Poll: Nuclear power and You

[Kilaknux]

A brief note about nuclear waste that I don't think has been covered.

Everyone I know almost always lists it at as humungous con and one of the reasons why nuclear power should never be used. It's often cited as lasting for 1000 years. While technically true, there's one little detail that everyone always misses out on: the issue of the wastes half-life.

Basically, although incredibly dangerous for the first, say, 20 years, after that amount of time it's possible to be around it unshielded for small amounts of time. After another 20 years, it's basically safe to be around, which turn storage into a non-issue (Well, beyond the usual "We're running out of friggin' space on this planet" problem).

Just throwing that out there, like radioactive monkey poo.

 

[JWAN]

Nuclear energy is the best possible option. The way we seal the waste away IS SECURE. The grapphite-carbon-titanium-copper containers are buried in thousands of tons of solid rock. The only thing that could get it out of there is the Earth imploding.

Nuclear energy is the cheapest and most convenient way to produce electricity. The risks are vastly overhyped. Tshernobyl, they say. Well, if we are not Soviets and decide to "try how much the reactor can take", we'll be fine. The newer the plant, the safer it is.

^ This
I have no idea why people are so freaked out about nuclear power plants, They should read a fucking book and learn something about it.

 

[sam_tankms]

i believe America (one of the few country if not the only who has the ability to use nuclear power and build there plants who arnt) should build more because the risks of anything direly bad are so low its not even funny... for one meltdown is such a low chances your more likely to win the lotto then get trampled by pink hippo wearing a Totos then having another Chernobyl incident. plus it would produce more high paying jobs in America you know the place that everyone bitching about not finding a job>.<.

 

[JWAN]

A brief note about nuclear waste that I don't think has been covered.

Everyone I know almost always lists it at as humungous con and one of the reasons why nuclear power should never be used. It's often cited as lasting for 1000 years. While technically true, there's one little detail that everyone always misses out on: the issue of the wastes half-life.

Basically, although incredibly dangerous for the first, say, 20 years, after that amount of time it's possible to be around it unshielded for small amounts of time. After another 20 years, it's basically safe to be around, which turn storage into a non-issue (Well, beyond the usual "We're running out of friggin' space on this planet" problem).

Just throwing that out there, like radioactive monkey poo.

^ This as well
In the US we have a solid granite mountain in the middle of nowhere we put it under. so storage is really a non issue.
Did you also know that the waste can be recycled to a point where you could use it for 1-2 more years?

 

[CrysisMcGee]

I am pleased you know what happened at chernobyl. It was entirely human error. Which by itself even woulndn't have caused the explosion if they hadn't turned off the safety features.

In all honesty, it is a safer and less polluting source of energy than Coal.
Geothermal and Solar power are our 2 best options at the moment. But Solar requires too much space, and geothermal is not fully explored yet.

The energy content of a kilogram of uranium or thorium, if spent nuclear fuel is reprocessed and fully utilized, is equivalent to about 3.5 million kilograms of coal. This figure is from Wikipedia.

Anyway, our ultimate energy is whatever generates electricity at the best rate. And Finding a way to safely deposit the waste. Coal deposits it into the air, nuclear is sealed and remains inside its container wherever it is stored.

 

[manaman]

Well I just feel that until we design a disposal system that isn't just digging a really big hole and dumping the nuclear waste. But overall if the workers are competent enough, its pretty safe.

We have. It is called the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository]. It would already be complete but misinformed people keep throwing wrenches at it.

Also the modern navies of the world are nuclear powered. How many times do you hear of shipboard reactors blowing up and killing all hands? I think we pretty much have this building reactors safely bit down. As far as transporting. Well there are a set of rails not to far from where I live. They lead out from the the Shipyard. Occasionally, but rarely as most of this work is done on the other coast, this train does transport nuclear waste. I have seen the containers they transport them in. They can handle being dropped out of a plane, they can handle burning, explosions, anything you name.

 

[JWAN]

i believe America (one of the few country if not the only who has the ability to use nuclear power and build there plants who arnt) should build more because the risks of anything direly bad are so low its not even funny... for one meltdown is such a low chances your more likely to win the lotto then get trampled by pink hippo wearing a Totos then having another Chernobyl incident. plus it would produce more high paying jobs in America you know the place that everyone bitching about not finding a job>.<.

