we could use subduction faults and burn it up in the earth's core, shoot it into the sun, or continue to improve nuclear reprocessing to make it a safer option
When we have a handle on reprocessing, I'm with you. In the mean time, it's just seems to be building up at individual sites which I don't think ideal. One of which is very near me.
And what would you propose these countries replace their nuclear energy with (obviously any replacement would need to provide the same amount of energy)?
There are other sources of energy like hydro, wind, or coal.
I agree, it's time to go sustainable. We definitely need new energy sources that can deliver with much less impact on the world. Not for tomorrow, but for now.
anybody else see what they are doing out in AZ? They are going to generate electirc with gas and capture all or most of the emissions to feed algea. the algea will then turn the co2 into o and keep the c for themsleves.
the algea than can be harvested and used for such things as bio diesel, cattle feed or fuel for the power plant.
cool stuff
Yes, it's amazing how something as small as algae can have the power to do all that. I am excited for ideas like that to get here.
And what would you propose these countries replace their nuclear energy with (obviously any replacement would need to provide the same amount of energy)?
There are other sources of energy like hydro, wind, or coal.
Coal :shock: As I said... any replacement would have to be able to provide the same amount of energy. All these sources you mention can only provide a tiny fraction, even if their use was upped many-fold.
right.
people want to break away from oil and nuclear right now ....shit takes time...years....decades
anybody else see what they are doing out in AZ? They are going to generate electirc with gas and capture all or most of the emissions to feed algea. the algea will then turn the co2 into o and keep the c for themsleves.
the algea than can be harvested and used for such things as bio diesel, cattle feed or fuel for the power plant.
cool stuff
Yes, it's amazing how something as small as algae can have the power to do all that. I am excited for ideas like that to get here.
sadly the company that was working on it went belly up. it appears they were producing more algae than they could handle, and the cost of some structure was twice as much as they anticipated, and of course the market crash of a couple of years didn't help matters when it dried up funding.
Chernobyl
Three Mile Island
Japan 2011
That episode on the Simpsons where Homer saves the day
4 That I can think of.
Look how bad Chernobyl was, they don't have to happen often to be devastating.
Chernobyl won't be safe for another 2000 years.
The Chernobyl was opened in 1977. Cars were a hell of a lot more dangerous in 1977. I mean should we have banned cars because of the safety problems associated with the Pinto. Plus Chernobyls accident was the result of operator negligence becuase they were trying to do things they knew the plant wasn't designed for.
As for Thee Mile Island, that was something like the worst accident in US history and yet the total amount of deaths associated with that accident was zero. So to me that is a story of a plant that worked well.
Hell there was a coal mine accident last April in West Virginia that killed 29 miners. It would seem to me that, that would make coal way more dangerous than nuclear.
Against because I'd like to see the end of nuclear power but with the power demands of the world it won't happen and is necessary.
As for the others, coal is extremely polluting as already mentioned. Wind would need the whole of this country covered in those unsightly windmills. Hydro isn't possible in some countries and very often whole communities and villages disappear because of dam construction e.g The Three Gorges in China. Also building huge dams in a country that suffers earthquakes would be foolish to say the least.
I think we have the general tendency to overreact when a freak disaster occurs. My opinion is that you have to weigh the pro and cons of an energy source.
In the US, our main sources of electricity breakdown as follows:
• Coal – 45%
• Natural Gas – 24%
• Nuclear – 20%
• Hydroelectric – 7%
• Others – 4%
I would like to see renewable resources such as wind and solar power advance, but what should they replace first? My opinion is that coal plants should be the first to go. Electricity production accounts for 40% of emission in the U.S. and coal is the main offender.
The majority of our power is produced by renewable energy sources around 70%. The ouput is in the following order:
Hydro
Gas
Geothermal
Coal
Wind
Other renewable sources
I know that we are tiny in comparrison to the USA but if there are ways for all countries to expand in sustainable, renewable areas it has to be a good thing.
If Obama is serious about his targets I would be interested in what is being done about it. Are there incentives for people to go solar? The unfortunate thing with most sustainable energy sources are that that can be expensive to implement and as previous posts have said they may not work for every country.
There was a travel show on recently where the host went into Chernobyl. The radiation levels are still high but apparently are safe in small doses, tell that to the men who still work on the reactor everyday patching up the terrible job done to stop the leaks. It's not somewhere I would risk going to, it looked haunting...
"a 41 years old reactor gets hit by a 8.5 earthquake, then slammed with a 20' tall swell, followed by an explosion due to the build up of hydrogen gas that blows off the roof of the building, and the core is intact and contained... and you're telling me that nuclear power isn't safe?"
very sound logic
"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it"
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Comments
When we have a handle on reprocessing, I'm with you. In the mean time, it's just seems to be building up at individual sites which I don't think ideal. One of which is very near me.
I agree, it's time to go sustainable. We definitely need new energy sources that can deliver with much less impact on the world. Not for tomorrow, but for now.
Yes, it's amazing how something as small as algae can have the power to do all that. I am excited for ideas like that to get here.
right.
people want to break away from oil and nuclear right now
sadly the company that was working on it went belly up. it appears they were producing more algae than they could handle, and the cost of some structure was twice as much as they anticipated, and of course the market crash of a couple of years didn't help matters when it dried up funding.
2035 is a long way off, but at least its a start.
The Chernobyl was opened in 1977. Cars were a hell of a lot more dangerous in 1977. I mean should we have banned cars because of the safety problems associated with the Pinto. Plus Chernobyls accident was the result of operator negligence becuase they were trying to do things they knew the plant wasn't designed for.
As for Thee Mile Island, that was something like the worst accident in US history and yet the total amount of deaths associated with that accident was zero. So to me that is a story of a plant that worked well.
Hell there was a coal mine accident last April in West Virginia that killed 29 miners. It would seem to me that, that would make coal way more dangerous than nuclear.
Against because I'd like to see the end of nuclear power but with the power demands of the world it won't happen and is necessary.
As for the others, coal is extremely polluting as already mentioned. Wind would need the whole of this country covered in those unsightly windmills. Hydro isn't possible in some countries and very often whole communities and villages disappear because of dam construction e.g The Three Gorges in China. Also building huge dams in a country that suffers earthquakes would be foolish to say the least.
In the US, our main sources of electricity breakdown as follows:
• Coal – 45%
• Natural Gas – 24%
• Nuclear – 20%
• Hydroelectric – 7%
• Others – 4%
I would like to see renewable resources such as wind and solar power advance, but what should they replace first? My opinion is that coal plants should be the first to go. Electricity production accounts for 40% of emission in the U.S. and coal is the main offender.
Hydro
Gas
Geothermal
Coal
Wind
Other renewable sources
I know that we are tiny in comparrison to the USA but if there are ways for all countries to expand in sustainable, renewable areas it has to be a good thing.
If Obama is serious about his targets I would be interested in what is being done about it. Are there incentives for people to go solar? The unfortunate thing with most sustainable energy sources are that that can be expensive to implement and as previous posts have said they may not work for every country.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101213/ap_ ... yl_tourism
There was a travel show on recently where the host went into Chernobyl. The radiation levels are still high but apparently are safe in small doses, tell that to the men who still work on the reactor everyday patching up the terrible job done to stop the leaks. It's not somewhere I would risk going to, it looked haunting...
http://villageofjoy.com/chernobyl-today-a-creepy-story-told-in-pictures/
very sound logic
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Why not (V) (°,,,,°) (V) ?