Let’s go nuclear - the answer to our energy needs is obvious: cheap and reliable nuclear power

The Spectator ^

[BritishBulldog]

But before we can embrace a sane future we have to overcome the Cold War superstitions of the Green Left

I am not sure whether it is a good thing or a bad thing that there is almost no oil left anywhere in the world. Out of a sort of childish spite, one is obviously delighted that soon enough countries like Saudi Arabia will have nothing with which to hold the world to ransom. And nothing has caused more environmental damage to our planet than the consumption of hydrocarbons (except maybe that comet which allegedly wiped out the dinosaurs). On the other hand, I am not sure that I wish my children to experience a rapid return to the Stone Age — which will be their future unless we begin to wean ourselves off both oil and, indeed, gas. And with governments perpetually disinclined to look to the medium term — let alone the long term — it is difficult to see how that weaning process will be induced....

Big snip - long article, please click link to read

http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php?table=old&section=current&issue=2004-08-21&id=4922

[RockinRight]

I dispute that there's no oil left.

That being said, nuclear has its place. Personally, I think the fuel of the future will be Hydrogen, once we can obtain it cheaply enough.

[Diogenesis]

Hydrogen is NOT a fuel, but a storage means.

Cold fusion will help, as will photovoltaics, wind (unless Cronkite stops it),
etc. and eventually hot fusion off-planet (if at all)

[eno_]

Fission reactors have been redesigned to be safe and relatively inexpensive.

Now we need to demonstrate those designs can be turned into commercial power plants, while retaining the theoretical cost reductions.

The government should clear the way fo this demonstration by streamlining licensing and limiting liability, or funding a demonstration project that would subsequently be privatized.

[RightWhale]

When the war goes hot and the country mobilizes, then we will see all the environmental regulations go by the board. If we need nuke plants they will be built immediately.

[KarlInOhio]

And nothing has caused more environmental damage to our planet than the consumption of hydrocarbons (except maybe that comet which allegedly wiped out the dinosaurs).

Let's see, 90% of species wiped off the planet possibly multiple times vs. a couple of degrees higher temperatures if the greenhouse effect is true. Nothing like a little exaggeration.

[fishtank]

"I think the fuel of the future will be Hydrogen, once we can obtain it cheaply enough."

Are you an engineer/scientist?

Where are you going to get the hydrogen from? It requires energy to produce hydrogen. Which energy source will be used to produce the hydrogen?

The post after yours stating that H2 is a transfer medium is NOT understood by the average person.

[fishtank]

Let's see:

Pakistan, NKorea and Iran (almost?) have ALL become nuke powers because they had access to the plutonium from their reactors. That is the main reason I oppose rogue nations from having ANY nuke technology. The IAEA is the nuclear version of the (OFFP) OilForFoodProgram.

[RightWhale]

think you are underestimating the luddite-like fears

Once the country mobilizes the luddites will be out of business.

[Gorjus]

Oil is not running out. It's just getting more expensive to extract. The total oil contained in oil shale in the Western US is greater than the proven (emphasis on 'proven') oil reserves in Saudi Arabia. But it would cost $6-8/gallon at the pump.

Hydrogen truly is a storage medium not an energy source. In essence, it's a battery - and it has to be charged up to be useful. The key is that, compared to actual batteries, it's relatively lightweight and high-density in terms of energy storage - plus the net efficiency of extracting hydrogen and then generating power from hydrogen is greater than the net efficiency of generating electricity, transporting it over resistant wires, using it to charge a battery, then using the battery to power a motor.

Ain't no such thing as Cold Fusion. It's not impossible. It just takes anti-gravity to make it work. Once we find that, we can make lots of neat things. However, the power to make cold fusion work - even with anti-gravity - is still going to result in a net loss.

Fission reactors have been redesigned to be safer and even less expensive relative to other forms of power generation. The biggest problem with nuclear reactors is paranoia fueled by unscrupulous power-hungry media manipulators. If we could ever get past that, we could eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. However, it only works (practically) for large, stationary installations so we'll still need oil for mobile energy sources like cars. It's just that we could use what oil we already have for cars, not for generating electricity.

Bottom line is that there are proven, safe (at least, safer than current methods) and practical ways to reduce our need for foreign oil. Nuclear is the most stridently under-utilized example. And they don't need magic ('Cold Fusion') or undefined advances in technology (wind power) to work.

However, they do need willingness on the part of the body politic. So, unfortunately . . . (*sigh*)

[steve-b]

However, [nuclear power generation] only works (practically) for large, stationary installations so we'll still need oil for mobile energy sources like cars.

Actually, if you have the energy from nuclear plants, it becomes practical to produce hydrogen fuel for applications that require small mobile power sources.

All it takes is attention to scientific facts instead of peasant superstitions.

[GBA]

I don't know about the world running out of oil or not. That said, I do think that it's time to reconsider nuclear power. Western nuke plants have a very good safety record and I feel certain that a plant built with today's technology would be far superior to a coal or gas fired generator.

[JATO]

For the first time in years, this is worth a reply. The nuclear power is used to produce hydrogen fuel for automobiles. That alone would put an end to the need to import ANY oil. The oil produced here is needed for diesel fuel and jet fuel. Those applications cannot use hydrogen. Ford produced a hydrogen fueled car (hydrogen internal combustion engine) H2ICE 2 or 3 years ago. All that's needed is hydrogen infrastructure. There's enough nuclear fuel left over from weapons programs to last about 10,000 years, or so. Unfortunately, we let Hollywood make all such decisions for us.

[Tribune7]

common-sense, go-nuke bump

[RockinRight]

Of course. Hydrogen is obtained by breaking up water molecules. Right now the energy needed to do this makes H2 inefficient and expensive. However, if a different method were obtained it could work.

I am thinking from a transportation standpoint. If oil in fact becomes scarce and makes gasoline rare or non-existent, what do we use? Electric cars are slow, inefficient, and still require a charger, which is electrical and of course that electricity has to come from somewhere. Nuclear cars? I dunno about that. Alcohol maybe?

Good old-fashioned American ingenuity will provide us with it, whatever it will be.

[RonHolzwarth]

History proves this:

The future will bring new technologies!

The idea that we have already discovered every singe possible method for producing energy is ridiculous!