A former power plant manager that I've known for decades told me that breeder reactors here would have been common, but Jimmy Carter (himself a "nuclear engineer") nixed that program.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Committing €1 Million to Ocean Wave Energy Research in Ireland
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
A former power plant manager that I've known for decades told me that breeder reactors here would have been common, but Jimmy Carter (himself a "nuclear engineer") nixed that program.
I don't know if this is good for shareholders but this is an exciting technology (although people have been working on it forever) and I hope someone figures it out.
Someone said what happens when we run out of coal- well that is forever away but we solve it by slowly investing in more and more technology and sources of energy. We have time but let's keep at it. If you can get energy from gravity/waves - well that is pretty awesome.
Someone said what happens when we run out of coal- well that is forever away but we solve it by slowly investing in more and more technology and sources of energy. We have time but let's keep at it. If you can get energy from gravity/waves - well that is pretty awesome.
Tell me, how many solar panels, geothermal implements, windmills, and hydroelectric dams would need to be erected, and at what cost, in order to support life for 6 billion people. I'll wait.
I'm not worried about renewable, we have plenty of stuff to burn/react. Don't think so? Turn off your computer and stop polluting so much. -__- No? Not gonna do that? Didn't think so.
Or is what's good for human life not your primary?
I'm not even going to entertain the Chernobyl/Japan comment further than to say that if that's your standard for what happened when proper nuclear technology is implemented, then you have done a clearly insignificant amount of research into the subject, and should probably get on that before you go pointing guns at everyone to pay for your stupid solar panels that no-one is stupid enough to buy unless a bureaucrat points a gun at their heads.... Because..... Subsidy...
If you are able to put together a reasonable argument that does not resort to insults, I am happy to entertain it and respond accordingly. Since your comment does nothing other than rant out a few insults, there really isn't anything to which a response is merited.
Plenty of points were made, your assertion is completely false, and a complete evasion.
Nuclear may not be renewable, but it's probably our best currently available option. Long term what we really need to do is figure out a super efficient way to capture solar energy, which is super abundant. Or cold fusion. Which would be amazing, but is probably a lot further off.
But nuclear gives us the time we need to find a more permanent solution using technology we already have (breeder reactors) and in a form that won't kill the planet in the meantime (coal, natural gas, etc). And if you have doubts about the safety of nuclear reactors, I'd urge you to go read a few scholarly articles on the technology behind breeder reactors. Not only do they produce a lot of energy, they basically consume their own waste and are designed in such a way that meltdowns are as remote a possibility as any one of the enormous hydroelectric dams in the world simply falling to pieces. Maybe even more remote. And it would probably be less damaging, assuming we put them in the right places. It's pretty impressive technology.
I addressed your points in an earlier post. At least in the USA breeder reactors were outlawed meaning we collect tons of waste without the ability to reprocess them. There are other concerns, but if this issue were addressed, I would see it as a viable option. Until then I cannot support it. Hopefully enough well informed people such as you can influence our politicians to reverse course and allow this breeder reactors to happen in this country. That would be a positive step.
Continuing its recent moves to embrace renewable energy sources, Apple has agreed to fund a EUR1 million initiative through the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland (SEAI) to support research into harnessing wave energy.
The initiative funded by Apple will help fund researchers testing their wave harnessing technologies at the Galway Bay Ocean Energy Test Site.
Ocean Energy Test Site in Galway Bay, Ireland
Wave energy is just one renewable energy source Apple has supported in an effort to become more environmentally friendly. Solar energy has been a major component of Apple's initiative, although the company has also embraced wind, biogas fuel cell, hydroelectric, and geothermal solutions to help power its data centers and other facilities as it seeks to move to 100% renewable energy for its own facilities and even help its suppliers make similar transitions.
Article Link: Apple Committing EUR1 Million to Ocean Wave Energy Research in Ireland
Wave energy is a proven technology, already powering an Australian Naval base and providing desalinated water off the coast of Western Australia http://carnegiewave.com/projects/perth-project-2/
Yeah Ireland isn't a tax dodge or anything. Soon they'll be researching Solar in the Cayman Islands.
Apple has > $180,000,000,000 (that's 180 billion, sports fans) socked away in Ireland - even if that money sits in a 1% APR savings account, the $1,000,000 donation amounts to ~ 5 hours of interest on their $180B.
Well yeah, that's kinda the point I was making, that we should start using breeder reactors and that the other concerns are acceptable and even expected considering the amount of good we'd get out of them. So... yep.
You joke, but it is shocking how many people think that way. These days, in the US, belief trumps information and it is getting dangerous.
Nuclear is a fabulous option. Just look at Fukushima... . $58Bn cleanup bill so far without accounting for the disposal of contaminated material (water etc.) (A new nuclear reactor being built at Flamanville in France is at least five years late and its cost has tripled to €8 billion.)
Why do some people think it is an effective rhetorical device to have conversations with themselves? It reads like the mad ravings of an arrogant nutcase.
Nuclear may not be renewable, but it most certainly is one of the cleanest sources that we have, as well as the easiest to implement given the degree of technology in that field of energy conversion. Though there are still some waste issues with nuclear, the amount of waste is actually quite small. A nuclear expert once approximated that "if you were to power someone's entire life needs based on nuclear energy only, the amount of waste you would generate is about the size of 1-2 coke cans" (Even if this is off by a factor of 2, 5, 10...regardless, the fact remains that there is incredible energy density). Also, even though it's not renewable, we probably have 100-400 years worth of nuclear fuel (depending on what kind/generation of reactors consume the fuel), which would be a great amount of time to develop other technologies that are actually renewable, while getting 100-400 years worth of basically emission free energy.
Also, you are largely overstating the options for renewable. Sure, there are those 4 possibilities, but in terms of satisfying the enormous global thirst for energy, solar is really the only option (the others are small-scale and should be used where they can, but will not make a huge dent in appeasing the large population on earth).
Lastly, your claim that "nuclear is a man-made source that will destroy the planet" cannot be further from the truth as far as actual facts go (politics and public media are a different story, sadly, from the facts).
1) Nuclear is not man-made. Sure the conversion tech is man-made, but so is the conversion tech for coal, wind, solar, biofuels, hydro, etc...all of which probably had a detrimental impact on the environment because the energy for making the tech came from (likely) coal energy. Certainly the fuel is not man-made (such a horribly unscientific thing to say), the fuel is only processed/refined before use in nuclear reactor. But so is the fuel for "clean" hydrogen fuel cells, coal power plants, etc...any technology will require man-made materials in order to produce energy.
2) As for the safety of nuclear: up until the japan accident recently (the stats have changed since I took my nuclear eng class before the japan accident), nuclear was the only source that could brag that so few people died (I forget the specific number) directly due to safety issues with nuclear conversion. Now, of course a small number of people died/were injured by other things at nuclear plants (heavy equip, rotating parts, etc.), but this happens at any industrial facility and the small number pales in comparison to the large number of people that have died in coal mine accidents, explosions, fires, toxic gases...In fact, the number of people that are injured/die in just 1 year was orders of magnitude greater than the total number of recorded people injured/died in anything directly related to nuclear energy. For that matter, the number was small compared to how many people die each year from hitting deer on the road at night!
3) Although there have been accidents like japan and chernobyl, nuclear facilities have come a long way and learned from these mistakes. Especially when it comes to facilities in the US: pretty much all facilities built after 3-mile island are very well built (and again, to highlight just how safe these facilities are, even though 3-mile island had a partial meltdown, absolutely no one died due to the accident and no radiation was released outside the facility, only a small amount inside). If everyone in the world built the facilities using the latest safety designs and at least as safe as the US has built them in the past, things like chernobyl and japan will never happen. Though these 2 events weren't good things, they are usually highly publicized by media and cause fear to obscure the facts.
In the end, if you're that worried about safety of nuclear, you should first be worried, say, about the toaster safety (ie getting electrocuted by toaster while wet), because more people have died from that than from nuclear.
People like to talk about how nuclear is wonderful and emission free.
Anyone care to explain the significant costs of reactor maintenance and (safe) waste disposal then? Never mind the significant costs of the fuel itself.
Look to any country with nuclear power stations and see the real figures behind waste management and decommissioning of old plants.
Nuclear is only sustainable if either: A) We have living wage economies which are adjusted to cover the unavoidable costs of switching to nuclear or B) Energy is state owned and covered by significant taxation.
Energy diversity is the way to go, minimise the need for fossil or nuclear. Yes, we probably can't remove it entirely but getting as far away as possible is the only _true_ sustainability.
Anyone care to explain the significant costs of reactor maintenance and (safe) waste disposal then? Never mind the significant costs of the fuel itself.
Look to any country with nuclear power stations and see the real figures behind waste management and decommissioning of old plants.
Nuclear is only sustainable if either: A) We have living wage economies which are adjusted to cover the unavoidable costs of switching to nuclear or B) Energy is state owned and covered by significant taxation.
Energy diversity is the way to go, minimise the need for fossil or nuclear. Yes, we probably can't remove it entirely but getting as far away as possible is the only _true_ sustainability.
yeah, good thing we've never had a nuke plant disaster. oh, wait....
You didn't finish the post, did you? No, you didn't. You read the first paragraph and then replied with your oh-so-clever scathing intellect. At the risk of you skipping it again due to the presence of white-space, I'm putting this in it's own paragraph with the intent of adding emphasis.
If you're concerned about the safety, I'd urge you to go read a few scholarly articles on the technology behind breeder reactors. The disaster at Fukushima could have been avoided if they'd phased out their old reactors (built in the early 70's) and replaced them with these.
I don't disagree that energy diversity is the way to go, and really we should be looking to solve most of our long term energy needs with rapid development in the way of solar collection (or fusion, because seriously how cool would that be?).
But breeder reactors can consume almost all of their own waste. Don't sell the technology short, it's actually pretty dang cool.