Nuclear power, yey or ney?
- Thread starter Bon
- Start date
To harness the power of a river efficiently is currently beyond our level of engineering. Look at the power throughput from a hydrodam and then work out how many rivers would be needed to match that. Then add up the cost. Nuclear power in this country is cost efficient compared to other sources. Wind power is only using a fraction of what it could harness, in the future we maybe able to harness wind and water more efficiently but to what cost?
Solor Energy is great way to generate energy just a shame storing them to battery cells is so costly :/
Wind power efficiency level is so poor its not wonder why we gone Nuclear as it a cheaper and more efficiant way of generating power.
But look at the damage that power plant has done to the water in japan no more fish from that area thanks!
Wind power efficiency level is so poor its not wonder why we gone Nuclear as it a cheaper and more efficiant way of generating power.
But look at the damage that power plant has done to the water in japan no more fish from that area thanks!
I'm still keeping my eye on nuclear fusion. If I remember correctly the first full power station (ITER I think its called) is due for completion in 2020. It generates massive amounts of power for small amounts of fuel given (250kg per year according to ITER) and generates no radioactive waste material other than the radiation that is absorbed by the reactor itself (so just like a normal station it would eventually need to be shut down after a certain lifetime expires). The main byproduct is helium (which is inert) so I suppose the worst problem future generations will have from that is that we all have higher pitched voices haha.
Like I said, keep your eyes on things like ITER because until we develop more efficient solar cells, thats the way to power the planet.
Like I said, keep your eyes on things like ITER because until we develop more efficient solar cells, thats the way to power the planet.
The technology for this has not yet been commercialised and only currently starting a testing phase in the U.S.
At this point in time the costs are uneconomical
Because the government withdrew 3/4's of the funding for the first uk ccs project and then feked about with the second one until it wasn't viable for any of the major players to stay in it.
We could be market leaders, instead we're not even in the game.
Now they are wondering why our prices are going through the roof......
Just the beginning.
We could be market leaders, instead we're not even in the game.
Now they are wondering why our prices are going through the roof......
Just the beginning.
Nuclear for cities as long as the plants aren't in a stupid place and it's not funded by the Chinese, owned by the french and so the electricity costs 3x as much, or something to that degree. Wind and solar for rural places, solar roofs like Tesla tiles, where the tiles are solar panels so look like a normal roof + a smart grid, where say your on holiday your solar panels are being wasted, so a smart grid lets other people use or buy that electricity.
One of the main things though, is making things more efficient, sustainable and not wasting as much, E.G. why recycle plastic cups which requires electricity, when you can just use a reusable bottle for years.
One of the main things though, is making things more efficient, sustainable and not wasting as much, E.G. why recycle plastic cups which requires electricity, when you can just use a reusable bottle for years.
