Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: Nuclear power debate: yes or no?
I think an extra effort towards fusion wouldn't be a bad move.
Difficult, while governments and corporations have invested on nuclear fission for fifty years. And still they do. Fusion is not a core business, is it?
Difficult, while governments and corporations have invested on nuclear fission for fifty years. And still they do. Fusion is not a core business, is it?
Wind energy -> North Sea, wind in Belgium doesn't really matter.
And it's not like if you don't have the right weather, you won't have energy ... You can store energy you know. Reserves.
And it's not like if you don't have the right weather, you won't have energy ... You can store energy you know. Reserves.
i don't know who around here is actually student or worker in area of energetics and who is speaking from knowledge based on "i watch lots of discovery and science programs" :)
I have one more exam + master thesis on university of technical sciences, department of energy sources and energy transformations (pretty much energetics we call it around here). Last exam, the one I am studying now is "Systems for creating electrical/thermak power" so we could say I'm very much into this :D
Nuclear power yes or no is a very big topic that I'm not sure anyone has a clear answer.
Here are some of my thoughts on this one:
1) Every country that can, should use as much as renewable and clean energy sources as possible (water via hydroplants, solar panels on every house, windmills for wind). Nuclear energy is not clean energy, it leaves toxic waste which is a big pain in the ass. Most of rich european countries don't care much about this problem as with loans with lower interest rates to some poor african countries they just add a little clause that says "you accept XXX ammount of our toxic waste". It's not done publicaly ofcourse but is being done nevertheless.
Why are we stuck here with nuclear energy? Because people go the easy way, same as with.. let's say cars. We still use internal combustion powered by oil, instead of going to electric cars which create 0 pollution. Why again?
Big companies wont allow progress there as long as there is oil/uranium/coal they can mine and exploit and later sell for huge profit.
Most important part is that we all, have to do our part,
So use those electric bulbs that use less power, not old edison bulbs with wolfram that convert only 1% of electric power into light
Buy more energy efficient house appliances
Reduce, reuse, recycle
Put one solar panel on your roof, start making some energy when you can. Lot of goverments in western countries actually support this buy giving very popular credits for putting on of those
Lots of other things...
If we all would do that then there would be less demand for electric power, thus less demand for nuclear powerplants
Nuclear plants are not that bad, but bad thing is that humanity is turning towards them as the only and most popular source
We should have em, but not as nearly much as we do now.
France for exaple is getting over 80% of it's electric power through nuclear powerplants. I'm pretty sure that with some effort it could go down to 40%
I have one more exam + master thesis on university of technical sciences, department of energy sources and energy transformations (pretty much energetics we call it around here). Last exam, the one I am studying now is "Systems for creating electrical/thermak power" so we could say I'm very much into this :D
Nuclear power yes or no is a very big topic that I'm not sure anyone has a clear answer.
Here are some of my thoughts on this one:
1) Every country that can, should use as much as renewable and clean energy sources as possible (water via hydroplants, solar panels on every house, windmills for wind). Nuclear energy is not clean energy, it leaves toxic waste which is a big pain in the ass. Most of rich european countries don't care much about this problem as with loans with lower interest rates to some poor african countries they just add a little clause that says "you accept XXX ammount of our toxic waste". It's not done publicaly ofcourse but is being done nevertheless.
Why are we stuck here with nuclear energy? Because people go the easy way, same as with.. let's say cars. We still use internal combustion powered by oil, instead of going to electric cars which create 0 pollution. Why again?
Big companies wont allow progress there as long as there is oil/uranium/coal they can mine and exploit and later sell for huge profit.
Most important part is that we all, have to do our part,
So use those electric bulbs that use less power, not old edison bulbs with wolfram that convert only 1% of electric power into light
Buy more energy efficient house appliances
Reduce, reuse, recycle
Put one solar panel on your roof, start making some energy when you can. Lot of goverments in western countries actually support this buy giving very popular credits for putting on of those
Lots of other things...
If we all would do that then there would be less demand for electric power, thus less demand for nuclear powerplants
Nuclear plants are not that bad, but bad thing is that humanity is turning towards them as the only and most popular source
We should have em, but not as nearly much as we do now.
France for exaple is getting over 80% of it's electric power through nuclear powerplants. I'm pretty sure that with some effort it could go down to 40%
belgium needs an alternative energy source then these. Nuclear fusion maybe.
look mate,
we live in 1 world, we need 1 net of informations, 1 net for energy, one system of rules.. for everyone!!!
It make no sense to me thinking thata a small country (as belgium or italy are..) can think about an "indipendence" in energy business, it is an illusion!!! (for example: we do not have uranium to extract.. petroleum enough and so on..)
