Reform Gaining Huge Numbers Of Votes...
News1 min ago
nuclear energy!
13 Answers
where does it come from? please dont say the nuclear power station!!! i dont think i have ever been told how nuclear is made or mined or grown???????
Answers
1 to 13 of 13
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Agent_Smith. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
You've probably heard E=Mc�.
This means that matter can be distroyed and energy liberated.
I don't mean distroyed like in burnt but truely distroyed at the atomic level.
There are 2 ways to do this - firstly fission - like in the first nuclear bombs and in nuclear power stations you basically bring a large amount of radioactive Uranium together in a small space and the storm of sub-atomic particles bump into each other and distroy each other liberating energy.
The other way is fusion - this is how the sun and stars burn. A large amount of hydrogen is heated and compressed and the atoms join together, left over matter is distroyed and energy liberated.
So far all our nuclear power stations use fission but for the last 50 years slow steady progress has been made on making fusion power work.
Fusion would be much safer and cleaner, the fuel could be obtained from sea water and no uranium or plutonium would be involved.
So far experiments have created fusion but needed much more energy to be put in than they got out. The next experiment is being built in France and will reach what is called break-even.
It's big,very big
http://www.iter.org/pics/ITER_col.jpg
if you look at the bottom left you'll see a person to scale
This means that matter can be distroyed and energy liberated.
I don't mean distroyed like in burnt but truely distroyed at the atomic level.
There are 2 ways to do this - firstly fission - like in the first nuclear bombs and in nuclear power stations you basically bring a large amount of radioactive Uranium together in a small space and the storm of sub-atomic particles bump into each other and distroy each other liberating energy.
The other way is fusion - this is how the sun and stars burn. A large amount of hydrogen is heated and compressed and the atoms join together, left over matter is distroyed and energy liberated.
So far all our nuclear power stations use fission but for the last 50 years slow steady progress has been made on making fusion power work.
Fusion would be much safer and cleaner, the fuel could be obtained from sea water and no uranium or plutonium would be involved.
So far experiments have created fusion but needed much more energy to be put in than they got out. The next experiment is being built in France and will reach what is called break-even.
It's big,very big
http://www.iter.org/pics/ITER_col.jpg
if you look at the bottom left you'll see a person to scale
Ahem... ignorant question time (well I haven't done one for a while..... Actually it's two ignorant questions.
1) Why something so big to work with something so miniscule?
2) Jake says nuclear energy is actually better for enviroment (I'm not disputing this in any way at all just wish to know more). But whenever you hear anything about nuclear it is nearly always associated with something bad and I was led to believe it isn't very good for the enviroment at all. Recently I've been seeing more stuff that says it is. Could someone please explain this to me a bit more?
Sorry Agent Smith, I hope you don't mind me asking questions on your thread but I thought since my questions stem from your own and are linked it would be a bit silly to start my own stand alone thread. Really sorry if you do mind!
1) Why something so big to work with something so miniscule?
2) Jake says nuclear energy is actually better for enviroment (I'm not disputing this in any way at all just wish to know more). But whenever you hear anything about nuclear it is nearly always associated with something bad and I was led to believe it isn't very good for the enviroment at all. Recently I've been seeing more stuff that says it is. Could someone please explain this to me a bit more?
Sorry Agent Smith, I hope you don't mind me asking questions on your thread but I thought since my questions stem from your own and are linked it would be a bit silly to start my own stand alone thread. Really sorry if you do mind!
Hi China
Nuclear power is not more or less environmentally friendly than other sources of energy. It has many benefits which jake has pointed out but it also causes a great deal of environmental damage particularly in and around uranium mines.
When people talk about the environmental benefit of nuclear power they are specifically talking about greenhouse gasses associated with global warming. Nuclear power has its own set of pollution risks which also must be carefully considered.
In short, all energy production has its own set of advantages and disadvantages. The trick is to find a sustainable balance of different energy production methods.