^ Even France uses Nuclear energy to a GREAT extent. If a bunch of losers like the French can use it I think we can handle it
Look, its safe, if you think its not then you should get an education, that's not taught by a bunch of hippie teachers who are hunting for a mass human kill off to save bunny rabbits.

If you want to save the bunnies support nuclear energy so we can use our own fucking energy and not have to be at the whim of some untouchable prick in another country.

 

[Treblaine]

Remember, oil and gas are hydrocarbons, most of their energy comes from the hydrogen, though the carbon output as CO2 is significant, it is manageable especially if efficiencies are increased and overall rate of consumption are reduced, possibly through carbon taxation.

Um, no, it doesn't work that way. Hydrocarbons combust ideally into water and carbon dioxide; no matter how efficient you get, you can't change that. (Improving the efficiency just means you're producing more energy for the same output, and cranking out fewer secondary reactions that produce pollutants like nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide.) In this, gas and oil are no better than coal; the advantages gas and oil have over coal come from how efficiently and energetically they burn. Burning any carbon-based fuel (besides biodiesel, though that's a whole different headache) will add to the greenhouse problem.

The problem with all fossil fuels is that they add old carbon back into the atmosphere; this is carbon trapped out of the atmosphere by plant life that got buried over several million years. Burning this old carbon increases the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere today faster than today's plant life can draw it back down and sequester it underground... and that's the problem with all fossil-carbon fuels.

-- Steve

No.

Don't know what you are talking about with efficiency.

I am talking about the energy from burning oil/gas more effectively being transferred to useful energy like torque (in a car engine) or electricity (in a power plant) and that efficiency can and IS being improved significantly.

It is hard to explain the chemistry of why hydrocarbons are better than coal but it is completely incorrect to say that hydrocarbons are "just as bad as coal". I will look for the source, I can't find it at the moment but it stated that with current climate change models the hydrocarbons could continue to be burnt within safe limits but coal was the most severe concern that contrary to popular belief is still use to a very large extent.

No respectable scientist is saying that all burning of fossil fuels must stop, instantly, absolutely and with no exception. They just aren't. It is all about cutting back and changing the system. It's not so much about how much in total is released but the RATE of CO2 released.

Only a minority of the carbon that was "captured" by plant life over millions of years (and turned into fossil fuel) has ended up as oil or gas, most has ended up as coal.

 

[Kilaknux]

In the US we have a solid granite mountain in the middle of nowhere we put it under. so storage is really a non issue.
Did you also know that the waste can be recycled to a point where you could use it for 1-2 more years?

New one on me. I often suspected as much, but never really bothered to verify it. Cheers, shall add it to my arguments for the glowy power. Cheers!

 

[Anton P. Nym]

pruned to make this shorter -- Steve

Don't know what you are talking about with efficiency.

I am talking about the energy from burning oil/gas more effectively being transferred to useful energy like torque (in a car engine) or electricity (in a power plant) and that efficiency can and IS being improved significantly.

We're talking about the same thing here, then, I guess... just from different perspectives.

It is hard to explain the chemistry of why hydrocarbons are better than coal but it is completely incorrect to say that hydrocarbons are "just as bad as coal". I will look for the source, I can't find it at the moment but it stated that with current climate change models the hydrocarbons could continue to be burnt within safe limits but coal was the most severe concern that contrary to popular belief is still use to a very large extent.

It's carbon-based. It's fossil. You can't make fossil carbon "carbon neutral" without heroic measures like carbon capture. You get more energy out of hydrocarbons for a given amount of CO2 than for coal or peat, but to say that hydrocarbon use alone will solve anthropogenic climate change is a bit of a stretch.

No respectable scientist is saying that all burning of fossil fuels must stop, instantly, absolutely and with no exception. They just aren't. It is all about cutting back and changing the system. It's not so much about how much in total is released but the RATE of CO2 released.

True. The important part is to ensure that the rate of CO2 emission doesn't exceed the rate of CO2 capture in order to maintain a balance... but the problem is that even maximising the efficiency of hydrocarbon combustion (and that's granting that light, sweet crude remains abundant enough that we don't have to switch to heavier and more sour sources which would impact both efficiencies and thus emissions) doesn't bring that output back down to match the rate of natural sequestration.

