Bio-energy versus Nuclear

[Dude_Doc]

Is it better to use bioenergy, or nuclear energy? What are the risks and costs?

I think nuclear energy, from reactors, is the right option here, because it does not require material (not in the amount of bio-energy). But, there are of course risks, that could result in the likes of Chernobyl (sp)...

[Andrew]

By bioenergy do you mean coal, oil and wood etc?

My friend works in a nuclear power plant, maybe I will ask him. ;D

Maybe nuclear energy as long as we can safely send all the waste towards the sun in spaceships in the future, as it will be our junkyard. ;)

[Acriku]

Nuclear energy provides much more capacity for energy release, and if proper operating procedures are maintained, the risks become minimal.

[SurlyPIG]

I think he means fossil fuels too, as they are formed from organic matter.

Cheryobyl was the biggest idiot screw up of all time.

[Atomic Mitten]

We would have energy coming out of our asses if we could contain cold fusion.

Wouldn't that be a fossil fuel ? lol ;D

[SurlyPIG]

Well, it's an expression, but yes.  Not technically, because it didn't come from fossils, but I've heard that 15% of atmospheric methane comes from cow farts.  And it's common for sewage treatment plants often use the readilly available methane to offset some of their costs.  Now THAT is natural gas...

[Wolf]

AC, I agree with you. With what our society will demand of technology in the future, viable nuclear reactors are just about the only thing that can efficiently satisfy our ambitions.

[Egeides]

Hey ACE, Tchernobyl is working back now with little more security and some others are in not very good conditions. When a country absolutely needs energy but isn't very rich, he tends to neglect replacing his centrals and replace hefty reparation by tweaks.

I give a good potential to fusion. Recently, IMPORTANT subsidies were recently allocated internationally to get experimental centrals (sort of). There will be a few on the planet, but the research wont go anywhere before decades.

[Andrew]

Well, if one nuclear power plant can power 15-20% of Ontairio (maybe 1 million people) then nuclear power is better. (at least from the available power options)

And they got lots of security so you dont have to worry about terrorism, and safety protocols are really high.

They got guys walking around nuclear plants with hand guns and rifles. :)

Better hope you got your id. ;)

[Caid Ivik]

We have two nuclear power plants in Slovakia, and have so plenty energy, that even Austria, which still protests against them, pay for a connection with us  ;D

[Dude_Doc]

Hey, I read not so long time ago on CNN.com, that scientists had discovered a new element that allowed all energy to be transported, and not as today, where we loose 10% of what we manufacture.

[Leto le Juste]

In France, we have developped nuclear energy in order to be independant of the oil and Gulfe countries. Today it is the most rentable situation in economic and politic domain. It is a means to have a quite cheap energy. Furthermore it is very secure: that the fail in Tchernobyl case: the techno was controlled but there was no security. That 's why it was catastrophic.

[Timenn]

If things are done right, then what happened in Tchernobyl will not happen again. But that is only one of the bad things about nucleair fission.

The biggest problem is the waste, even if you have a perfect way to store it, like ACELethal said, you still have the transportation problems. The weakest link is always the transport.

That is the reason why I'm againt nucleair fission.

But seeing the dangers of fossil fuels, I still would stick to nucleair energy. But not fission, but fusion!

I think Nucleair Fusion is the best way of generating energy. Just look at our sun, she is busy with Nucleair Fusion all the time.

The resources are abundant, deuterium can be found in the sea, and there is plenty of it. And tritium can be created easily, and without waste (I think) and what is the waste product of fusion? Helium, and what could be less harmless then helium?

The only problem would be the extra neutron coming free from the reaction, that one will be caught by a big concrete wall, but that wall will get a little bit radio-active then. But while you think of that, consider that your own house is a little bit radioactive as well... (wood not really, but stone and concrete are)

Still not figured out why they need tritium (hydrogen with 2 neutrons) for the fusion reaction, and why not just 2 deuterium (hydrogen with 1 neutron) particles. Maybe someone can explain that to me ??

I'm looking forward to the first nucleair fusion reactor which must prove that fusion if profitable. Too bad Japan gets it, and not Eurpope :(

[Anathema]

I put my thoughts on the subject to words in this thread. The way I see it, we have no choice, other then reverting to the stone age.

People are such hypocrites- we used to have 2 nuclear power plants in the Netherlands but because of pressure from the populace they were shut down. Since then we've been importing more power from Germany and France, who generate 80% of their power through fission...

[Leto le Juste]

Sorry but there is a project in association with USA. Nowadays, USA don't cooperate. That 's why UE is going to install an experimental plant by its own abilities.

[Timenn]

Really? That would be cool. I know it was for quite stupid reason that the ITER would be build in Japan, instead of the European candidate, France (forgot the city name, was something starting with a 'C')

[Leto le Juste]

Yes, the french site (Cadarache) could be used by UE in order to developp our own technology...

(i've read it but don't remember where);

[Dante]

I'm inclined to support nuclear power simply because it is true that is has a bad name, and provides a ridiculous ammount of energy without serious concequences (MOST of the time). Of course we would have to be careful. You know why our government built a nuclear facility in Scotland? Because they thought it was far enough away from London. Shows how much they appreciate us, doesn't it?

It's closed now. Nuclear bits and pieces found on the beaches nearby. *Sigh*

[GUNWOUNDS]

I'm inclined to support nuclear power simply because it is true that is has a bad name, and provides a ridiculous ammount of energy without serious concequences (MOST of the time). Of course we would have to be careful. You know why our government built a nuclear facility in Scotland? Because they thought it was far enough away from London. Shows how much they appreciate us, doesn't it?

It's closed now. Nuclear bits and pieces found on the beaches nearby. *Sigh*

bits and pieces whaaa??!!  can you explain further?

[Dante]

Geiger counters going off, trace ammounts of nuclear waste not properly disposed of... We were never given full details I don't think. I thought the plant was shut but maybe not...

http://www.ukaea.org.uk/dounreay/

EDIT: This bit also proves interesting... (maybe false, maybe not...)

http://www.ukaea.org.uk/dounreay/particles.htm

[Dunenewt]

Radioactve waste.

[Emperor Harkonnen]

I think the most profitable should be used. Not to care so much about the enviroment.

[Dante]

The enviroment is everything. And if caring for it isn't your thing, keep in mind that all the harm we do to it eventually comes back to us. So preserving the enviroment is actually self-preservation as well.

[Inoculator9]

Exactly Dusty, to do the most immediately profitable thing is irresponsible and callous towards future generations.

And personally, I think cities should derive part of their power from human efforts. If every able bodied citizen was required to do 20 minute sof work on a treadmill, we could power a nice little chunk of our lives with real bio energy ;)

[exatreide]

Nuclear power is defenitly better, no smog or polluted air, and its a nearly infinite power suply, Waste is the only thing that keeps it from being widly accepted. Once Fusion power plants come...bwahahaha....