Nuclear power is not more or less environmentally friendly than other sources of energy. It has many benefits which jake has pointed out but it also causes a great deal of environmental damage particularly in and around uranium mines.
When people talk about the environmental benefit of nuclear power they are specifically talking about greenhouse gasses associated with global warming. Nuclear power has its own set of pollution risks which also must be carefully considered.
In short, all energy production has its own set of advantages and disadvantages. The trick is to find a sustainable balance of different energy production methods.
Let me answer 2 first.
I was refering specifically to fusion nuclear energy which is still being developed.
But Nuclear energy in general does not produce carbon dioxide emissions so from that sense it's better for the environment.
Nuclear fission (the sort of reactors we have today) use Uranium and decay into a really nasty toxic mess containing a cocktail of things like Plutonium which is radioactively and chemically nasty and can stay very active for tens of thousands of years.
Nuclear fusion however does not produce any waste like this from the fuel - there is a lot of radiation and the reactors still have to be decomissioned but you get to choose the materials you make it of and you don't include materials that decay into these nasty long-lived products where you can help it.
Over 25% of that huge Iter reactor will be inactive enough to be classified as non-radioactive after just 100 years of storage - compare that with the tens of thousands of years and you see how attractive it is.
Also it's safer - with a fission reactor you stuff all the fuel for months or years in and use it slowly - Fancy driving a car with 18 months worth of petrol on board? A fusion reactor has tiny amounts of fuel and it's a miracle to keep going rather than having to make sure you can stop it.
Why something so big? Well it's a big problem - you're trying to recreate the temperatures at the center of the sun and keep it all squeezed together hanging in the air - get two magnets and try to suspend one in the air with the other without letting them touch - this is a tiny fraction of how tricky this is
A lot of the size comes from the superconducting magnets and the fact that the plasma is easier to stabalise as the reactor is larger.
If things go to plan, Iter will sort out the remaining engineering issues and DEMO the first fusion reactor will come
I was refering specifically to fusion nuclear energy which is still being developed.
But Nuclear energy in general does not produce carbon dioxide emissions so from that sense it's better for the environment.
Nuclear fission (the sort of reactors we have today) use Uranium and decay into a really nasty toxic mess containing a cocktail of things like Plutonium which is radioactively and chemically nasty and can stay very active for tens of thousands of years.
Nuclear fusion however does not produce any waste like this from the fuel - there is a lot of radiation and the reactors still have to be decomissioned but you get to choose the materials you make it of and you don't include materials that decay into these nasty long-lived products where you can help it.
Over 25% of that huge Iter reactor will be inactive enough to be classified as non-radioactive after just 100 years of storage - compare that with the tens of thousands of years and you see how attractive it is.
Also it's safer - with a fission reactor you stuff all the fuel for months or years in and use it slowly - Fancy driving a car with 18 months worth of petrol on board? A fusion reactor has tiny amounts of fuel and it's a miracle to keep going rather than having to make sure you can stop it.
Why something so big? Well it's a big problem - you're trying to recreate the temperatures at the center of the sun and keep it all squeezed together hanging in the air - get two magnets and try to suspend one in the air with the other without letting them touch - this is a tiny fraction of how tricky this is
A lot of the size comes from the superconducting magnets and the fact that the plasma is easier to stabalise as the reactor is larger.
If things go to plan, Iter will sort out the remaining engineering issues and DEMO the first fusion reactor will come
You might also wonder why not just go over to wind power and wave power etc.
These a good for topping up the power grid but are inpractical long term to use as a total replacement for fossil fuels because you cannot whistle up a storm when the Coronation Street ads come on and everybody puts on the kettle.
So you'd need to build so much extra capacity that it would be silly.
Of course if you can work out a way to store large amounts of energy that doesn't involve building huge hydroelectric installations that'd be different but that's a problem even harder than fusion.
If anybody fancies being rich and famous and saving the world that's the problem to work on - it's resisted the greatest minds for a hundred years - but you never know what's around the corner
These a good for topping up the power grid but are inpractical long term to use as a total replacement for fossil fuels because you cannot whistle up a storm when the Coronation Street ads come on and everybody puts on the kettle.
So you'd need to build so much extra capacity that it would be silly.
Of course if you can work out a way to store large amounts of energy that doesn't involve building huge hydroelectric installations that'd be different but that's a problem even harder than fusion.
If anybody fancies being rich and famous and saving the world that's the problem to work on - it's resisted the greatest minds for a hundred years - but you never know what's around the corner
jake, what if every house in the country saved energy in the way it was supposed to and had solar panels fitted etc the countries that could used geothermal power, tidal barriers were built in the appropriate places. How would we fare then?
When I grew up we were told that nuclear power was bad bad bad, environmentally and also I suppose caue of Chernobyl. Now I seem to be getting told left right and centre its the best because other ways just arent viable. So whats true?
When I grew up we were told that nuclear power was bad bad bad, environmentally and also I suppose caue of Chernobyl. Now I seem to be getting told left right and centre its the best because other ways just arent viable. So whats true?
There are not many countries with the geology to use geothermal with current technology - Iceland and New Zealand being notable exceptions.
Tidal barriers are a special form of hydroelectric and again cannot be place anywhere you need them - there was a remarkable proposal to use the Severn to generate a huge amount of power but it wiould power the South West - no answer for London and Birmingham and although the report said the Environmental impacts would be "acceptable" Margaret Thatchers Government disagreed
Lets have a look at solar and wind on your house - B&Q - now sell them, they cost �1,498 each. they reckon they could supply 1/2 your hot water (solar) and 1/3 of your electricity - nice but how much is your electricity bill? the average is about �280 so it would take 15 years to pay for itself even if it didn't need repairing.
And it still doesn't solve the "cup of tea in coronation street problem"
Renewables are good and help reduce demand but the core problem is that we can't generate all our energy demands when we want it from renewables so you need to generate from fossil fuels or nuclear.
Moreover you need to generate even more electricity for electric cars when you run out of oil and China and India and the rest of the deveolping world will not meet their projected requirements with wind turbines.
If you want to grow your biodiesil you would need to turn the entire agriculture of Poland (UK does not have enough)over to meet the UK needs.
In the end we'll probably need a combination of technologies but when you look hard at the maths right now you have a stark choice of fossil fuels or nuclear.
Have a look at this and try your luck
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/06/el ectricity_calc/html/1.stm
Tidal barriers are a special form of hydroelectric and again cannot be place anywhere you need them - there was a remarkable proposal to use the Severn to generate a huge amount of power but it wiould power the South West - no answer for London and Birmingham and although the report said the Environmental impacts would be "acceptable" Margaret Thatchers Government disagreed
Lets have a look at solar and wind on your house - B&Q - now sell them, they cost �1,498 each. they reckon they could supply 1/2 your hot water (solar) and 1/3 of your electricity - nice but how much is your electricity bill? the average is about �280 so it would take 15 years to pay for itself even if it didn't need repairing.
And it still doesn't solve the "cup of tea in coronation street problem"
Renewables are good and help reduce demand but the core problem is that we can't generate all our energy demands when we want it from renewables so you need to generate from fossil fuels or nuclear.
Moreover you need to generate even more electricity for electric cars when you run out of oil and China and India and the rest of the deveolping world will not meet their projected requirements with wind turbines.
If you want to grow your biodiesil you would need to turn the entire agriculture of Poland (UK does not have enough)over to meet the UK needs.
In the end we'll probably need a combination of technologies but when you look hard at the maths right now you have a stark choice of fossil fuels or nuclear.
Have a look at this and try your luck
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/06/el ectricity_calc/html/1.stm
1 to 13 of 13
