And the beauty of that is that the bigger the fission industry becomes, the more brains will be drawn towards it - brains that could maybe solve the fusion problem. I'm hoping to start a phd in nuclear physics next year and it's painfully obvious the industry wants all the students they can get. Apparently nuclear research stopped being sexy to students years ago.>> ^kingmob:

I take both.
Nuclear is more of a solution for now.
But not forever.
I keep holding out for fusion.

Does anyone else disagree with the characterisation of nuclear (fission) power as renewable?

I'm still for it but that annoys me.

Also, I'd like to see costs. I was always under the impression that nuclear power was cheaper.

>> ^gwiz665:

Nuclear power is the best fast and effecient substitute for coal and oil. Ideally we'd all just use solar, wind and geothermal, but this is not an ideal world and we need to end our dependence (or lessen it) asap.


Why are those ideal? They are an eye sore and take up vast amounts of space, and at times, in what used to be nice habitats. Daming up rivers and strip clearing land for wind and solar seem to be a step backwards for the goal. In my mind, the ideal is a little power plant that powers the whole world. It seems thermodynamically speaking you have 3 options: To burn stuff that is energetic, to harness small pools of energy over large amounts of space, or to have a high level energy reaction that is potentially volatile. Fusion does seem like the answer once we get it, its volatility is unlike nuclear. The volatility of fusion, from my understanding, is trying to maintain the reaction. Catastrophic failure means a reactor restart, not a meltdown. So you get high energy density, stability (of power output levels), low risk, low pollution. The same is true of fission reactors, except they aren't "as" safe, or "as" clean as some of the alternatives. But the type of clean they ARE (low co2) is exactly what we want.

http://videosift.com/video/Guy-mixes-sugar-substitute-with-water-discovers-cold-fission

"The system makes the reactor self-regulating: When the soup gets too hot it expands and flows out of the tubes- slowing fission and eliminating the possibility of another Chernobyl."

Please read the article in Wired...it points out that most of the existing nuclear power waste is in the form of Thorium, which requires no further processing to be used as fuel for this reactor.
For another thing, this is interesing:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/robertsteinhaus/gGxKNV
~cheers
>> ^Stormsinger:
I'll support nukes -after- we have some place to safely store the waste for a few millennia. If several decades of need hasn't provided sufficient motivation, I see no reason to think we're going to get better in the future.
This continual desire to take the easy road and crap in our nest first, while leaving the cleanup for later is what got us into this mess.

Fission or Fusion I support.

Solar: I don't see the harm in using it regionally or locally where it makes geographic sense (places like deserts). But Solar will never in a bazillion years be able to serve as the primary power source for the human population. Statistically, human power needs peak and trough at irregular times that are unsupportable by direct feed power from solar energy. The only solution is to over-produce solar energy in massive quantities and store it in batteries. Batteries are far more 'dirty' than coal or gas. No. Solar is a curiosity - not a solution. Any power source that will serve as the world's primary power source must be able to deal with human power demands in a 'real world' manner - and solar ain't it. Same goes for wind.

Hydrogen cells: Haw haw! You can't change the laws of physics. There is more hydrogen in a gallon of gasoline than there is in a gallon or pure hydrogen. The energy compression exchange is too poor for hydrogen to be a power source for anything except a very large vehicle like a bus, or land-locked structures with specific, predictable power needs. Refining & compressing hydrogen to the point where it is usable as a 'fuel' for large populations is more energy expensive than burning wood.

by the time we achieve practical fusion it's going to be too late to stave off crisis

Stave off 'the crisis'... What crisis? There is enough oil on the planet to keep going another 80 years without even touching stuff like shale. If you go with shale then Earth can go 200+ years. There is no 'crisis' in terms of fossil fuels. Or are you talking about the AGW boogeyman that is routinely and consistently being proven to be a complete fabrication?

Interesting. My knowledge on fusion is limited to the basic function of it. I know little to nothing about reaction fusion technology. My brain finds it hard to fathom that harnessing the power of the sun couldn't have volatile reputations. More over, IF one fails, the cost of fixing it and how regularly it would fail are questions that I think are valid. A power station going offline for a year isn't the answer to a power crisis really.

For me, I have always liked the KISS principle to energy. Many small manageable solutions. Granted, I think fusion reactor technology is still smart to look to, but only for our really cool space ships and ray guns (like an ion cannon to clear an escape from Hoth). In other words, there are most likely easier and safer, more reliably ways to get our power...right?

(what I mean basically is this seems like one of those things that will get here when it gets here...but for a good solution now, it is not that. And even when it gets here, it's going to take awhile to get all the kinks out. Solar and hydrogen fuel cells seem like a real solution now that is already very mature and fairly plug and play with current technology.)

>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
The problem to me with a fusion plant is the energy density. If a catastrophe were to happen, how much of a city would go with it...or how much of a country? I have always liked the idea of everything being its own power station.

The danger of fission is radioactivity. All a "meltdown" does, as far as actual damage, is destroy the reactor. However, it can release radioactive isotopes into the environment, which brings enormous health risks. Fission is self-sustaining, so if the containment fails, the reaction can continue. It should also be noted that fission reactors are far safer today than they were in the past.
Fusion does not have this problem. If the system fails then the reaction stops. It might damage the reactor, but even if the magnet exploded (which would only be a local event) there would be no danger to the surrounding area. As far as I know, the only radiation threat would involve tritium, which is only one fuel method for fusion, and even then there would be far less danger than from a fission reaction.

