














Comments     Threshold


RE: so how about actual efficiency?
By FITCamaro on 11/5/2008 12:29:45 PM , Rating: 0
I'm not saying it shouldn't be used at all. Let people put it on their homes. Let businesses put it on their roofs. Use it in small installations to offset energy usage. I don't think it should be used for large power plants though.

Nuclear is just such a better option. Far more power in a far smaller amount of space. And limitless power as long as we adopt fuel reprocessing.

Solar should be used to offset energy consumption, not be the main provider. This eliminates the need to build insanely expensive and wasteful energy storage installations.

RE: so how about actual efficiency?
By chrnochime on 11/5/2008 12:59:38 PM , Rating: 1
I haven't read up on the latest nuclear power plant technology in a long time but last time I checked, there is still that little problem of safely disposing radioactive waste which contain uranium, plutonium, amongst other radioactive elements. Limitless power from reprocessing? Not like you can infinitely reprocess the waste anyway. I never do understand how nuclear proponents can just downplay the waste disposal issue when it's still impossible to make them not substantially radioactive within even 300 years, let alone 100 years.

RE: so how about actual efficiency?
By Cuddlez on 11/5/2008 2:04:52 PM , Rating: 5
Well then start reading:

1. As a matter of fact you're right we can't reprocess it infinitely, but given the amount of Uranium we have now, using a breeder type reactor the fuel would last "several BILLION years". Not quite forever, but I'd say it's close enough. Mind you, within the next billion or so years, I'm pretty sure we'll have a working fusion reactor. Which, of course, runs off of hydrogen. And since hydrogen is the most common element in the Universe we wouldn't run out of fuel until the universe is gone. Bu by then I'm pretty sure energy production won't really matter...

2. As for reprocessing, we can (again in a breeder type reactor) reuse as much as 97% of the spent fuel. This is according to British Nuclear Fuel.

3. As for the waste, well if most of it gets re-used then there won't be as much left to worry about. And the great thing about radioactive waste... it goes away eventually! It doesn't seem like people think about it much but substances like lead, arsenic and mercury are always poisonous. They always have been, and always will be. But spent nuclear fuel, after so many years becomes relatively harmless (I wouldn't go eating it or anything).

For good info check out this website:

And here are my references for points 1 and 2. Point 3 is basically my own deduction based on points 1 and 2.


RE: so how about actual efficiency?
By Starcub on 11/7/2008 10:53:46 PM , Rating: 2
I hope the 3% of the waste that they just dump into the sea isn't radioactive. If it is, I can't see how they can claim it is ok. Security and waste disposal have traditionally been a big part of the cost of nuclear power, and it sounds like they are cutting corners to make it economically viable.

By FITCamaro on 11/5/2008 3:43:26 PM , Rating: 2
For storing what little waste is left and unused after reprocessing, we've got lots of these big, giant rock things called mountains that are useless and can be made to have plenty of space inside to store it in. Preferably glassified then stored.

RE: so how about actual efficiency?
By werepossum on 11/5/2008 6:46:31 PM , Rating: 3
by chrnochime on November 5, 2008 at 12:59 PM

My college chemistry professor said if we really want to dispose of nuclear waste, dilute it, put in large barrels with tiny holes, and dump it in the oceans. We don't create radioactivity, we simply concentrate it, so to safely dispose of it we simply need to un-concentrate it. He also said that would be stupid, because concentrated energy will always be valuable once we have the technology to use it.

Regarding the solar efficiency invention, I think that's a really good thing. Solar, being point-of-use, has the capability to reduce generation and transmission requirements. But it needs to get a lot cheaper to be practical even for grid peak-shaving. Right now solar is nowhere near ever paying back its cost unless you get a hefty tax break - which just means using the confiscatory power of government to subsidize your toy.

RE: so how about actual efficiency?
By Starcub on 11/7/2008 11:08:09 PM , Rating: 2

Depends on where you live and what you can afford. Solar typically has a payback period of 10-20 years (and I'm not talking about just PV panels); however the up-front costs are expensive. That's only going to improve with subsized research. But the biggest payoffs will come from better energy storage technology.


Related Articles