I'm not saying that we have to switch to non-fossil power right away now now now, but we will have to at some point in the not terribly-distant future. (At a guess, in another thirty years but that is just a wild-arsed guess.)

Only a minority of the carbon that was "captured" by plant life over millions of years (and turned into fossil fuel) has ended up as oil or gas, most has ended up as coal.

I'm afraid I don't follow your point there, sorry. Could you expand that a bit and tie it into the GHG picture?

-- Steve

 

[Jandau]

Nuclear Fission is a great stepping stone on our way to clean power (fusion, for isntance) and I'd like to see more of it. I'd also like to see a proper nuclear waste disposal program involving a tossing barrels of radioactive waste into the sun. In fact, what we really need is a space elevator. The sheer number of problems that could be dealth with then is astounding...

 

[Klarinette]

Nuclear energy freaks me out, generally. I know how remote the possibilities are of anything going wrong, but it scares me to know that there's a reactor just on the other side of town o_o It's just an experimental one at the University, but I tend to be irrational about these sorts of things.

 

[Xrysthos]

I wrote this in a thread on NASA running low on spacefuel. It is an answer to someone's post that said: "What is wrong with nuclear power?" or something along those lines.

"Absolutely nothing. Some sources of nuclear power can be dangerous if not harnessed correctly, and in all honesty, many of the nuclear power plants that have been built since the war have been ahead of their time - the technology required to provide sufficient security has not been around. But it is now. And we are close to developing reactors that can run on a much safer fuel source - thorium. It does not have the same potential for a catastrophic meltdown/explosion, has a much shorter half-life and can be mined in amounts way beyond it's counterparts, such as uranium and plutonium.

This is energy, pretty much as clean as it gets, and in sufficient amounts to solve all our energy problems, at a very low risk. The only thing stopping it from happening is that people in general are ignorant to the benefits of nuclear power, and all too well educated on the risks and downsides. And if people think this way, then politicians do it this way. Being the White Knight of Nuclear Power is pretty much a failsafe way of losing any given election."

 

[Captain_Caveman]

building Fission plants is a waste of money.

Fusion will be ready in 10 - 15 years.

 

[Abedeus]

Relatively safe.

Very effective and small chance of backfire (Chernobyl was a human's error). But those toxic wastes... Ugh. A half-life of hundreds of years?

 

[Stalk3rchief]

Nuclear meltdowns do not happen all the time,but are extremely dangerous nontheless - so all constructions must be double-checked,and only best of the best should be allowed to man nuclear power stations.

I was born and raised in Pennsylvania, and I could see Three Mile Island from my house. I do hope you know what happened there.
Other than that, I suppose your argument is valid.
I simply don't trust Nuclear power, and think we should hurry up and find something better, or maybe find a new planet to slowly kill before this one takes us down with it.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

building Fission plants is a waste of money.

Fusion will be ready in 10 - 15 years.

They said that in 1960. And in 1975. And in 1990. And in 2005... Fusion is always 15 years away, until it's finally here.

Since no fusion reactor has yet been able to sustain "break-even" power for more than an instant, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that we're not going to have fusion power in 2020... so unless we want to start giving up on having industrial economies we're going to have to build something in the next thirty-odd years to replace plants closing from old age. I say that fission's a better bet than the other alternatives so far.

-- Steve

 

[Captain_Caveman]

building Fission plants is a waste of money.

Fusion will be ready in 10 - 15 years.

They said that in 1960. And in 1975. And in 1990. And in 2005... Fusion is always 15 years away, until it's finally here.

Since no fusion reactor has yet been able to sustain "break-even" power for more than an instant, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that we're not going to have fusion power in 2020... so unless we want to start giving up on having industrial economies we're going to have to build something in the next thirty-odd years to replace plants closing from old age. I say that fission's a better bet than the other alternatives so far.

-- Steve

last time i checked the http://www.iter.org didnt exist in the 60s

 

[Booze Zombie]

How much waste do you think they give off?

I think any waste being given off is bad, really, so quantifying it is rather meaningless to me.

Besides that, I don't really like nuclear power because... well, watch The Simpsons.
Having some nine to five-guy running nuclear equipment doesn't appeal to my survival instinct.