Nuclear energy?

[Geoff St. Germaine]

most graduate physics programs don't offer a masters as a terminal degree. it's usually just a consolation prize after you drop out after a few years.

That could be the way it works in the US. Here the MSc. is a completely separate program and one that almost everyone will do before doing a PhD (probably > 98%). You can get into a direct to PhD program but they're pretty rare. It is structured similarly to a PhD, except the thesis requirement for length is about 2/3 of a PhD thesis and a PhD requires a publication based on the work. Course requirements are the same generally.

 

[Philbiker]

Nuclear energy is nothing less than the only hope for the continuance of our current technological human civilization.

It's awesome. The waste issue is a political one, not an engineering one.

 

[MakiSupaStar]

We have already been relying on Nukes to power our Navy for years, the technology has been made much more safe. The issue is waste disposal and so long as we use fission (no one has been able to tackle fusion) the problem remains.

My personal feeling is that we should look to many, MANY, sources to replace fossil fuels, and Nukes should be a part of that picture in the short term. The lion's share should, however, come form hydro, solar, biofuels(from sugars not starches), wind, and waves & tides.

+1.

 

[Philbiker]

The other problem with waste disposal is that the reactor itself becomes radioactive from the process, requiring that the entire reactor be removed from the ship/building/ect and treated as waste. Transporting these across the country literally exposes people to radiation above background levels as they pass them. You would not see one on a highway though, your talking about something that moves at 5mph and is carried by a 96 wheel truck.

But taking a commercial airplane ride, or living at altitude like hundreds of millions of people do all over the world, raises "background" radiation by levels far in excess of your scenario for hours at a time, or even lifetimes for people who live high up in the mountains all over the world.

www.ecolo.org <- great web page on the subject.

 

[Philbiker]

Regardless of any facts on the pollution caused by nuclear power generation, it has been nuclear weapons proliferation that has caused more than 75% of the radioactive pollution in the world, a fact that is becoming more and more apparent today as we are now just discovering what we have done as a race.

I think that number is more like 99.999%, even including Chernobyl and Hanford (which BADLY needs to get attention).

 

[gold_member_321]

They're putting one about 40 miles from here next year, its small enough so if it blows only everything in a 7 mile radias is toast.No one is pleased with the it, but they say " It needs to be done"

A few years ago they tried to use the tidal power for energy here, using 12 large turbines under the surface of the water. They had it all set up and everything, they had spent about a year and a half blowing ledge to put it in place, only to find out that the tides were too strong and they aborted the project, needless to say they lost millions.

As far as the future for our energy needs, we should be going solar. Its essentially free "home grown" energy, that replenishes itself everyday.

Just my .02

 

[Geoff St. Germaine]

As far as the future for our energy needs, we should be going solar. Its essentially free "home grown" energy, that replenishes itself everyday.

Just my .02

It's far from free because solar cells are incredibly expensive and you need a lot of them.

The first problem with solar power is that solar cells are at best 25% efficient currently. The US would need at least 2500 square miles (about twice the area of Rhode Island) of solar cells in order to produce enough electrical energy to meet the average daily US consumption of electrical power (based on 1999 power consumption). That leaves no buffer for, say, larger draw during the summer for air conditioning, etc. and it also leaves no buffer for the inefficiency of storing power which is about 66% efficient.

Not to mention solar electricity currently costs on the order of $0.37/kWh compared with, say $0.05/kWh for nuclear.

 

[iplaybassguitar]

I'd imagine that would be very expensive.

if i have money when im older.

 

[Dan1099]

I have enough faith in nuclear technology that I would no problem if they constructed one in my town. They're not the ticking time bombs everyone expects them to be.

 

[baba]

i plan to have a house when im older that is completely self-efficent energy wise, either from a wind turbine or from solar panels.

Well, there is the problem. I had the same expectations when I was younger in the 80s. Now I'm 37 and none of this is any where near affordable or practical.

Is it the R&D that makes solar panels so expensive or the manufacturing process or the actual material? Whatever it is, as time goes on it seems like solar/wind/wave power is permanently stunted. Talk, talk, talk for decades but we're still completely reliant on fossil fuels. I'm really starting to want a nuclear powered jet pack.