wrote this article.

First law of thermodynamics, Energy is not created or destroyed, but converted from one from to another.

In this case, energy stored in Uranium, is converted to plutonium, by gaining a neutron from a nuclear reaction of the Plutonium already in the reactor. When the plutonium is part of a nuclear reaction, it coverts to a lower order element (holding less energy), and releases energy. It then also creates more plutonium. but releasing a neutron to convert another Uranium atom.

Let me make this simple. Take 10 plutonium atoms, and 40 uranium atoms. Assuming all material reactions, 10 Plutonium atoms will have a nuclear reaction, which will convert all of it to U 235 + 4 free neutrons. Some of these neutrons will produce heat. The rest will covert some of the 40 uranium atoms to plutonium. At the ratio of 1.2 those 10 Plutonium atoms will create covert 12 uranium atoms into into plutonium. So now we have 10 U-235, 12 P-239 and 38 U-238 Atoms. This reaction will continue again until all the U-238 atoms are converted and then all the p-239 is burned up. What you will have left with is alot of energy released, and waste material which will likely be a combination of several metals, some unreacted source material, and the rest decay materials after the plutonium reaction.

If you stop the rector after all the U-238 is used up, but before all the P-239 is burned up. After reprocessing (which the US doesn't do, for issues with security), you will have about the same amount of P-239 that you started with. But you wont have any U-238 except for the extra bit that wasn't reacted. So you can take the the left over fuel (P-239), but you will need to add U-238 to start the reactor again.

So no, this is not entirely a closed system. You have to continue to add U-238, and you will be able to regain very little of that back in reprocessing. However U-238 is much more common than U-235, which is used in other reactors.

I see your now agreeing with me. You started out saying that we didn't have enough fuel to meet our needs and now your explaining nuclear physics to me.

But the problem with nuclear energy is that the supply of uranium is finite. If we increase our consumption of uranium, we will be out of it pretty quickly.

The bottom line is this, with breeder reactors our uranium fuel supply will last for a 1000 years.(see the DOD report that I posted) I think in that time we will come up with a longer term solution.

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
- Back to Top -

Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...