Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 34 of 34

Thread: Nuclear Energy

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    sing
    Posts
    3,353

    Default Re: Nuclear Energy

    Japanese PM has directed to re-start some nuclear plants. This is good leadership. It is unpopular. But no choice. Japan needs the energy NOW.

    Until mankind finds a better way, nuclear energy is a viable way even though there are risks.

    Oil or gas are wasting assets and one day they will run out too.

  2. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Jurong West
    Posts
    911

    Default Re: Nuclear Energy

    Scientists and Government needs to research more on renewable energy sources. The ones I can recall are Solar energy, Geothermal, Wind and wave energy. Most are feasible and practical.

    There are economic reasons not to adopt them and spending billions on research and procurement of equipments to adopt this technology is not one of the reasons.

    Any forms of combustible fuels, oil or biofuels will end up in the atmosphere as a form of carbon emission. Oil will run out and large area of land are slash is required to grow crops for biofuel. Nuclear energy also won't last as it needs to be mined and it will run out too, though might not be so soon.

    My take is oil make tons of money. It's a commodity that Governments needs to generate $$$. I believe whatever side effects of using oil are only collateral damage to many. That's sad
    Last edited by greenieadi; 2nd July 2012 at 09:04 AM.

  3. #23
    Senior Member Sion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    新天地
    Posts
    4,768

    Default Re: Nuclear Energy

    Quote Originally Posted by ricohflex View Post
    Japanese PM has directed to re-start some nuclear plants. This is good leadership. It is unpopular. But no choice. Japan needs the energy NOW.

    Until mankind finds a better way, nuclear energy is a viable way even though there are risks.

    Oil or gas are wasting assets and one day they will run out too.
    It is best that Japan suffers from permanent energy shortage so that their 憲兵隊 remains weak.


  4. #24
    Senior Member giantcanopy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    SG
    Posts
    6,232

    Default Re: Nuclear Energy

    Quote Originally Posted by greenieadi View Post
    My take is oil make tons of money. It's a commodity that Governments needs to generate $$$. I believe whatever side effects of using oil are only collateral damage to many. That's sad
    Why would a government be willing to make big steps to cut down their carbon emission? Why self restraint when other countries are spewing out carbon everywhere.


  5. #25
    Senior Member Big Kahuna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    2,127

    Default

    The problem with alternative energies are the portability, price and performance.....

    Wind, solar, fuel cell look promising but can't produce in large volume, also need the battery pack to hold the charges...

    nuke and hydro need huge capital outlay and environmental risk.....therefore it takes evolution rather then revolution if we are to have a better tomorrow.....hope that with better awareness and dangling carrot, we first world can take the lead to kick off the oil habit.....for other developing countries, I think it's a little hard as they do not have that much to cushion their rapid development

  6. #26
    Deregistered allenleonhart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,656
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Nuclear Energy

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Kahuna View Post
    The problem with alternative energies are the portability, price and performance.....

    Wind, solar, fuel cell look promising but can't produce in large volume, also need the battery pack to hold the charges...

    nuke and hydro need huge capital outlay and environmental risk.....therefore it takes evolution rather then revolution if we are to have a better tomorrow.....hope that with better awareness and dangling carrot, we first world can take the lead to kick off the oil habit.....for other developing countries, I think it's a little hard as they do not have that much to cushion their rapid development

    nukes eventually is the only way to go la. assuming they don't go kaboom, they are the cheapest, most reliable way for energy....
    and they don't go boom often. especially when u consider the sheer number of them...

  7. #27
    Member Bukitimah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,261

    Default Re: Nuclear Energy

    Quote Originally Posted by ricohflex View Post
    After Fukushima, will nuclear energy be less popular?

    Yes.

    For a while only.

    Then nuclear energy will be back. Can explain that Fukushima is obsolete tech that should have been closed down long ago. Nowadays the advanced reactors are better.

    Real reason:
    You got no choice. Oil is a wasting asset.

    Hope for future:
    Nuclear Fusion.

    So called alternatives?
    Fuel made from palm oil or from Maize (corn)? Only good for show. Not viable on large industrial scale basis. Food is meant to be eaten. Not for your car.
    I am not sure you guys heard of this story but I cannot verfy. The world oil reserves can last us more than 100 years based on our normal use. Oil is a political tools and helps many to power and $. There are alternative source of energy but each time before they can be developed, those who are benefiting from oil will kill the projects.

    However, the day will come where oil will be displaced but not that soon.

  8. #28
    Senior Member albertri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    6,304

    Default Re: Nuclear Energy

    Quote Originally Posted by allenleonhart View Post
    nukes eventually is the only way to go la. assuming they don't go kaboom, they are the cheapest, most reliable way for energy....
    and they don't go boom often. especially when u consider the sheer number of them...

