• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A possible step to replacing coal

PirateMk1 said:
The reason for all the waste on fast fission reactors is because we don't burn all the fuel down completely. Its mainly for proliferation reasons. The fuel can be burned such that the resulting waste has very little radioactivity left.
Click to expand...

Uranium 235 does not burn in a nuclear power plant. It goes through a fission process. The isotopes it produces are the problem.
 
Lursa said:
No matter how 'safe' people claim nuclear power is, fission nuclear power will always be vulnerable to sabotage/terrorism.

And even if the %risk is small, the actual damage potential is very high and exceedingly long lasting.

We need to focus resources on clean, safe, renewable, even if it means remaining on fossil fuels (which I'm not for) longer.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's why they vaporized a Phantom. They smashed one onto a concrete wall in 1988 to test protection of such an event.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Yes, that's why they vaporized a Phantom. They smashed one onto a concrete wall in 1988 to test protection of such an event.
Click to expand...

All they need to do is take an employee's family hostage and they can get inside. They can coerce the employee, they can gain entrance, they can sabotage from the inside. With computer hacking levels today, they might not even need to get inside.

Terrorists probably believe we're that complacent.
 
longview said:
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/...irst-ever-to-complete-nrc-phase-1-review.html
A portable small scale nuclear reactor has complete the Phase 1 of the NRC process.
All coal plants have ether water or rail access, and steam is steam.
The coal plants are located where the power is needed most, so replacing the coal boilers,
with small nuclear reactors, could be a viable path forward, until the alternatives fill the breech.
Click to expand...

i read somewhere that fusion was also headed in that direction.
 
jdog21 said:
All the people that hate coal also hate nuclear power because they are NIMBY and you have to store that nuclear waste somewhere and it has ill effects of the environment as well.
Click to expand...

We will need nuclear power to make the transition to an economy that doesn't run on carbon.
 
danielpalos said:
i read somewhere that fusion was also headed in that direction.
Click to expand...

I've been reading that fusion was coming for a half a century.

Don't hold your breath, the technical challenges are staggering.
 
late said:
We will need nuclear power to make the transition to an economy that doesn't run on carbon.
Click to expand...
I agree with you on something, You are correct, sans some major advance in technology,
there is simply no way to replace fuels for fossil carbon without a large contribution from nuclear.
The replacement of transport alone will require many times current capacity.
Nuclear is also needed as base load for the low duty cycle of the current alternate sources.
 
late said:
I've been reading that fusion was coming for a half a century.

Don't hold your breath, the technical challenges are staggering.
Click to expand...

they were working on miniaturization. the article claimed an advance to five year goals, since miniaturization involved some efficiencies not previously considered.
 
Lursa said:
All they need to do is take an employee's family hostage and they can get inside. They can coerce the employee, they can gain entrance, they can sabotage from the inside. With computer hacking levels today, they might not even need to get inside.

Terrorists probably believe we're that complacent.
Click to expand...

Have you ever been in positions of security, or been part of their testing process? It isn't that simple. They don't put just any lackey in those positions.
 
danielpalos said:
i read somewhere that fusion was also headed in that direction.
Click to expand...

I lost hope with inexpensive fusion. I would love it if we ever made it happen, but after this many years, I am no longer hopeful.
 
late said:
We will need nuclear power to make the transition to an economy that doesn't run on carbon.
Click to expand...

We?

What is this "we"???

Speak for yourself. I am fine with a carbon economy. I just want to stop all the aerosol emissions associated with it. That is where the harm comes from. I also like the idea of 800 ppm. The thought of the earth being a Garden of Eden again, appeals to me.
 
late said:
The country.

As in "We, the people"...
Click to expand...

Really? Do you honestly think "We the people," and a whole, actually agree with you when they learn of the sacrifices they must mat too?
 
Lord of Planar said:
Really? Do you honestly think "We the people," and a whole, actually agree with you when they learn of the sacrifices they must make?
Click to expand...

When we get a Progressive era, they will be ready.

Change comes with a price tag, and ignoring change comes with a larger cost than dealing with it.
 
late said:
When we get a Progressive era, they will be ready.

Change comes with a price tag, and ignoring change comes with a larger cost than dealing with it.
Click to expand...

Careful.

