Anyway, back to the issue…True, fuel generation, can be geared to produce low-level waste, but what happens when the entire world is producing low-level waste?

I think it’s safe to say that any new coal power plant built will last an excess of 100 years with normal maintenance. Originally Posted by Stanley514 If believe to this site,operational costs for solar,wind,wave and geothermal energy2-5 times lower then for nuclear and thus energy produced is cheaper.http://www.unenergy.org/Popup%20pages/Comparecosts.html Well, it appears to me that the life span in that site of power facilities are fudged. Costs are in American cents per kilowatt hour.Hydroelectricity 5.8Coal burning 6Nuclear 7.5Wind 10Solar cells 25Now you can massage the data to get a different result, as the greenies did. Looks like data for a salesman to use.

Then it can be massively diluted and discharged into the ocean. And these levels vary a thousand-fold, even across a short distance. eg. from the prairies of the USA to the Rocky Mountains. Originally Posted by Stanley514 Personally, I believe that nuclear reactors still not enough protected,I would preferto see something deep underground.So what is reason to use nuclear energy whenit is by fact more dangerous and more expensive than alternatives? There are designs today that have numerous safeties, and have no threat of a meltdown, even with complete loss of coolant. Thanks for the insight, and I’ll keep reading into it.PS- Do you support deep ocean disposal of nuclear waste? Hi MedeDeep ocean disposal? Kind of yes and no. Since strict environmental regulations starting in the 70′s, plants closed for economic reason favoring new designs rather than actual serviceable life.

If massive dispersal happens, I doubt the waste would cause any harm at all.Some people have suggested dropping the waste at plate junctions, on the premise that it would be carried under the crust into the mantle -over millions of years – and become totally harmless. Costs are in American cents per kilowatt hour.Hydroelectricity 5.8Coal burning 6Nuclear 7.5Wind 10Solar cells 25Now you can massage the data to get a different result, as the greenies did. It is on a spectrum.

StanleyUranium reserves are always calculated according to current extraction technology. Anyway, back to the issue…True, fuel generation, can be geared to produce low-level waste, but what happens when the entire world is producing low-level waste? That 1% starts becoming very significant.Yes, the burying might pose a bit of a problem. StanleyThat site is a greenie site, which carefully adds in lots of environmental costs to make them get the result they want.I obtained basic costs as below, for the year 2005. It is just as likely to ‘float’ above the plate junction.One thing that is often forgotten in discussions like this, is that all life on Earth is already adapted to tolerating the background levels of radioactivity. It is not beyond credible imagination to assume that in the future we will be able to economically extract uranium at levels way below 80 ppm. Granite, which is present in trillions of tonnes, contains a minimum of 2 ppm uranium, and often up to 6 ppm.

Actually, back in the 1940′s and 1950′s the USA and the USSR both disposed of nuclear waste by putting it in steel 40 gallon drums and dropping them in the deep ocean. I’m not a member of green party and do not wan’t to bull people who is in nuclearbusiness.If you are in, I don’t want to make any anti-reclama to nuclear power, itmay have lot of advantages.I know that small Europian countries sach as Germany,Belgium and Austria already banned nuclear power or going to do it.Instead they develop wind farms and other renewables.I guess it’s because they do not produce nuclear weapon.Larger countries such as U.S., Russia, etc. need to have weapon Plutonium and this is how nuclear powerstarted to develop.If you are nuclear engineer or in this business there is no reason for panics about green energy because nuclear weapon stays there.And even contra, if all Uranium reserves will be quickly depleted it may become too expensive and loose competition to renewables.I already read in few sources that for now installation costs for nuclear power and wind power is basicaly the same: 1000-1500$ per kW.But maitnance and fuelcosts apparently greater for nuclear.So I can’t completely understand how nuclear power could be even a bit cheaper than wind.In California wind power is alreadythe cheapest one.Geothermal,wave and tidal is almost apparently no more expensive.Wind power getting cheaper every year and I believe this is becausewind farms are made from too expensive materials (everyone likes profit).If build them on giant scale and as cheaper as possible,I could imagine somethingsimilar to Giza pyramide build from unexpensive concrete.This pyramide (or cube) will have wide entrance https://studenthub.uq.edu.au/ for wind and one smaller exit in which wind will concentrate and create giant pressure.At the exit heavy and powerfull turbine will be installed.I read that if some proper batteries will be developed for energy storage it will make wind energy two times cheaper anyway due to wind instablity.But this field is developing and there is good chances that such batteries will be developed.Maybe aluminum-based or alkaline-ion or something yet.Also I’m realy facinated about geothermal energy.This is realy huge potential.Somebody calculated that deuterium will last for billions of years as fuel for fusion fower plants.So if you are nuclear engineer why not to switch to fusion development? It is not beyond credible imagination to assume that in the future we will be able to economically extract uranium at levels way below 80 ppm Do you have some feasible explanation how will it be done without excess amountof energy? I guess it’s main point which defines price of uranium.And how then Uranium will compete with geothermal,wind and wave power whichis not too expensive now?Many things could be done, but what is economic reasonthere?