    Also one problem is the nuke waste some of them has a half life of few thousand of years youn see how US stock pile thier nuke waste? it's cheap to operate but in the long run nuke can be costly as you need to maintain the stock pile waste build an earthquake and bomd proof bunkers plus guard it so no one could access them like terrorist... But like you said we cant rely on fossil fule forever not nuke is the way to go but we need to develop other means to produce energy, cheaply =, safely and as much as possible less or no wate by-products.
    <<<<<Hobo in Singapore >>>> View My 500px

  9. #29

    Default

    Somebody invented the travelling wave reactor to solve the neuclear waste problem. Its essentially an incinerator that burns the waste to make it non radioactive as well as create energy as the burning will activate the dormant energy in the wave

  10. #30
    Member 9V-Orion Images's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Autenticate ALGRN @ 7987.8270
    Posts
    1,760

    Default Re: Nuclear Energy

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowleong View Post
    Somebody invented the travelling wave reactor to solve the neuclear waste problem. Its essentially an incinerator that burns the waste to make it non radioactive as well as create energy as the burning will activate the dormant energy in the wave
    That's a Generation IV fast breeder reactor, Bro. Realistically, none of which is expected to be operational within several decades or so.

    Thorium reactor designs such as the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) is also an excellent alternative.

    CS Aviation / Flickr
    Per aspera ad astra

  11. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Perth Australia
    Posts
    2,548

    Default Re: Nuclear Energy

    It's not the kaboom that's the problem, it's the safe disposal of the waste. The much vaunted US disposal site suffers serious ground water leakage and some of the isotopes generated in fission have a half life in the millions of years. With present technology nuclear energy simply isn't safe enough.

    The battery technology exists, it's called the vanadium-redux battery and was developed at Sydney University many years ago, it's scaleable to any size imaginable, has almost an infinite recharge life and is cheaper the bigger you make it. The only problem at present is the energy density is still around 50-60W per kg. There was talk of joint development work with the Chinese as some of their scientists reckon they can get the energy density up to 80W/kg without too much work. That makes it viable for multi-gigawatt range storage units.
    The Ang Moh from Hell
    Professional Photography - many are called, few are chosen!

  12. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    sing
    Posts
    3,353

    Default Re: Nuclear Energy

    Laos building a dam on Mekong without consulting neighbours. 17 dams recently built on the Mekong. 11 more dams are planned to be built on the Mekong. Too many dams will destroy the river's eco system and deplete fish stocks.
    All for the sake of energy. In Laos case, they sell the hydro electricity to Thailand.

    Mekong mainly flows through China, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam.

    If some country manages fusion energy in future, it will rule the earth. That is why countries are so hush hush about fusion research.
    Fusion needs lots of sea water. Guess landlocked countries will lose out.
    Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, China and India need not worry. Vietnam has a phenomenal sea coastline - great for fishing, trade and shipping/marine industries. Vietnam will boom if it does not get involved in another war.
    Poor Laos is landlocked.

    When you look at the map of Thailand and Myanmar, often wonder why the ancient Thais did not conquer the strip of land under ancient-Burma so that it has lots of sea coast line on the western side Andaman Sea.
    Last edited by ricohflex; 5th July 2012 at 12:36 AM.

  13. #33
    Member 9V-Orion Images's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Autenticate ALGRN @ 7987.8270
    Posts
    1,760

    Default Re: Nuclear Energy

    Quote Originally Posted by 9V-Orion Images View Post
    That's a Generation IV fast breeder reactor, Bro. Realistically, none of which is expected to be operational within several decades or so.

    Thorium reactor designs such as the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) is also an excellent alternative.

    :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
    For those whom are interested in Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR), here is a pretty excellent presentation on it though it is almost two hours in length. Well worth the time though just for its educational value alone IMHO.


    YouTube Video ID No. P9M__YYBSZ4

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian View Post
    The battery technology exists, it's called the vanadium-redux battery and was developed at Sydney University many years ago, it's scaleable to any size imaginable, has almost an infinite recharge life and is cheaper the bigger you make it. The only problem at present is the energy density is still around 50-60W per kg. There was talk of joint development work with the Chinese as some of their scientists reckon they can get the energy density up to 80W/kg without too much work. That makes it viable for multi-gigawatt range storage units.
    No doubt you are right but you still to charge it with an external electrical power source right? Be it from a hamster driven piezoelectric nanogenerator, conventional fossil-fuel power station or a nuclear power station.

    Perpetual motion devices would be nice to have but of course we all know that that would be impossible. ;)

    Quote Originally Posted by ricohflex View Post
    If some country manages fusion energy in future, it will rule the earth. That is why countries are so hush hush about fusion research.
    Not really. The most advanced tokamak nuclear fusion reactor being the largest and most powerful in the world currently under construction now known as ITER (or International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) is jointly developed and funded by 34 different nations from the European Union (EU) including Japan, People's Republic of China (PRC), Republic of India, Republic of Korea (RoK), Russian Federation and the United States of America (USA).
    Last edited by 9V-Orion Images; 5th July 2012 at 02:42 AM.
    CS Aviation / Flickr
    Per aspera ad astra

  14. #34
    Member 9V-Orion Images's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Autenticate ALGRN @ 7987.8270
    Posts
    1,760

    Default Re: Nuclear Energy







    150,000,000 C of pure plasma awesomeness churning out 500 MW of output power for 50 MW of input power!
    Last edited by 9V-Orion Images; 6th July 2012 at 12:32 AM.
    CS Aviation / Flickr
    Per aspera ad astra

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •