Is the future nuclear?

[ada]

With everyone talking about climate change and global warming there seems to be a trend back towards embracing nuclear energy as a greenhouse-friendly source of energy.

Australia has a vested interest in this debate because it has the world's richest known uranium resources.

So nuclear energy is being talked up big here.

What does everyone reckon about nuclear energy - I wonder if it should replace fossil fuels? I mean, with fossil fuels set to run out soon it might have to, mightn't it?

Is it clean environmentally friendly alternative? Do the benefits outweigh the risks?

[asyncopated]

Fission material is not exactly the cleanest of fuel sources.  The waste created by spliting uranium and plutonium is highly radioactive and a lot of care must be taken when disposing this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste

Having said that, just a small amount of nuclear fuel will give quite a lot of energy, and thus is much cleaner than fossil fuels.

The risk, if proper precautions are taken, is extremely small, almost negligible.  With the advances in technology, there is very little room for human error.  However, if something does go wrong the consequences can be desasterous.  Most of the nuclear desasters in the last 60 years can be attributed to negligence in managing such plants more than any other factor.  This website has many interesting articles.

https://www.world-nuclear.org/

I think that another major concern is the politics and sale of nuclear material.  Basically all nuclear material needs to be tracked and monitored carefully by resposible governments.  Also, there is the issue of who australia will be willing to sell uranium to.  The biggest market at the moment is of course china, and I think recently, (just this year) there was an agreement signed where australia agreed to provide a significant amount of nuclear fuel to china.  This is with the understanding that the chinese will not resell it to any third party.

I don't think that fossil fuels running out is as yet a major problem.  As of now, the most pressing problem to address is C02 emmisions due almost primarily to the burning of fossil fuels.  The possible consequenses of global warming triggered by this are staggering.  I think al gore explains it very well.  If you have not watched this, you should.

https://www.climatecrisis.net/

There are of course many other alternative energy sources. However, many argue that these sources are expensive to set up and maintain, or are not as cost effective.

My personal opinion is that it is crucial that we get the balance right.  To feed tomorrows power hungery world, we risk playing a very dangerous game with our environment and our planet.

p.s. To me when someone say nuclear it's a scientific term, meaning the "core" of the atom, or some kind of technology associated with that.  Do others perceive the term nuclear as a dirty word?

[prometheus]

I am an opponent of nuclear fission because contrary to what people sometimes want you to believe there is no solution for it at all. Even for the short term there are still problems. One cannot even imagine finding a solution that is guaranteed to last as long as the stuff is radioactive.

Also, even when the technology is perfect on paper people always seem to be too lax with the regulations. I'm not really saying there will be a second Chernobil. But if you look at La Harve, a place where they 'do stuff' with radioactive waste there is all kinds of radioactivity leaking into the enviroment, etc.

But I am slowly comming to the point where I may have to pick the lesser of two evils; global serious climate change or nuclear waste that may enter the enviroment.

I don't really know what is worse.

What I do know is that mankind will start to use nuclear power on a large scale in the future. And that will probably be fission. The reason is money. The alternative is to decrease our usage or energy and resources.

But as I said I don't really know what will be worse for planet earth on the long term. We know that the earth will become lifeless at some point.

Also, the issue of nuclear war is more serious. Countries and politicians still don't want to abandon nuclear weapons. If the US and the UK, etc don't start to set an example really soon we will have a dozen nuclear states.

[ahinton]

Fusion - yes. Trouble is, we need global solutions now; nuclear fusion will probably be three decades or more away in terms of universal application.

Best,

Alistair

[wishful thinker]

If the US and the UK, etc don't start to set an example really soon we will have a dozen nuclear states.

Really?  Do you really think that the UK abandoning nuclear weapons will stop North Korea or Iran (whose president openly calls for Isreal to be wiped off the map) from doing whatever they can to acquire them? 

I think not.

[mephisto]

(whose president openly calls for Isreal to be wiped off the map)

------------------------------------.

[pianolearner]

Fusion - yes. Trouble is, we need global solutions now; nuclear fusion will probably be three decades or more away in terms of universal application.

Best,

Alistair

Agree. Fusion yes, fission perhaps in the short term. Fossil fuels running out? Where is the proof?

[ahinton]

Agree. Fusion yes, fission perhaps in the short term. Fossil fuels running out? Where is the proof?

The problem with fossil fuels is certainly not about their running out but about (a) the vagaries of the ever changing multiplicity of political difficulties surrounding its accessibility and (b) the alleged envirnmental damage caused by their extensive and widespread use.

Fission is, I think, just too risky and its costs, both financially and in terms of disposal and neutralising time-frames, seem prohibitive. Geothermal energy and wind and sea power have very limited application possibilities and are far from efficient in terms of production costs and resources. Solar power - both "solar thermal" (i.e. direct power from solar energy) and "solar photovoltaic" (i.e. the manufacture of electricity from solar energy) have by far the best chance, if only they are permitted to do so. There's a way to go yet in terms of research and development, but it strikes me as by far the best possibility.

Best,

Alistair

[asyncopated]

Fusion - yes. Trouble is, we need global solutions now; nuclear fusion will probably be three decades or more away in terms of universal application.

Just to give people a feel of the state of fusion energy right now, JET is one of the more advanced (if not the most advanced) facility in this area.  The next generation fusion torus is called ITER.

https://www.jet.efda.org/

The the moment, bottom line anecdotal comments that I've heard, is that JET produces just slighly more energy than is put in.  However, all the science indicates that if we do scale up, we will be producing clean energy that is commercially viable.

There are a myriad of engineering and technical problems assicated with plasma fusion.  A good way to think of it is that we are trying to produce a mini sun here on earth.  The plasma containing fusile material basically destroys anything it comes into contact with, so the only way to make fusion work is by magnetic confinement, which is far from perfect.  Another problem is tuning the fusion reaction itself --  processes that occur in the plasma are notoriously difficult to model and understand.  We have come a long way with this, but there is still alot of work to be done.

As you probably already know, the upshot of all the money and time spent is the fusion is completely clean and there is an abundance of fuel.

[ahinton]

Just to give people a feel of the state of fusion energy right now, JET is one of the more advanced (if not the most advanced) facility in this area.  The next generation fusion torus is called ITER.

https://www.jet.efda.org/

The the moment, bottom line anecdotal comments that I've heard, is that JET produces just slighly more energy than is put in.  However, all the science indicates that if we do scale up, we will be producing clean energy that is commercially viable.

There are a myriad of engineering and technical problems assicated with plasma fusion.  A good way to think of it is that we are trying to produce a mini sun here on earth.  The plasma containing fusile material basically destroys anything it comes into contact with, so the only way to make fusion work is by magnetic confinement, which is far from perfect.  Another problem is tuning the fusion reaction itself --  processes that occur in the plasma are notoriously difficult to model and understand.  We have come a long way with this, but there is still alot of work to be done.

As you probably already know, the upshot of all the money and time spent is the fusion is completely clean and there is an abundance of fuel.

All this is indeed true and, whilst support must be given to completing research on it, fusion is not currently expected to be able to offer anything remotely approaching a global solution until the latter half of this century and there is, of course, an immense problem already. Fusion is, therefore, a solution for the future. My statement about the possibilities of solar energy use is concerned with the hear and now - or at least the very near future; solar energy has the similar potential to be completely clean and in abundant supply.

Best,

Alistair

[timothy42b]

Coal is not pure carbon.  It contains considerable uranium.  Every coal plant releases tons of radioactive materials up the smoke stack, as well as plenty of other pollutants.

On the whole, I prefer to have the nuclear plants. 

Economics will continue to make the decisions.

The biggest difficulty with nuclear plants is having to manage waste for the theoretical 300 years that is necessary.  There are engineering solutions but not political ones. 

[dnephi]

your mom is nuclear.

[mephisto]

Stop being an idiot dnephi

[dnephi]

Stop being an idiot dnephi

OK.  Then the answer is yes - but only for so long.  We're gunna run out of Uranium.  It's just too bad.

[jspash]

i live in a country where 75-80% of the electricity produced is from nuclear plants. and i still have only 2 arms, 2 legs, and 3 eyeballs. same as when i was born!

viva la franceland! 

[asyncopated]

My statement about the possibilities of solar energy use is concerned with the hear and now - or at least the very near future; solar energy has the similar potential to be completely clean and in abundant supply.

I agree with you completely.  Here is a very recent, interesting article.

https://www.energy.gov/news/4503.htm

[prometheus]

Really?  Do you really think that the UK abandoning nuclear weapons will stop North Korea or Iran (whose president openly calls for Isreal to be wiped off the map) from doing whatever they can to acquire them? 

Ahmadinejad did not call for Israel to be whiped off the map. This is a myth caused by a translation error. What he said was that he hoped the Zionistic regime in Jerusalem with be gotten rid off.

Iran never broke the non-prolifiration treaty when the US started to bully them.

At the same time India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea now have illegal nuclear weapons. And they are allowed to. The US could have stopped N-Korea aquiring nuclear weapons. They didn't because they don't want to negociate with N-Korea and because they cared more about invading Iraq.

Fact is that I am just agreeing with Al Baradei.

Actually, the US encoraged, or rather forced, Iran to aquire nuclear weapons. They 'gave' Israel nuclear weapons. They showed what happens to you when you are in the 'axis of evil' without having WMDs; Iraq. They showed what will happen when you are in the 'axis of evil' while you do have WMDs; N-Korea.

For Iran having nuclear weapons is only a matter of survival. Last time the US gave Israel a dozen of brand new planes Israeli officials proudly stated that these planes were great; they can carry special cargo all the way to Teheran without refueling.

The US mentioned that the use of nuclear weapons against Iran is 'on the table'.

Iran has more reason to carry out a preventive war against the US than the US had with Iraq.

At the same time the UK and the US and violating the NPT as well. The NPT is almost dead. If something doesn't change soon then we will have 20 to 30 nuclear states by 2050. Robert McNamara calls it 'apocalypse soon'. He also said that Nuclear war has been much closer than most people think.
If countries continue to have the same policies on nuclear weapons than a nuclear exchange is inevitable many experts think.

We almost had global nuclear war on a few occasions. It is almost a miracle that we are still here.


So what is having nuclear weapons all about? It is about joining the elite club. It means your voice is always heard and respected. It means your country can no longer be bullied around. It is the only way for small and weak countries to prevent abuse from the big guys.

Ok, if you don't believe all countries have to disarm their nuclear weapons then what is the alternative.

I would also rather risk being hit by the few nukes N-Korea had than having global nuclear war.

Last night I dreamed about nuclear war, or rather a nuclear weapons incident. It felt like 'I always and feared felt there nuclear weapons would actually be used in my lifetime, and now it has happened'.

I also often imagine that when I come home and turn on the news or watch the headlines on the net nuclear war has broken out somewhere.

i live in a country where 75-80% of the electricity produced is from nuclear plants. and i still have only 2 arms, 2 legs, and 3 eyeballs. same as when i was born!

Not if you start to drink a lot of water from around La Hague, 'your' reprocessing plant. Independent labratories have measured it to be 20,000 times more radioactive than usual. And experts say this is only the beginning.

[wishful thinker]

This is the report on the matter from Al Jazeera:

Ahmadinejad: Wipe Israel off map

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has openly called for Israel to be wiped off the map.
"The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," the president told a conference in Tehran on Wednesday, entitled The World without Zionism.
"The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land," he said.
"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.
His comments were the first time in years that such a high-ranking Iranian official has called for Israel's eradication, even though such slogans are still regularly used at government rallies.
Call for unity
Addressing about 4000 students gathered in an Interior Ministry conference hall, Ahmadinejad also called for Palestinian unity, resistance and a point "where the annihilation of the Zionist regime will come".
"The Islamic umma (community) will not allow its historic enemy to live in its heartland," he said in the fiery speech that centred on a "historic war between the oppressor and the world of Islam".
The term "oppressor" is used by the clerical government to refer to the United States.
"We should not settle for a piece of land," he said of Israel's pullout from the Gaza Strip.
"Anyone who signs a treaty which recognises the entity of Israel means he has signed the surrender of the Muslim world," Ahmadinejad said.
 
"Any leaders in the Islamic umma who recognise Israel face the wrath of their own people."
Major change
Ahmadinejad, a veteran of Iran's hardline Revolutionary Guards, took office in August after scoring a landslide win in a June presidential election.
His tone represents a major change from that of former president Mohammad Khatami, whose favoured topic was "dialogue among civilisations" and who led an effort to improve Iran's relations with the West.
But Ahmadinejad instead spoke of a "historic war".
"It dates backs hundreds of years. Sometimes Islam has advanced. Sometimes nobody was winning. Unfortunately over the past 300 years, the world of Islam has been in retreat," he lamented.

"One hundred years ago the last trench of Islam fell, when the oppressors went towards the creation the Zionist regime. It is using it as a fort to spread its aims in the heart of the Islamic world."

In September, Bahrain announced it was ending a decades-old law banning trade ties with Israel. Earlier this month, Qatar said it was donating US$6 million to help build a soccer stadium for a mixed Arab-Jewish team, the first such financial assistance by an Arab state for any town inside Israel.
Unprecedented steps
The modest but unprecedented steps were seen as a response to Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in September. Nevertheless, Ahmadinejad said, "There is no doubt that the new wave (of attacks) in Palestine will soon wipe off this disgraceful blot (Israel) from the face of the Islamic world."
"Ahmadinejad has clearly declared the doctrine of his government. He is returning Iran to the revolutionary goals it was pursuing in the 1980s," said Mohammad Sadeq Hosseini, an expert on Middle Eastern affairs.

"By these comments, Ahmadinejad is committing himself to those goals. He is also sending the message that his government won't back down."
 
Israeli response

Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev issued a vague response. "Today, Israelis heard two extremists speak openly about destroying the Jewish state. One was the new president of Iran, and the other was the leader of Hamas, Mahmoud Zahar.

"And it appears the problem with these extremists is that they followed through on their violent declarations with violent actions."

The United States said Ahmadinejad's remarks proved the accuracy of Washington's fears about Iran's contentious nuclear programme.

"I think it reconfirms what we have been saying about the regime in Iran. It underscores the concerns we have about Iran's nuclear intentions," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.

Ebrahim Yazdi, a former Iranian foreign minister, said Ahmadinejad's remarks harmed Iran.

"Such comments provoke the international community against us. It's not to Iran's interests at all. It's harmful to Iran to make such a statement," he said.

He said the comments gave Israel justification for urging the world to take a tougher stand against Iran and refer its nuclear programme to the UN Security Council for
possible sanctions.

[ahinton]

I agree with you completely.  Here is a very recent, interesting article.

https://www.energy.gov/news/4503.htm

Thank you for sharing this with us. Clearly, this seems to be quite a breakthrough and one can only hope that it becomes a stepping stone to yet greater efficiency of production capability. I think that what the US Department of Energy is seeking to do here is encourage research into ways whereby solar energy can be used to contribute to grid electricity manufacture, whereas what I was writing about was the question of individuals who own sufficient land having solar photovoltaic plants installed in order to produce just enough electricity for their own use; this is already happening on a very small scale in a few western European countries and such installations are often set up to default to the national grid so that any surplus electricity can be diverted back to it (although the grid usually pays only a very small price for it!).

That said, the that more these kinds of development can be enhanced, the better the chance of more widespread use of cheaper and cleaner power sources on all scales large and small. This is a far more sensible way to deal with this major problem than idiotic and patronising attempts to impose an unedifying mix of taxes and guilt-complexes on driving, flying and so on, all of which will only serve to force businesses large and small to increase the charges for the goods and services that they supply, thereby contributing to increased inflation which in turn is usually met with increases in interest rates which affect borrowers everywhere, with the inevitable result that economies will suffer.

One of the calls to arms within this kind of non-joined-up thinking is the hoped-for by-product that people will rely more and more on so-called "public transport". Leaving aside that this is a largely hopeless expectation, not only because of widespread inefficiencies in public transport but also in the woeful lack of supply of such transport facilities, supporters of this move are, as a rule, tacilty selective about what they choose to define as "public transport" in the first place. Scheduled air passenger services are "public tansport", yet, to these people, flying is always a bad thing that should be far more heavily taxed in order to discourage it. Licensed taxis are "public transport", yet they are, in ecological terms, no different to the privately owned car and, in UK, their drivers have to pay the same amount of road tax and fuel taxes as drivers of privately-owned vehicles. There is no certainty whatsoever that the absurdly expensive moves now being discussed in UK to "combat" the problem will result in exemptions and concessions for providers of public road transport services and it is absolutely certain that airlines will be penalised for provision of "public transport". The problem with so many of the more extreme members of the so-called "green" lobby is that they want to see us all using less, doing less, travelling less, thus encouraging a backward-looking "holier-than-thou" attitude among some of its subscribers.

It's good to see some positive news from US, from which one of the more glaringly negative pieces of news on this subject to emerge recently was General Motors' abandonment of the EV1 car project - upon whose design and development it had already spent a fortune - on the highly suspect and dubious basis of the fear that it would fail in the market place; having already reached testing stage, this vehicle seems to have been set fair to be the fastest, most efficient electrically-operated production car ever manufactured - now it's nothing more than an embarrassing non-event in the breakers' yard of motor manufacturing history.

Just imagine being able to drive around in one of those and then recharge it from one's own personal domestic solar photovoltaic electricity supply! Sadly, however, "imagine" is about all that will be possible to do for the foreseeable future...

Best,

Alistair

[prometheus]

This is the report on the matter from Al Jazeera:

Ahmadinejad: Wipe Israel off map

As I said. That is not what he said according to many Farsi experts


More accurately would be "This regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." Or something like that. Or that is what Professor Juan Cole says. Others agree.


Point is that the useage of 'wipe' 'off the map' does not exist is farsi and clearly hits at using nuclear weapons to destroy evertyhing considering the situation.

The point is that he just talked about the zionist regime. His whole speech was called his '"World Without Zionism" speech at the World without Zionism conference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel

He was not calling for a genocide. He was calling for a one-state solution.



It seems Al Jazeera just copied what NY Times said for their English site. Maybe they lack farsi experts. Al Jazeera is an arabic news agency. And they are also very western. Iran is a persian country.

[wishful thinker]

He has said it on more than one occasion, and in more than one way e.g. "The Islamic umma (community) will not allow its historic enemy to live in its heartland", "Any leaders in the Islamic umma who recognise Israel face the wrath of their own people" etc.

He also happens to be an adherant of the Hidden Imam.  The hope seems to be that great global conflict will bring the Mahdi out of hiding (where he has been since the 9th century) to bring a world wide Islamic state.

He is a very dangerous man.

[mephisto]

He supports the Palestinians. By wiping Iran off the map, Palestine would be gone. Obviusly if he said "wipe off the map" he was talking in images.

[prometheus]

Of course he is a dangerous man. So is Bush and so was Sharon and is Olmert.

I rememeber the day Ahmadinejad was elected. It was a sad day for me. A big step backward after a small step forward.


But he said what he said. He said he opposes the regime in Israel. He didn't say he will destroy the whole country and everything in it.

[wishful thinker]

He opposes Zionists (i.e. Jews and those that support the existence of the Jewish State) being in what he considers to be land of the Muslims.  So, whatever metaphor he uses to express it, or however it is translated, he means that he wants the Jewish State (Israel) to cease to exist, and with it the Jews out of the land.

[mephisto]

Well the UN  did consider Zionism as apartheid. So anyone who opposes Zionism is certainly doing the right thing.

Do you even know what zionism is?

[wishful thinker]

Wikipedia states it thus, which is my understanding of the term

Zionism is typically defined as "an international movement originally for the establishment of a Jewish national or religious community in Palestine and later for the support of modern Israel."

[mephisto]

That is correct. But read deeper in to those sentences,

[prometheus]

I also oppose contemporary Zionism because I support peace.

Zionism means to choose expansion over security. Zionism means Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Zionism is bad for the Israeli people and it is the death of the nation of Palestine.

Actually, most people think it is the capital. Often, the news here claims Jerusalem is an Israeli city. Often I see the news here, who try to be objective, call Jerusalem an Israeli city in the morning and the afternoon. Then people call them about this error. And then in the evening news they change the scentence.

Fact is that Israel tried to make Jerusalem their capital, a city they have annexed through war, while the international community doesn't recognise it as such.


But the word Zionism is quite strange. There are very very orthodox jewish people who think they are zionists and they think that Israel is a cancer. This is because zionism used to mean the opposite of what it generally means now.

Anyway, Ahmadinejad clearly means the current regime in Israel and their US allies. Those people that call for democracy but when people 'vote the wrong way' try to oppress and hurt those people to force them to vote otherwise.