For example : there is about 50 million tonnes of Uranium 235 isotope dissolved in the world’s oceans. So the radioactive stuff comes out of the ground, and needs to be put back there. MedeIn a sense, the world is already full of nuclear waste, and is not suffering for it. Classy, and definitely French!About your ‘electro-nuclear’ hybrid though, I admire the idea, as it promises adequate, alternative energy, though I wonder about the long term effects. The total amount of the same isotope through the Earth’s crust is many times greater.

In fission nucelar power stations, the cost of the uranium 235 isotope is about 5 to 10% of the total cost of the electricity produced. Not an entirely impossible task! How can a solar plant last any longer? It’s in the design and maintenance.

This is converted in nuclear reactors to a much smaller tonnage of radioactive wastes, which must be dumped. Currently, it is economic to extract uranium from ores at a level of 80 parts per million uranium content. Bad is not a binary state. StanleyThe cost of uranium is not actually a limiting factor. Truly, how would we dispose of the nuclear waste, and by moving from producing greenhouse gases to nuclear waste, won’t we just be changing the problem from one form to another?Eventually, won’t we just produce an earth that is both filled with greenhouse gases (assuming their levels don’t reduce significantly with time) and nuclear waste?A great idea, but unless you can propose a solution for the waste, a bad idea. It is localised concentrations of waste that are harmful. Monitoring would also grow into a tedious task, but, indeed not an impossible one.All in all, I like your logic.

It may have changed a bit since then. Same with natural gas designs. For example, if you add to the cost of coal burning electricity, the estimated added cost of pumping the emitted CO2 into underground repositories, the cost doubles, to 12 cents. These are American national averages, over many plants. This can be done with conc. nitric acid.

I like it! The Renault electric car concept, i mean. I completely agree.Does anyone think that if power companies could turn a bigger profit from solar, that they wouldn’t? However, there are massive deposits at lower concentrations. This is radioactive.

Note that this is cost at source, not selling price. For example, if you add to the cost of coal burning electricity, the estimated added cost of pumping the emitted CO2 into underground repositories, the cost doubles, to 12 cents. I personally think a combination of nuclear power and electric powered cars is the solution to climate change. To date, no researcher has reported any ecological damage at all from this discharge.My own feeling is that, if ocean disposal is to be mooted, the best way would be to dissolve the waste first. We’re not dealing in absolutes, so “less bad” is often rather good. That data looks real suspect to me. Future technologies may extract far more.

These are American national averages, over many plants. Life can tolerate reasonable increases in radioactivity, which occurs with nuclear waste discharge that is massively diluted first.My own best preference is to find a place which is well away from people, geologically stable, and utterly arid, and dig a hole about 1000 metres deep, and bury the stuff. For example, the coal plant in Boardman, OR has been in service since 1975. It may have changed a bit since then. though there is no co2 emission the problem is that even the battery used is harmful to the environment. When we make nuclear waste, we do it by mining Uranium and purifying it so that it is high in U235 which, as said, is radioactive. Under current level of uranium consumption and production about 17% of world electricity on nuclear power plants,by optimistic prognosis, uranium reserveswill last for 100 years.It means if all world electricity will be produced on uranium power plants,its reserves will last for 20 years…And don’t forget that nuclear drives will be needed for such critical applicationsas space travel where size and compactness is very important.Another posibility is to use fast neutron brider reactors but still no country is usingthem on commercial scale.It means there is huge problems and expences.What do you think about geothermal energy?As I know currently this is cheapestkind from all type of energy sources renewable and non-renewable.Why to buildartificial nuclear reactors while we have giant natural reactor just under our feets!? Well met, skeptic.

The problem with this idea is that there is no way we can make sure that the waste actually does this. I will assume these lives used are based on the same things, and maybe newer ones based on mandating sequestration, or the likes. If believe to this site,operational costs for solar,wind,wave and geothermal energy2-5 times lower then for nuclear and thus energy produced is cheaper.http://www.unenergy.org/Popup%20pages/Comparecosts.htmlPersonaly, I believe that nuclear reactors still not enough protected,I would preferto see something deep underground.So what is reason to use nuclear energy whenit is by fact more dangerous and more expensive than alternatives? Originally Posted by skeptic StanleyThat site is a greenie site, which carefully adds in lots of environmental costs to make them get the result they want.I obtained basic costs as below, for the year 2005. Especially with nature’s unpredictability, and the future possibility of nuclear spews accompanying already-dangerous fissures and volcanic eruptions. A simple calculation shows that those drums have long since rusted away, releasing all the waste into the oceans. So in a way even electric cars are bad for the environment.Thanx anyhow!!

Since the oceans consist of E18 tonnes of seawater, the final concentration would be infinitesimal. Note that this is cost at source, not selling price. I suggest the Simpson Desert in Australia as being the most suitable place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson_Desert The only reason it may close is that is isn’t equipped with the latest technology, and it may be cheaper to rebuild rather than modify to the latest standards.

Yours seems a most realistic solution. If the cost of uranium doubled, it would make nuclear generated electricity nursing essay writing services
only a little bit more expensive.