What we really need is to lose the nation dimension when we think about planet-sized problems!!!
look mate,
we live in 1 world, we need 1 net of informations, 1 net for energy, one system of rules.. for everyone!!!
It make no sense to me thinking thata a small country (as belgium or italy are..) can think about an "indipendence" in energy business, it is an illusion!!! (for example: we do not have uranium to extract.. petroleum enough and so on..)
What we really need is to lose the nation dimension when we think about planet-sized problems!!!
Okay, try to be one with China or the States. Good luck! ;-)
Absolutely correct. There's my plea for an european net is for =). Global is maybe too utopic but an european net is possible.
@rubinho: that's true but the battery that can hold such vast amounts of energy is yet to be found. Otherwise they would store energy by night instead of dumping it.
And still i think fusion is a way out of this problem. No waste, no emission(except for the building but that's with everything)
@rubinho: that's true but the battery that can hold such vast amounts of energy is yet to be found. Otherwise they would store energy by night instead of dumping it.
And still i think fusion is a way out of this problem. No waste, no emission(except for the building but that's with everything)
Okay, try to be one with China or the States. Good luck! ;-)
it is a political question,
BUT
before I must know what I need
then I must think HOW to realize it
So let's start from answering about what we need,
do we need a belgium indipendent in energy? NO.
We need something else.
than let's ask ourselves how to get something else..
but this is off topic, obviously..
it is a political question,
BUT
before I must know what I need
then I must think HOW to realize it
So let's start from answering about what we need,
do we need a belgium indipendent in energy? NO.
We need something else.
than let's ask ourselves how to get something else..
but this is off topic, obviously..
nuclear disposal can be in closer future exporting to the space or sun...
Europe must be power independent.
The question is: Do wind, solar and hydro-energy cover our needs?
If yes: fine
if no: What will we do to solve it?
Nuclear power seems a fine way, fusion even better
We can abstract energy from waves(but isn't that hydro energy), from coals (but thats polluting),..
Imo it's not off topic :)
The question is: Do wind, solar and hydro-energy cover our needs?
If yes: fine
if no: What will we do to solve it?
Nuclear power seems a fine way, fusion even better
We can abstract energy from waves(but isn't that hydro energy), from coals (but thats polluting),..
Imo it's not off topic :)
why exporting why can't we shorten the decay-time. Nobelprize to win there =)
clean powerplants are priority, but now we need also alternative and nuclear PP is always better than coal or oil.... that is all!
Europe must be power independent.
You think that uranium grow in the fields ?
You think that uranium grow in the fields ?
no it grows on trees, didn't you know ;-)
As independent as possible then. Again with nuclear fusion(which is not for tomorrow) you don't need to import anything.
As independent as possible then. Again with nuclear fusion(which is not for tomorrow) you don't need to import anything.
Imo it's not off topic :)
Imo the entire discussion is a political one.
the choices in fact of energy are not only that we need something to cover our needs.. anyway we get it!!!
the choices are political in a deeper sense:
1)
do we want a diffused production, in the hand of anyone
or do we prefer a concentrated production that gives someone the power to make prices (or to turn off our cities!!!)
2)
do we want an energy cost that is comprensive of ANY cost of production and pollution
or we prefer to pay only the lower price is possible (who care about other country people, or about the planet we will leave our sons?)
3)
do we want to make an economic war of supply and demand for energy between nations, that can end in real war in many cases
or do we think about ONE net (not one market, one net) for every CITIZEN in the world
4)
do we think about energy as a RIGHT or as a good to buy and sell?
Those are political question (and there is not only this, obviously!),
and eveyone of us must think about them asking what he want, what he needs, what he prefers!
Imo the entire discussion is a political one.
the choices in fact of energy are not only that we need something to cover our needs.. anyway we get it!!!
the choices are political in a deeper sense:
1)
do we want a diffused production, in the hand of anyone
or do we prefer a concentrated production that gives someone the power to make prices (or to turn off our cities!!!)
2)
do we want an energy cost that is comprensive of ANY cost of production and pollution
or we prefer to pay only the lower price is possible (who care about other country people, or about the planet we will leave our sons?)
3)
do we want to make an economic war of supply and demand for energy between nations, that can end in real war in many cases
or do we think about ONE net (not one market, one net) for every CITIZEN in the world
4)
do we think about energy as a RIGHT or as a good to buy and sell?
Those are political question (and there is not only this, obviously!),
and eveyone of us must think about them asking what he want, what he needs, what he prefers!
So ask people in "cote d'ivoire" what they think of areva. And ask you why is there always a civil war there.