Let's not forget thorium fluoride fission reactors.... compared to the uranium reactors we use we have plenty of fuel, much safer, nuclear waste safe much quicker.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
The problem to me with a fusion plant is the energy density. If a catastrophe were to happen, how much of a city would go with it...or how much of a country? I have always liked the idea of everything being its own power station.


The danger of fission is radioactivity. All a "meltdown" does, as far as actual damage, is destroy the reactor. However, it can release radioactive isotopes into the environment, which brings enormous health risks. Fission is self-sustaining, so if the containment fails, the reaction can continue. It should also be noted that fission reactors are far safer today than they were in the past.

Fusion does not have this problem. If the system fails then the reaction stops. It might damage the reactor, but even if the magnet exploded (which would only be a local event) there would be no danger to the surrounding area. As far as I know, the only radiation threat would involve tritium, which is only one fuel method for fusion, and even then there would be far less danger than from a fission reaction.

^ Indeed. You may as well worry about the same thing for a fission plant. Chernobyl ring any bells? It doesn't stop us trying to get power from fission, percieved risk (within reason, of course) should never stop humans from trying to extend their reach.

>> ^Fade:

The problem with fission is resources. There just isn't that much fiisile material for long term use. He mentions this issue in passing in the talk but it's actually really important.

Not true for Liquid Flouride Thorium reactors. Thorium is abundant everywhere on the planet, it's cheap to mine and doesn't require costly processing like uranium. LFT reactors also produce a fraction of the waste byproducts that current fission techonology produces, the byproducts are not suitable for weaponizing, the waste only needs to be stored for 300 years instead of 10,000 and you can even use LFT reactors to burn radioactive byproducts from current fission reactors. It's also a proven technology. We know it works.

Thorium reactors were not developed when fission energy began in this country precisely because you could not make weapons out of the waste material. Considering it's relative safety (it's a self stabilizing reaction) there are essentially no rational reasons not to use LFT fission reactors today.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Sure, nuclear reactors are expensive- but keep in mind that they've been sidelined in funding because they are NIMBY bogey man. Most of the problems you cite have been fixed in new model Thorium reactors (half-life is only 500 years, waste is small amount and they actually eat old types of nuclear waste for fuel!)

I'm not sure about that solar panel lifespan- I'm just going by someone I know who has them installed- it may have been the lead acid batteries that they had to swap out ever 5 years or so. Regardless, photovoltaic cell manufacture is a dirty fab process similar to chips- lots of toxic non-recyclable metals and burning a good deal of CO2.

I'm behind new-nuclear as a sensible stop-gap until fusion comes online.

.>> ^curiousity:
>> ^dag:
As far as efficiency goes, I'd take fission over solar.
The amount of square feet required to make solar energy as well as the material required for all of those panels- heavy metals and toxic chemicals- and a short equipment lifespan make them about as well thought-out as ethanol- which is to say not at all.
If we could get over our irrational nuclear fears- nuclear fission really is the best option for the planet in the short term, and then roll on the fusion when it gets here. 10 years right?

Much of the cost for fission reactors is hidden by government subsides. Cost is definitely a reason that there hasn't been a new nuclear reactor build in the US for over 30 years. They are damn expensive. And then the real cost comes with storage of radiated materials. A storage fee that will last a long time.
Last time I checked, most decent solar panels come with a 25-year warranty which means they might last 30 to 50 years if not damaged. There are also solar-based plants that focus sunlight to heat water to drive turbines - much more efficient that current solar panel technology. I can't compare solar energy to ethanol in good faith.

>> ^dag:
As far as efficiency goes, I'd take fission over solar.
The amount of square feet required to make solar energy as well as the material required for all of those panels- heavy metals and toxic chemicals- and a short equipment lifespan make them about as well thought-out as ethanol- which is to say not at all.
If we could get over our irrational nuclear fears- nuclear fission really is the best option for the planet in the short term, and then roll on the fusion when it gets here. 10 years right?


Much of the cost for fission reactors is hidden by government subsides. Cost is definitely a reason that there hasn't been a new nuclear reactor build in the US for over 30 years. They are damn expensive. And then the real cost comes with storage of radiated materials. A storage fee that will last a long time.

Last time I checked, most decent solar panels come with a 25-year warranty which means they might last 30 to 50 years if not damaged. There are also solar-based plants that focus sunlight to heat water to drive turbines - much more efficient that current solar panel technology. I can't compare solar energy to ethanol in good faith.

@dag
The problem with fission is resources. There just isn't that much fiisile material for long term use. He mentions this issue in passing in the talk but it's actually really important.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

As far as efficiency goes, I'd take fission over solar.

The amount of square feet required to make solar energy as well as the material required for all of those panels- heavy metals and toxic chemicals- and a short equipment lifespan make them about as well thought-out as ethanol- which is to say not at all.

If we could get over our irrational nuclear fears- nuclear fission really is the best option for the planet in the short term, and then roll on the fusion when it gets here. 10 years right?
>> ^Psychologic:
Fusion has some great advantages, especially in the power-per-area department, but I still like solar better for a few reasons.
Fusion is an "all or nothing" tech. It takes a very large investment up front before anything significant can be done with it. Solar, on the other hand, is more of an evolutionary process. It already works, so the main goal is lowering cost and increasing efficiency (which is happening pretty quickly these days).
However, I think one of the largest advantages solar has over fusion is that it doesn't require a power grid. Once the cost and efficiency reach a certain level then you can create your own power, which will be huge in remote low-income areas. Villages wouldn't have to wait for their region to invest in a reactor or worry about power distribution being damaged.
Fusion is great and will greatly benefit the world, but I don't think it's our best option at this point.