Your arrogance is showing.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Still not much. Looks like corporate fluff. They wouldn't make such a claim thought unless they first weighed the risk analysis of being wrong.
Click to expand...
Since Patents only last 15 years, they must think they have something worthy of protecting near term,
at least on a fusion energy time frame.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Have you ever been in positions of security, or been part of their testing process? It isn't that simple. They don't put just any lackey in those positions.
Click to expand...

So then they use multiple employees/families. Are you saying that someone in a higher position wouldnt be vulnerable to that kind of hostage/blackmail?

And the computer hacking is getting into everything.
 
Coal is already going out of style with natural gas
 

[h=1]U.S. Coal Industry Growth[/h]By Andy May U.S. coal production declined from 2011 through 2016 as it was displaced in U.S. power plants by cheaper and cleaner natural gas. Some of the reduction was also due to the Obama Clean Power Plan regulations. However, the shale gas revolution in the U.S. has not spread to other countries, perhaps due…
Continue reading →
 
[h=2]Burn coal not wood if you care about the climate[/h]
[h=3][/h][h=3]Go Coal. Wood-fired electricity produces *more* CO2 for the next hundred years…[/h]h/t NoTricksZone
Any day now the giant tree-eating-machine called Drax will be shifting back to coal as Greens and politicians realize they’ve made a planet killing mistake. Lordy! At the moment, Drax is supposed to be saving the world and making electricity for the UK by burning trees cut down and shipped from the US.
This temple to carbon neutrality happens to be the largest plant in the UK . It generates about 7% of all the megawatts used there. But a new study by Sterman et al, suggests the Drax plan is backfiring badly.
When is carbon neutrality not neutral? When the carbon debt is not paid off in our lifetimes…
[h=3]Burning forests instead of coal deposits raises CO2, and in so many ways:[/h]
  1. Wood is a less efficient fuel. Megawatt for megawatt, wood produces more CO2 than coal. In terms of efficiencies, the combustion efficiency of wood is 25% compared to coal at 35%.
  2. Processing losses to supply wood are around 27%, while losses to supply coal are 11%. (NEA 2011, IEA 2016, Roder 2015)
  3. This is the slow road to carbon neutrality. It takes 40 – 100 years to grow the trees.
  4. In a century, lots of things can go wrong. The natural forest may never grow back thanks to disease, development or fires. Cleared land may be converted to pasture. There are many ways to leave a permanent carbon debt.
  5. If the slow growing hardwood forest is replaced with fast growing pine, the site can only soak up 60% of the carbon “lost”. Oak-Hickory forest stores 211tC/ha compared to 131 tC/ha for pine plantations. A managed plantation can’t store as much carbon as an unmanaged one. After 500 million years of evolution, nature has fine-tuned carbon extraction in ecosystems. In an unmanaged forest, biology fills every carbon-sucking niche and doesn’t leave gaps for heavy machinery.
  6. If power-stations don’t use as much coal, the coal price may fall, and other people may use the same coal elsewhere anyway.
  7. The kicker: As long as biofuel use is expanding so are CO2 emissions. All biomass burning from an existing forest creates an immediate carbon debt. And if you are continually chopping down more forests, the carbon debts accrue…
 
longview said:
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/...irst-ever-to-complete-nrc-phase-1-review.html
A portable small scale nuclear reactor has complete the Phase 1 of the NRC process.
All coal plants have ether water or rail access, and steam is steam.
The coal plants are located where the power is needed most, so replacing the coal boilers,
with small nuclear reactors, could be a viable path forward, until the alternatives fill the breech.
Click to expand...

Nukes are difficult to scale down. Plus they work best as base-loaders, not load-followers or peak-loaders ("peakers").

Incidentally, with current technology, modern gas-powered plants have proven to be the best peakers so far.
 
Phys251 said:
Nukes are difficult to scale down. Plus they work best as base-loaders, not load-followers or peak-loaders ("peakers").

Incidentally, with current technology, modern gas-powered plants have proven to be the best peakers so far.
Click to expand...
I think we need base load, we will still need the peaking plants, but hopefully not as much.
In the warmer areas, the peaking plants would come online in the summer heat as the AC usage went up,
Solar is actually a good hedge against that.
I think the role of the small nuclear reactors would be in making steam for the old coal plants.
they all have heavy transport, ether rail or water, and the turbines do not care what makes the steam.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom