E
EddieM
Enough energy to power the whole world from a pint of seawater
Approx 5xe10^16 J. that's a lot of energy.
Air pollution
- Thread starter transam
- Start date
Approx 5xe10^16 J. that's a lot of energy.
Professor Adisa Azapagic of Manchester University. She helped to design Ccalc, which is a carbon footprint calculator.
D
durhamplumber
Much easier just to harness more energy from that fission reactor 93Million miles away.
E
EddieM
It could be the temperature and pressure required for starting fusion thats holding them back
only 100 million degrees.....Im pretty sure my oven tops out well below that figure
D
durhamplumber
Indeedfusion
D
durhamplumber
Plenty money to make weapons out of it though.
About 1000t of concrete and 45t of re-bar. Based on the one that I was involved with.
See previous post of carbon footprint compared with other sources. Its low, because those issues are one off events at the beginning of its life, and the carbon payback is about a few months. Similarly for nuclear needs far more concrete, but produces more electricity, and for longer.
A common misconception. At worst a gas power station would have to be on spinning reserve (a greatly reduced energy input basically).
Or the National Grid will predict what supplies will be needed, and be able to stop many power stations. Or we can import from low carbon sources, such as France (nuclear), or Netherlands. We will have connections with Norway and Denmark eventually as well.
Basically, wind does reduce our fossil fuel usage, as does solar and nuclear.
D
durhamplumber
Nuclear reduces fossil fuel usage but has some Major downsides, some lasting》10k years.
Nevertheless, the embodied energy in a power station skews the renewable results.
Its a shame a small number of people make vast amounts of money out of renewables.
And the pollution in China where the rare earth materials is not inconsiderable.
I expect republicans will love the fact wind turbines are making a nice sum for the Queen......
A non-issue, as we know how to deal with nuclear waste.
Shall we start with the fact that we can re-process the waste, and "re-burn" the fuel? This will not only reduce our demand for new fuel, but reduce the really nasties in the waste (actinides). Some sources give such re-processed waste as returned to ore level radioactivity in a few hundred years, although could be a few thousand. Either way, this is easily engineered
Then there's the fact that we know how to dispose of nuclear waste. We have Cumbria, which is geologically stable, and the the world has done a great deal of research, with peer-reviewed studies into a range of options.
Finland has a fully operational nuclear waste disposal facility, where they are disposing of single use nuclear waste. I'll be interested to hear how such a facility could leak any contaminants into the environment and cause a problem with our ground water, given where it is.
http://www.posiva.fi/en/final_disposal/basics_of_the_final_disposal#.XBoTWvn7SM8
D
durhamplumber
A non issue??? How many nuclear plants have ever been de commisioned..? And shoving hundreds of tons of contaminated waste in a hole, ,and no idea of economic or environmental cost?...Thats your idea of a sorted,,non issue is it.
E
EddieM
Yes, as said before, of course it is an issue, but this stuff wasn't created by man, it was in the ground beforehand. We (as in mankind) are well equipped to safely lock nuclear waste up for eons.
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 14,185
- Reaction score
- 4,194
- Country
Until someone is given permission to frack (because fracking is sooooo safe) nearby.
D
durhamplumber
Mercury,asbestos,,uranium,,yes,,all natural materials,until man digs them up and processes them.The nuclear industry produces plutonium,radioactive water and huge amounts of highly radioactive material.Sticking it in a hole in the ground for 10k years is far from sorting the problem.
