[jdurg]

My reason for stating that is because even nuclear power is not 100% efficient.  Some of the energy you receive from the fission of the uranium fuel is lost as heat which is absorbed by the reactor itself and the surrounding fuel pellets.  This energy isn't going towards the heating of the coolant and subsequently the production of electricity.  Then, you have to deal with the fact that the process of fission itself isn't 100% efficient.  There are many stray neutrons which are generated that do not cause another fission event to happen.  Those neutrons are just wasted energy.  If the fission process and conversion to electricity was completely 100% efficient, then yeah, nuclear power would the be the answer to all of our problems.  Sadly it is not that efficient and as a result, the energy required to create the nuclear power is at best equal to the amount of energy (electricity) we receive from it.

[Mitch]

Those neutrons are just wasted energy.

Thats actually what generates the heat. The energy released is transferred as kinetic energy to the neutrons.

Yes, nuclear energy isn't 100% effieicient. But, I highly doubt it takes the same amount of energy to generate electricity from it than you get from it. If that was the case it wouldn't be profitable. And if it is the case, as you say, it must still be financially advantagous to the owners of the power plant somehow.

[Donaldson Tan]

the useful work extracted from the reactor still greatly exceeds the energy input by physical and chemical pre-reactor processes, else there is no feasibility in power-generation if the overall useful output dont exceed input. moreover, the fission process for nuclear power shouldn't be 100% efficient, else it will become a fission bomb literally.

[constant thinker]

Wow. I personally think that we get more out of the nuclear energy than other sources. Look at aircraft carriers and subs. They all have nuclear reactors. Some deep space satellites use nuclear reactors (all beit a different process). When you way everything together I'd say the margin between the processing and actually making power is close, but the making power comes out on top. Even if it is more to process it'll be our next alternative unless fusion reactors start working like we want them too.
Also I misread the question appaerently I guess because I was reffering to radiation in general when I was talking about CAT scans, radio waves, ect. You still need electricity for those things though.

[jdurg]

But what happens when those nuclear powered machines have an accident.  Oil spills are damaging enough to the environment and difficult to clean up, but nuclear 'spills' are far worse.  Again, I'm not someone who is against nuclear power.  I think it is a great thing to make use of, but I'm also realistic and know that it's not a panacea for our energy needs.  I would use the analogy that nuclear power is like a bottle of nitroglycerine.  In the right hands and used in the right manner, it can do wonderous things.  If you aren't 100% safe and handle it improperly or without the respect it deserves, however, the resulting damages can be devastating.

[P-man]

OK, here is my share of information.
I heard from my grandfather (who studied at PhD level chemistry in university), that nuclear energy DOES NOT produce CO₂. Furthermore, he defends nuclear energy as the answer to our energy problems. But one thing is still missing: what do we do with the waste? That is a question not yet answered and even my grandfather admits that it puzzles him. Now, I was extremely surprised when jdurg posted saying nuclear reactors produced "A LOT" of CO₂. I'm still confused and will contact my grandfather again soon.

Pierre

[constant thinker]

I agree with you jdurg. That was a good point. Too bad there are people who want to cause massive destruction, and there always will be. It's a daunting task to secure nuclear materials in the world. Especially with the break up of the USSR.

[Donaldson Tan]

nuclear energy DOES NOT produce CO₂.. Now, I was extremely surprised when jdurg posted saying nuclear reactors produced "A LOT" of CO₂. I'm still confused and will contact my grandfather again soon.
Pierre

p-man, jdsurg meant that the mining of uranium produced alot of carbon dioxide. the nuclear reaction itself doesnt  produce carbon dioxide. look at the nuclear fuel cycle chart that i had attached above. jdsurg meant that the CO2 was produced at mining and milling stages probably compensated for lack of CO2 not produced during the nuclear reaction.

if we must examine the entire nuclear fuel cycle to determine if nuclear power is green, the same must be done for conventional fuel cycle for a proper case-to-case comparision. Although I am a chemical engineer, I am not familiar with petroleum engineering. Perhaps I will learn about it at a later time in college. I am not sure how much carbon dioxide is released during the petroleum extraction process, but I am sure the 'mining' process isn't green.

even using conventional fuel has its problem. I am sure you all remembered the Kuwait Oilfields burned for 7months during the Gulf War. The probability of such a war happening is approximately the same as a nuclear incident, so we can actually compare nuclear incident to the Kuwait Oil Fires on the same basis. The environmental effect is as bad as a nuclear incident, so discounting nuclear power by its adverse effect in case of a nuclear incident is not a sufficiently strong reason to consider nuclear energy is bad.


*i feel convicted to change the title of my post

[P-man]

OK, so if we found a way to mine and mill the uranium without producing CO₂, it would be fine?

[Mitch]

P-man: Define fine.

The turbines are machines and need oil to be lubricated which generates waste. Nuclear Power plants are huge industrial complexes and they will generate waste accordingly.

[P-man]

Let's just say we put all our brains together and found a way to make nuclear energy without producing CO₂, find a way to deal with the waste, and, above all, make nuclear energy safe, then Earth would be a better place.

Now, that doesn't seem too hard, does it? Well, why don't we do it? That is what I will commit myself to do. I will study nuclear energy further and use my brain wisely. If we all did what I want to do, then the results would be more than spectacular. Therefore I invite you all to think with me and make Earth a better place.

Now, we need to be wise, and not think like Greenpeace or orginizations like that, who have nothing to offer instead of what we use right now. We need to come up with a replacement to what we use today. Please help me do this.

Pierre

[constant thinker]

I may be kinda nieve in saying this since I don't that much about fusion. In theory it sounds great. Tons of heat=tons of steam=tons of electricity. Sadly fusion can't be sustained yet without using more power than it produces. I think the future would have to be in fusion power not fission. All though electrolisis requires lots of electricity I'm sure plenty would be produced by the plans I saw for a join venture with the U.S., Japan, and a couple other countries wanting to build a 40billion dollar require. Yes expensive, but we'll learn alot if it ever happens.

[Corvettaholic]

About fusion...

I remember reading an article somewhere which stated that given sufficient fuel, this particular reactor produced more power than was required to get it started. Only lasted something like 10ms though. Not over-unity either, because it requires fuel.

[constant thinker]

O. I briefly heard about it and saw a quick thing on it. It said it'd take in 50mw and output 500mg. I wondered how the could get a sustained reaction for long periods of time. They already have fusion reactors, but it takes so much energy or the fusion can't be sustained.

[Corvettaholic]

Well there's a new tokamak design that is more vertical than horizontal, kind of like a beach ball. Supposed to work a lot better!